MagnaofIllusion wrote:Pappums wrote:Sorry, is your argument that Zinger is a rational player? Also seriously, what part of 'Leading wagon' did you not understand?
No, my argument is that Zinger is a self-admitted DERP who made a stupid move (regardless of his alignment) and you seem to be attributing ONLY scum motivation to it. And that I don't lynch uncounter-claimed Town PRs in Large Games Day 1.
If he's a derp, he's a derp. That's not an argument for him being town. We're trying to point out that it requires at least as much derp to do it as scum as it does as town.
MoI wrote:I laugh at the second line. You posted the following later in your response –
You can’t be ‘outraged’ about mudslinging when you actively do it yourself. Nice double standard you have going there guys.
We didn't say we were outraged. Also, the accusation that we are mudslinging ourself is simply not true.
Pappums wrote:No, that isn't what we said. We said he already had four of those votes when he first hinted he might not be town. That's clearly what 'He had four votes... when he first hinted he might not be town' means.
No, that’s not what you said. I’ve requoted your exact words and bolded the part where you directly say he acquired two of those votes AFTER hinting at anti-Town.[/quote]
No, that is exactly what we said. "He had four votes, was tied for the lead, and two of those votes had accrued pretty quickly when he first hinted he might not be town." When he first hinted he might not be town, he had four votes, was tied for the lead, and two of those votes had built up quickly.
You can’t double back on that. It is clear as day what you originally said.
Oh, it's incredibly clear, but it's clear that it's not what you are saying it is.
Pappums wrote:I'm confused. Why would town even hint they were not town? It's at least as stupid for town as it is for scum.
For a dumb-ass gambit. I see Fate derp it up directly claiming scum as Town all the time. It’s stupid as hell but it happens.
Right, so if a town player could derp it up, why couldn't a scum?
MoI wrote:Pappums wrote:1) You're assuming he knew it would result in a massive wagon. If he knew it was going to result in a massive wagon, I don't think he does it as any alignment. Clearly, he must have thought that claiming third party would defuse some of the pressure on him.
And you are saying that active lurking would get him a massive wagon when this game is rife with lurkers and active lurkers. I’m sorry, but I’ll stand by my belief that it’s so vastly ludicrous a play to gambit as he did. And once again, he only really got momentum of votes once he hinted / claimed to be Not Town.
No, we didn't say that at all. Yet another MoI misrepresentation. We're saying that he was starting to feel the heat, and claimed third party in the hope that some of the heat would dissipate. The fact is, of the active lurkers, he was in the spotlight at that point.
MoI wrote:
Not nearly the HUUUUGGGGE stretch you are making by saying claiming 3rd party is a viable ‘defense technique’.
The question is not whether it
is
. The question is whether Zinger
thought it was
. If Zinger was not afraid the wagon on him legs, and did not think that claiming third party would take some of the heat out of it, then claiming third party does not have any benefit as
any
alignment. I refuse to believe his thought process was simply 'derp.'
And are you seriously suggesting that Zel1nk’s Vig claim should be taken seriously?
Didn't have any particular indication of being a joke.
MoI wrote:Pappums wrote:3) If you're town in that position (trying to active lurk to look a little scummy) and you start feeling the heat, would it not be better just to start doing a little scumhunting to relieve the pressure?
Of course it would. Are you saying that by making a sub-optimal play he must be scum?
No. As we said, we think it is most likely he is third party. The claim seems too detailed to be entirely invented. That said, we cannot see his actions as the result of any town thought process. There are certain scum thought processes that might lead to it. Hence, most likely third party (and third party liable to be detrimental to town) but an outside chance of scum, pretty much no chance of town.
MoI wrote:Pappums wrote:4) The result of the gambit, if it 'worked' IE didn't result in him getting pushed to death's door, would be allowing him to go on active lurking like a mofo. There is a scum motive for that. There is a third party motive. There is no town motive.
No, that’s stupid. The proper play for scum in that position is just the same as Town … do a little (faked) scum-hunting. The gambit is inordinately stupid and doomed to fail.
I don't think that anyone is disputing that Zinger is stupid. Yes or no: getting a free pass to active lurk is more beneficial to scum than town? Doing genuine scumhunting does not hurt town, but having to fake scumhunting can be detrimental to scum.
MoI wrote:Pappums wrote:Again, in what way is this not true for a town power role? If your motive is to preserve your role so you can help the town at night, doesn't 'Not making yourself a target' seem like the best move there, too? You've not presented ONE reason why it would be UNIQUELY bad for scum to do that gambit that doesn't also apply to town.
Hey, speaking of making putting arguments in people’s mouths. I’ve claimed any of what you are saying above. It’s bad regardless of alignment.
Right, and that's what I said. You've not shown any particular reason to think him town. Liars do not get the benefit of the doubt.
You have not presented one UNIQUELY credible reason why it would be a good move for scum. Seriously your “If it works” argument ignores that it isn’t going to work in almost all situations.
But I am convinced that, if Zinger was SURE it wasn't going to work, then he wouldn't have done it. The only way in which it makes any sense for him to do it is if he thought it might work. Surely that's obvious?
As to suicide being not a good move for Town – why state the obvious?
Because it seemed to us you were trying to push 'If it's stupid, it must be town.' The point is that the gambit is unlikely to work as town or scum. However, if it did work, that would be scum-benefiting. Therefore, since it seems geared to a scummy end, it's not likely to come from town. The thought process that makes most sense is a third party - tried to lurk, got called on it, thought claiming his actual role would
In regards to the bold – Nice ‘insult the others intelligence to throw them off’ scum-tell. Thanks for that. It always makes my day when people have to go to that well.
Your arguments are objectively stupid. I don't expect saying that to 'throw you off' if rational argument won't.
You’ve ‘explained’ that twice. I’ve asked you to actually link / quote / reference posts in that game where you see evidence of scum-hunting. You’ve yet to do so.
Also I notice you dodge completely the rest of the quotes I posted where you DIRECTLY criticize Zinger’s play as bad post game. Nice.
Well, Pappums is V/LA at the moment, but I will go and look. I simply took his word for it, him being town and all. I have no doubt from what my partner has told me that Zinger did scumhunt in that game. Nice use of 'dodge' to smear 'removing the parts that weren't particularly relevant to anything, because the post was long enough.'
This reminds me of Kingdom of Loathing Mafia where someone ran with what was they claimed was Fonz’s “Town Promise” policy that included not gambitting. It was then pointed out that the game in which said player had seen said policy Scum were the number 1 supporters of said policy and used it to win the game.
That's simply untrue. For one, the major pusher of it was, oh, me, and I was nightkilled night one. Secondly, no-one was at any point lynched for failing to abide by the contract. Furc was wagoned because of it, but he townslipped, which made him town in my eyes (the same townslip I thought Zinger dropped). Multiple roles were outed D1 (there were two dead town power roles on day two of a large normal, and another townie had needlessly outed his role), and a townie self-hammered, both of which the contract was designed to prevent. Looking back at the game, pretty much everyone who engaged in the discussion surrounding the contract on either side at the beginning of the game was town.
I'm not going to get into the game theory argument. Suffice to say, no one believes LAL applies to confirmed town.