Newbie 1116 -- Game Over

[Grimmjow]

It's like the Oedipus example. Oedipus chose to sleep with his mother. He didn't know she was his mother at the time, but he took a decision to sleep with a woman who, in fact,

was

his mother, so the statement is true.

Yes, the statement is true in the sense that he did sleep with his mother, and Al did wagon a townie, but the indication here is that Oedipus chose specifically to sleep with his mother and that Al chose specifically to wagon a townie, not that the choice was made and it just so happened to turn out that it was Oedipus' mother or that Cobbler was town.

I do not agree with your analogy here. Oedipus did not choose to sleep with his mother. He chose to sleep with a woman. Saying he chose to sleep with his mother, or that Al chose the town wagon, indicates forethought into the act. Choosing to sleep with a woman, or choosing to jump on a wagon is completely different.

[Nobody Special]

Votecount 2.05

(unchanged)

cymru96 - 2 - Grimmjow, VisceraEyes
bigAl - 1 - The Fonz
The Fonz - 1 - cymru96
VisceraEyes - 1 - Zachrulez

Not Voting: Workdawg, bigAl

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

Deadline: July 29 (expired on 2011-07-29 14:00:00)

V/LA: Zachrulez through July 17

[The Fonz]

It's like the Oedipus example. Oedipus chose to sleep with his mother. He didn't know she was his mother at the time, but he took a decision to sleep with a woman who, in fact,

was

his mother, so the statement is true.

Yes, the statement is true in the sense that he did sleep with his mother, and Al did wagon a townie, but the indication here is that Oedipus chose specifically to sleep with his mother and that Al chose specifically to wagon a townie, not that the choice was made and it just so happened to turn out that it was Oedipus' mother or that Cobbler was town.

I do not agree with your analogy here. Oedipus did not choose to sleep with his mother. He chose to sleep with a woman. Saying he chose to sleep with his mother, or that Al chose the town wagon, indicates forethought into the act. Choosing to sleep with a woman, or choosing to jump on a wagon is completely different.

She was his mother.
He chose to sleep with her.
Therefore, he chose to sleep with his mother.
This is a logically valid argument.

Cobblerfone flipped town. Workdawg is of unknown alignment.
Al chose to wagon Cobblerfone over Workdawg.
Al chose to wagon someone who flipped (

was

)town over someone who is of unknown alignment.

Both of these are logically true statements. Likewise, it would make perfect sense to say 'we would be better off if the scum had chosen to kill someone other than the cop' last night, because the person they killed was the cop, without implying that they knew he was the cop. I've made it quite clear that any suggestion that he knew Cobbler's alignment but not Workdawg's ('over a player of unknown alignment') wouldn't make any sense, therefore the comment could not have been meant in that way. Even if you were to assume that the targeting of town players were deliberate from the 'he chose to wagon town' part of the sentence in isolation, that interpretation doesn't work when you include the second half of the sentence, 'Over a player of unknown alignment,' because if he knew the alignment of one, he knew the alignment of the other.

Workdawg's argument is untrue (that was not my intent) it is craplogic (his interpretation doesn't make sense) and it's scummy.

[cymru96]

You say that Al chose someone who was town over someone who is of unknown alignment. Thing is, cobbler was an unknown alignment. He could've been scum, but he wasn't. Al made a call based on his opinion, and it was wrong, doesn't make him scum. (He could be scum, but don't base it on that.).

[bigAl]

Cobbler was an unknown alignment only if I'm town. If I'm scum, he

is

a known alignment (to me).

Some math to illustrate:

Assume for the sake of argument that if I'm scum, I would only vote for a townie (never my partner).
Assume for the sake of argument that if I'm town, I would vote for a random alignment.
Assume for the sake of argument that one of the two wagons was scum.

Chance at the start of the game is 2/9th I'm scum.
Chance of me being scum (judging by my town vote) is:
(2*2)/(2*2 + 1*7) = 4/11

Of course the real game is a lot more complicated, but it's not a crap argument guys.

[Grimmjow]

I don't think anyone is debating the validity of his argument. The issue is the way that he phrased it. It made it sound as though you knew that he was town, thus casting you in a scummy light. However, by saying this, it makes it seem as though he knew you were scum, which is impossible, unless you are his scumbuddy, which is not plausible since he's trying to call you out for being scum. So what actually occurs is that it makes him seem scummy because he's trying to set you up as scum by saying you knew that Cobbler was town. But as town, you would not know this. However, as scum, he would want to make it seem as though you knew this. This is my issue, at least.

[The Fonz]

You say that Al chose someone who was town over someone who is of unknown alignment. Thing is, cobbler was an unknown alignment. He could've been scum, but he wasn't. Al made a call based on his opinion, and it was wrong, doesn't make him scum. (He could be scum, but don't base it on that.).

It makes him MORE likely to be scum, since an Al who is scum with workdawg has obvious reason to prefer workdawg's survival to Cobbler's. If WD is town, it's all moot, but since WD might be scum, it's a scumtell.

Saying 'he made a call based on his opinion, and it was wrong' sounds like you KNOW he's town. It's only his opinion, and indeed only wrong, if he's town.


@Grimm: you're again only looking at half of the sentence. "Over a player of unknown alignment." I cannot have been saying he chose to go for a player he knew was town over a player whose alignment he did not know, because there is no role in the game for which that statement could have been true on D1. The sentence DOES make sense from the perspective of what is known now to everyone: BigAl chose to go for a player who we know is town over a player whose alignment is still unknown to town players.

What I was saying was

[BigAl chose to vote for] [a player] [who was town].

What Workdawg's claiming I said was:

[BigAl chose to vote for] [a player who was town].

IE, I actually said he voted for Cobbler AND Cobbler was town, Workdawg/Grimm are saying that I said 'He voted for Cobbler BECAUSE' Cobbler was town. Cherrypicking part of a sentence to change its meaning so that it looks scummy is a scum move.

[Grimmjow]

I'm quite interested in the fact that you are probably one of the most experienced players in this game, yet you are throwing around suspicions as though it was everyone vs. you. Which makes for a very interesting thought, when you consider that it is 2 scum vs.

7

5 town. You sit there and have thrown out "scum motivations" on 4 people in your last post (bigAl, Cy, Workdawg, and myself). For such an experienced player, this seems very odd.

[Workdawg]

You can try and justify it however you want. You made a statement that I FEEL was meant to make bigAl look more scummy. I already said that if you had worded it differently it would not have been a big deal, but the way you worded it seems suspicious to me.

[VisceraEyes]

Guys, I don't know. Fonz gives me pretty distinct town vibes. I ignorantly assumed his 'colloquialism' was common so didn't see it as much of a big deal, and while I'm not sure yet how much I agree with his assessment, I don't think it should be dismissed because he 'appeared' to be racist.

[The Fonz]

I'm quite interested in the fact that you are probably one of the most experienced players in this game, yet you are throwing around suspicions as though it was everyone vs. you.

I'm really not.

Thing is, cobbler was an unknown alignment. He could've been scum, but he wasn't. Al made a call based on his opinion, and it was wrong, doesn't make him scum.

This is true only if BigAl is town, right? Cobbler 'was an unknown alignment' only to town players. I'm not imputing scum motivation to Cymru, I'm pointing out that he might have let slip that he has scum

knowledge.

Of course, this only applies if Al is not scum, and I think he is, but it's worth noting nontheless.

The point I'm trying to make, which Cymru keeps missing, is that the player he chose to wagon WAS town. The player he chose not to might yet be scum. That's relevant information, which he shouldn't be dismissing. As for 'he might be scum, but not because of that' well, if my scum read on Al was based solely on that, I'd be voting workdawg. But it isn't, that's only a small part of why I suspect BigAl.

Workdawg further cements the BigAl-Workdawg link that was the point of the sentence which started this furore by responding to an attack on BigAl by attacking BigAl's attacker, but not directly defending BigAl. Note that this is scummy of Workdawg regardless of Al's alignment: if Al is his buddy, he's protecting him, if Al is town, then Workdawg is using my attack on Al as an excuse to attack me, but leaving the door open to lynch Al later. Contrast VisceraEyes' response: he said he thought Al was town.

Also, the attack itself is a misrepresentation, for reasons I've explained repeatedly. It's one thing to misread something: it's another to keep pressing the point after it's been explained that the way he has 'interpreted' the statement doesn't make any logical sense, so can't have been what I actually meant. I'm not saying you're scum, Grimmjow, but the fact remains that for the sake of accuracy, if I am calling the attack scummy, and I am, I should note that you have also done the scummy action. There's almost certainly one scum in (Workdawg, Cymru, you). I don't think both scum are in that group, and I think Workdawg is scummier than either of the other two.

Shining the light on bigAl, we've learned that he 'Doesn't necessarily' think my point is bad, but he's also neglected to call anyone else's part in this scummy. So this big argument is raging in thread, and there's no indication that Al has gleaned anything about anyone's alignment from it. This goes back to the basis of my Al suspicion: he's not scumhunting. But because he's not pissed anyone off, people think he's town. Look at Cymru's attitude toward me and Al: he seems pretty favourably disposed to Al, who's voted for him on multiple occasions, and hostile to me, despite the fact that I've actively defended him, because I think he's dumb town. Al doesn't want to make enemies.

[cymru96]

you make a good point that he may have made a slip. He may be an IC but is he a newbie scum?

I know that the player that he wagoned was town but I'm saying that he did not neciserilly know that he was town.

Your last post gives you more town vibes, therefore-

Unvote: The Fonz

[The Fonz]

you make a good point that he may have made a slip. He may be an IC but is he a newbie scum?

It was you who I said might have slipped

I know that the player that he wagoned was town but I'm saying that he did not neciserilly know that he was town.

And what I'm saying is I never said he did.

[Workdawg]

This is true only if BigAl is town, right? Cobbler 'was an unknown alignment' only to town players. I'm not imputing scum motivation to Cymru, I'm pointing out that he might have let slip that he has scum

knowledge.

Of course, this only applies if Al is not scum, and I think he is, but it's worth noting nontheless.

But this applies to the 4 other people on cobbler's wagon as well. I suppose not me though, since I wouldn't vote myself... so 3 others.

Workdawg further cements the BigAl-Workdawg link that was the point of the sentence which started this furore by responding to an attack on BigAl by attacking BigAl's attacker, but not directly defending BigAl. Note that this is scummy of Workdawg regardless of Al's alignment: if Al is his buddy, he's protecting him, if Al is town, then Workdawg is using my attack on Al as an excuse to attack me, but leaving the door open to lynch Al later. Contrast VisceraEyes' response: he said he thought Al was town.

Also, the attack itself is a misrepresentation, for reasons I've explained repeatedly. It's one thing to misread something: it's another to keep pressing the point after it's been explained that the way he has 'interpreted' the statement doesn't make any logical sense, so can't have been what I actually meant. I'm not saying you're scum, Grimmjow, but the fact remains that for the sake of accuracy, if I am calling the attack scummy, and I am, I should note that you have also done the scummy action. There's almost certainly one scum in (Workdawg, Cymru, you). I don't think both scum are in that group, and I think Workdawg is scummier than either of the other two.

You said something scummy and I called you out on it. We can go back and forth all day with you breaking it down word by word and stuff, but you won't convince me that the specific wording wasn't intended to make him look scummy. I noticed in your more recent post that you actually changed the wording this time to "... the player he chose to wagon was town."

Shining the light on bigAl, we've learned that he 'Doesn't necessarily' think my point is bad, but he's also neglected to call anyone else's part in this scummy. So this big argument is raging in thread, and there's no indication that Al has gleaned anything about anyone's alignment from it. This goes back to the basis of my Al suspicion: he's not scumhunting. But because he's not pissed anyone off, people think he's town. Look at Cymru's attitude toward me and Al: he seems pretty favourably disposed to Al, who's voted for him on multiple occasions, and hostile to me, despite the fact that I've actively defended him, because I think he's dumb town. Al doesn't want to make enemies.

I do agree with this though. It is curious that through all this he hasn't really commented on anyone at all.

[Zachrulez]

So while we're arguing the semantics of what Fonz said about BigAl I'll pose a question.

What exactly is BigAl doing right now, right this moment to find scum?

That should make things a little bit more clear.

Unvote: Vote: BigAl

[The Fonz]

This is true only if BigAl is town, right? Cobbler 'was an unknown alignment' only to town players. I'm not imputing scum motivation to Cymru, I'm pointing out that he might have let slip that he has scum

knowledge.

Of course, this only applies if Al is not scum, and I think he is, but it's worth noting nontheless.

But this applies to the 4 other people on cobbler's wagon as well. I suppose not me though, since I wouldn't vote myself... so 3 others.

Yes and no. There's a distinction there. Grimmjow was on Cobbler pretty much all day. He was on Cobbler whilst everyone else was on the Cymru/Pokemon wagons. (This is another reason I feel Grimmjow is likely town, and you are the scum attacking me: it would have been pretty easy for scum Grimm to justify hopping on one of those wagons). He didn't decide between Cobbler and Workdawg wagons, because he was wagoning Cobbler long before there was a wagon on you. Al's vote came at a point when you were tied, and the only players with multiple votes. It's much more accurate to say that Al chose between the wagons.

VE's swinging the vote to Cobbler over you has already been covered in some detail, and similarly to Al it indicates a possible scum connection to you. However, the somewhat-desperate seeming way that VE seemed to vote you because you were the other person being talked of as a scum candidate seems to indicate to me that you're not partners, like I said.

Okay, so we're at two for workdawg and two for cobblerfone and six days to go. I'm going to be all indecisively-scummy here for a sec and say that either way, I like this choice far better than a blue vs. cy lynch.

OK, Al spent a large part of day one voting Cymru, and then in the very previous post had said 'I feel better about Workdawg, who to lynch instead?' then comes out with this. Without anything else really happening, he goes from 'I like Workdawg, who else to lynch?' to 'Workdawg and Cobbler are both decent options and I'm not making a decision between them right now.' Based on the analyses he'd just done, this should have been a no-brainer.

You said something scummy and I called you out on it. We can go back and forth all day with you breaking it down word by word and stuff, but you won't convince me that the specific wording wasn't intended to make him look scummy. I noticed in your more recent post that you actually changed the wording this time to "... the player he chose to wagon was town."

'THE PLAYER HE CHOSE TO WAGON WAS TOWN' AND 'HE CHOSE TO WAGON A TOWN PLAYER' MEAN THE EXACT SAME THING! HE CHOSE TO WAGON A PLAYER, WHO WAS TOWN!

I didn't say something scummy. You twisted what I said to make it mean something other than what I was saying, and then said that was scummy.

[Workdawg]

I'm not going to get into this argument again, this is the end.

THE PLAYER HE CHOSE TO WAGON WAS TOWN - He chose a player, who was town.

HE CHOSE TO WAGON A TOWN PLAYER - He chose a town player.

I don't give a shit if you want to break it down and give me a grammer/logic lesson. I really don't. I'm not an idiot. I understand your logic. But the way they read is completely different.

[Workdawg]

EBWOP:

The first implies that he chose a player of unknown alignment.

The second implies he knew the alignment of the player.

[Zachrulez]

He made a statement and then clarified it after people misinterpreted. The semantics argument over it is ridiculous.

[The Fonz]

EBWOP:

The first implies that he chose a player of unknown alignment.

The second implies he knew the alignment of the player.

Except that if you're going to go down that road, you have to at least have the decency to accept that the full sentence read your way would also imply that he didn't know your alignment. Which is impossible, because he can't have known one and not known the other, therefore that clearly can't be the right way to read it.

Bottom line. The way I am saying I said it makes sense. What you are claiming I said doesn't. Your refusal to admit you simply misinterpreted it is not the action of a player trying to honestly ascertain what I was really saying.

[Workdawg]

I don't give a shit if you want to break it down and give me a grammar/logic lesson. I really don't. I'm not an idiot. I understand your logic. But the way they read is completely different.

Your argument that the statement doesn't make sense the way I interpret it doesn't matter anyway. Is it not possible for someone to lie or to make an illogical statement for their own benefit?

"BigAl chose to vote for a town player." sure as hell sounds like I'm accusing him of knowing exactly what he was doing.

"BigAl chose to vote for a player who was town" doesn't sound the same at all. He chose a player, who ended up being town.

[Nobody Special]

Votecount 2.06

bigAl - 2 - The Fonz, Zachrulez
cymru96 - 2 - Grimmjow, VisceraEyes

Not Voting: Workdawg, bigAl, cymru96

With 7 alive, it takes 4 to lynch.

Deadline: July 29 (expired on 2011-07-29 14:00:00)

[Zachrulez]

I think it's all semantics. The point being fought over isn't even one I would consider a particularly powerful point against bigAl anyway. I think the sum of his play is speaking much louder at this point.

Can anyone really say they're happy with his contributions this day phase?

[VisceraEyes]

I'm not, but I feel confident he'll pick up the pace with a little pressure. Your votes are well placed.

[cymru96]

I agree with Zach about arguing about a point which isn't paticularly useful and variable based on how you would read a statement.

Would is be worth putting Al at L-1 to get some answers?