Mini 1194: Reverse Mafia [Game Over]

[Parama]

of course he considers people who disagree with him scummy

You also reversed my statement. The people who disagreed with me on the townslip were ALREADY ON MY SCUMLIST BEFORE THEY DISAGREED WITH ME. Disagreeing with it is just another thing to add to the list for those people.

[ChannelDelibird]

Apologies, everyone - I suffered a mild bout of spontaneous involuntary V/LA for the last couple of days. Checking up on everything I've missed now.

[ChannelDelibird]

Vote Count

ToastyToast - 1 (Parama)

Not voting - 2 (Packbat, crypto)

2 votes will revive.

Prodding crypto.

[Packbat]

Also, I can't discredit something that has no credit at all.

Err,

false.

A case which has no credit whatsoever should be simplicity itself to refute. I'll even simplify it for you and restrict what you have to address to the quoted section of #541, below:

However, what makes

zero

sense from a [Parama/ToastyToast] scumpartners perspective is the townslip post.

lolwut? I was just watching soccer, and then I came back and thought Slaxx claimed scum (which is impossible given that we revived you first and therefore the game would have ended immediately.

Do the math. For this to be scum:

1. Toasty would have to realize that this was a confusion that a town player could have (especially unlikely if he's partners with Par, who was alive to make it one-and-one).
2. Toasty would have to make plans to express this confusion in some context.
3. Toasty would have to see #284 and realize that it was a perfect opportunity to unleash it.

That doesn't seem plausible to me. The post doesn't even read like a fake-misunderstanding post; there's too little brains in it.

Explain why I should either (a) consider the sequence of events I described reasonably probable or (b) consider some other sequence of events equally compatible with the text posted probable.

[MrTrow]

@parama:
true: the exact wording in that post do not exactly reflect the situation.
also true: you called some players (indeed i`m one of them) scummy before they (we) showed a thought of our own.

However the point i was trying to make is:
You seem to consider every thought not coming from you, or exactly matching your vision as at least incorrect, very likely scum-driven.

Disagreeing with it is just another thing to add to the list for those people.

If this doesn`t confirm my point......(assuming to be at -7 after this)


The problem i have with it is: let`s say we give you what you seem to want: you being the only one who actually thinks (or pretents to) in this game.
Result:
If you are scum, scum wins.
If you are town, town only wins if you manage to live up to your claims(which will only be harder if no-one dares to disagree resulting in the end of content to work with).

So tell me: What is the town-motivation for just abandoning the game and leave you to play alone?
(maybe you should consider the 'detail' that no (other) townie can possibly be sure you are town)

[Parama]

I trust me more than I trust you. Problem with that?

[malpascp]

Also, I can't discredit something that has no credit at all.

Err,

false.

A case which has no credit whatsoever should be simplicity itself to refute. I'll even simplify it for you and restrict what you have to address to the quoted section of #541, below:

However, what makes

zero

sense from a [Parama/ToastyToast] scumpartners perspective is the townslip post.

lolwut? I was just watching soccer, and then I came back and thought Slaxx claimed scum (which is impossible given that we revived you first and therefore the game would have ended immediately.

Do the math. For this to be scum:

1. Toasty would have to realize that this was a confusion that a town player could have (especially unlikely if he's partners with Par, who was alive to make it one-and-one).
2. Toasty would have to make plans to express this confusion in some context.
3. Toasty would have to see #284 and realize that it was a perfect opportunity to unleash it.

That doesn't seem plausible to me. The post doesn't even read like a fake-misunderstanding post; there's too little brains in it.

Explain why I should either (a) consider the sequence of events I described reasonably probable or (b) consider some other sequence of events equally compatible with the text posted probable.

@Packbat: the problem is that I don't agree with the last sentence you quoted. WIFOM is not allways a problem to me, but this is way to WIFOMy, and it's the basis of all your argument. It loses it's sense if you consider that Toasty's "townslip" can be a fake.
I will ignore the "townslip" itself, but not the comments that derivate from it.

[malpascp]

line 1: "way too WIFOMy"

yes, I am Portuguese

btw, my nickname should be malpaSCP for spelling issues. I think that turns it more simple.

[Packbat]

@Packbat: the problem is that I don't agree with the last sentence you quoted. WIFOM is not allways a problem to me, but this is way to WIFOMy, and it's the basis of all your argument. It loses it's sense if you consider that Toasty's "townslip" can be a fake.
I will ignore the "townslip" itself, but not the comments that derivate from it.

"Can be" =/= "is likely to be". Which is more probable: that a town!ToastyToast would misunderstand the scum victory condition, or that a scum!ToastyToast would fake that particular misunderstanding of the scum victory condition? I think the former is much more so than the latter, and that makes it a townslip. You have given me

no reason

to think that the latter is even comparably probable to the former.

What reason do you have

to suggest that it is?

[malpascp]

ALSO there is the possibility of scumToasty didn't know the wincon as well. Darn it. WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM.

[Parama]

You can dismiss almost anything as WIFOM. Stop overusing a worthless buzzword.

[malpascp]

Ok. I thought you would comment more than a word, but that's fine I guess. At least I'm not getting completely ignored.

[Packbat]

ALSO there is the possibility of scumToasty didn't know the wincon as well. Darn it. WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM.

What probability do you give that scum!ToastyToast would misunderstand the scum wincon? Because I put it between "bup" and "kis" - negligible compared to town!Toasty making the same error. Particularly as a scum!Toasty with that misunderstanding should have been

freakishly

active D0.25 trying to get scum raised first.

[StrangerCoug]

I'm starting to regret my mentality of "revive everybody but bobsnox and kiwieagle/malpascp" (by the way, I've decided I still consider malpascp scummier than kiwieagle) and MrTrow is now somebody I'm hesitant to support reviving. It's hard to say exactly why I don't like him, but I'm looking real hard at the second-to-last sentence in #579.

[Pomegranate]

V/LA

for a day or two.

[Bub Bidderskins]

Toasty's a good revive. While I don't view that slip by itself as grounds to revive, his overall behavior has been incompatible with a scum alignment. I'd still prefer me being revived, but I'd say there's a 95% chance that toasty's town.

[AntB]

I'm good with either of bub or Toasty being revived... despite peoples attempt at a mindfuck over the town tell.

[crypto]

Hey, guys, what have I missed?

I'm ready to sheep Parama onto ToastyToast.

[Parama]

DO IT.
I mean he's pretty much confirmed town by the slip and he can't be scum with any living player anyways (at least FMPOV) so.

[kiwieagle]

Parama, your basing your whole case on the slip?

[Packbat]

Strictly speaking, Parama/ToastyToast is not yet ruled out, but agreed - unless you have some good reason not to, go ahead and hammer ToastyToast.

[Parama]

Parama, your basing your whole case on the slip?

Screw off, mafia scum.
Packbat, you can hammer Toasty yourself if you want to see him hammered, y'know...

[kiwieagle]

Parama, your basing your whole case on the slip?

Screw off, mafia scum.
Packbat, you can hammer Toasty yourself if you want to see him hammered, y'know...

All you can do is deflect?


Dissapointing.

[Parama]

You refuse to listen to reason. You refuse to act pro-town at all. I don't give a damn if you're town or scum, you're useless, obnoxious, and anti-town. You haven't given a good reason as to why Toasty's slip isn't a slip (hint: there is no good reason) and you're just trying to discredit it. What more do you want me to say?

[kiwieagle]

You refuse to listen to reason. You refuse to act pro-town at all. I don't give a damn if you're town or scum, you're useless, obnoxious, and anti-town. You haven't given a good reason as to why Toasty's slip isn't a slip (hint: there is no good reason) and you're just trying to discredit it. What more do you want me to say?

Why did I refuse to reason with you?

You have refused to reason with me.

You jump on me for being scum....

...because I did what again?


and:
How am I trying to discredit the slip?