Mini 520 - Triumvirate Mafia - ABANDONED

[Mastermind of Sin]

Oddly enough, that's exactly what he says here - the signup for a game which you're not in, and in which you have no reason to have read. I also highly doubt you just happen to remember what someone wrote in a signup thread back in May.

Unvote

:

Miztef

;

vote

:

Mastermind of Sin

. DIE, PLEASE.

I almost signed up for that game, actually. I just didn't have time to add another normal, unless I saw one I *really* liked. That one just didn't do it for me. But I did see him post that. Odd things stick with you sometimes.

Does it matter that I don't have 100% definitive proof?

This, by the way, is the absolute 24 carat gold standard of overdefensiveness that everyone who hasn't had their gut surgically removed wants to see.

Okay, Linus, you're way too excited; I want you to get your blankie, go in a corner, and take a time-out.

Uh huh. Because you have *how* much experience playing with me that you can evaluate to know what overdefensive is for me? Right. Smooth move, Sherlock.

What logic, MoS? You've given me none to evaluate.

Chocolate chip?

Let's see here. Dismissive comments, Fallacy of Negative Premises? Yeah, you're really convincing here. Nice try, Shirley. Why don't you go back to school and take an apple with you next time. Here, I'll give it a spit shine for you. I'm sure your teacher will do her job this time.

It's too early to say for sure, but I'd say he's talking crap. I'm waiting to see how he responds to Sir T before placing my vote.

You guys are making this out to be a lot bigger than it really is. It's not like I've said that what SirT did is some end-all scumtell that's going to reveal the scum. However, it was a good place for my vote on page 2 of a game, and it was worth pointing out. The only reason I'm still talking about this is because people are questioning it, and I don't ever let comments about me go unanswered if I can help it.

Again, I'll use any witty devices I damn well want to, and if someone doesn't understand, they can ask me to clarify. Also,

FoMS: Spider Jerusalem

for being way too agreeable. That always makes me suspicious. Also for his name, which I can't figure out.

Bullshit.

See reasoning below instead of ignoring it like you did last time

@Phate: I don't agree that unvoting = scum. Basically, I felt like moving some stuff forward in this game and didn't like the way/tone you were posted, so I just send a vote out there to see what happens.

I absolutely agree that Spider Jerusalem is looking scummy as well.

Everyone, check out the start of a two-pronged attack from Phate/Miztef.

Not much to go on but I'm going to

FoS: Mastermind of Sin

because so far I find that he pushed something on some very fishy logic then after people disagreed dropped the I've put too much into this to do anymore line. However, we don't want to start bandwagoning over something so small, so I'd love to hear some of the more quiet give their points of view.

Agreeing with the majority view here.

He's not really agreeing with the majority. SJ actually put a lot more thought and reasoning into his posts about me than anyone else in this game. He's actually

useful

, as opposed to most of the "majority" that he was "agreeing" with.

I agree that in your specific post there was nothing seriously misleading, and if my statement came off that way I'll clarify. I was trying to speak in a more general tone, largely because I felt you intended a clear response but I have seen posts done that way get muddied up very quickly. Perhaps it's just a difference in opinion but I think it's much clearer to the town as a whole if you avoid the use of witty devices.

I don't disagree with most of this. However, if you'll note your discussion with SirT started shortly before the large amount of unvotes. In my mind and perhaps in others, that discussion was worthy of the end of random voting whether we agreed with your stance or not. This in addition to the other discussion about claims gave us something in game to discuss and analyze.

Again, more agreeing.

This isn't even agreeing at all. SJ is the first person to explain in detail what was wrong with my argument, and he caught something that I hadn't. Just because everyone else unvoted and he speculated on a reason for it does not mean that he is agreeing with the majority. He's the only person to post this logic, he didn't copy what anyone else said.

I'll

unvote vote: Spider Jerusalem

on just these minor tells only because no one else strikes me as scummy.

Also, besides a random vote on me, Spider has not voted on any of his suspicions. To me, being non-committal, especially in an early phase in the game, is scummy because it leaves no real tracks to follow for inspection on later days.

Agreed.

FlyingHawk, SJ, not to call the kettle black, but you guys are new here. And thus it might stand to reason that you'll make mistakes, especially in the area of keeping things hidden if you have them to hide. And it strikes me as interesting that while you've been quiet all game, you both fairly well jump to defend MoS. This might (indeed, probably) be nothing, but I think it's worth mentioning.

*stores away the possibility that there might be a link between flyinghawk, MoS, and SJ*

Can I just say that I nearly feel out of my chair laughing at this?

Phate, regardless of saying that you aren't doing it, you are

totally

calling the kettle black here. Even worse than that, FlyingHawk has been a member of this site since the end of

May

, and he even played mafia elsewhere before joining. So he is definitely *not* new here. And SJ joined this site before you did, Phate, so you have no business acting like you know what you're talking about when it comes to newbies here. That's just ridiculous.

And thus it might stand to reason that you'll make mistakes, especially in the area of keeping things hidden if you have them to hide.

This sentence is just fluff. It doesn't actually mean anything, unless you can explain what the point of saying it was.

And it strikes me as interesting that while you've been quiet all game, you both fairly well jump to defend MoS. This might (indeed, probably) be nothing, but I think it's worth mentioning.

People *do* tend to defend others when they are being attacked with crappy cases.

However, I stand by my original statement - I find you too agreeable. Your points of dissent are always surrounded by things like "I agree with most of this", "I definitely didn't mean to say", and "I could see how I was a little unclear." Perhaps this is just your playstyle, but I don't trust diplomats.

This is at least the second time you have said SJ was too agreeable

since

I have presented an argument that said he was not being "too agreeable", yet you have completely ignored my argument despite the fact that you quoted most of the rest of the post that this point was addressed in.

No, you're right. I haven't given you any logic in this game. Not at all.

Listen, cookie, you've been here over a month. This is Mafia 101: I don't want every little thing run by me unless you actually know what you're talking about. I don't wanna give you my two cents' worth in a defense. But if you ever do wanna know my opinion, rest assured it will always be that you're an incredible pain and that every time I see your cutie-pie-doll face, it just makes me wanna pick you up and shake you until all the hours of my life that you've wasted...fall out.

And we only have Snickerdoodle. Deal with it.

[spurgistan]

A perfunctory

FoMS: spurgistan

, because I was planning to add him to my list of suspects (as third) but had forgotten, and his latest post reminded me why.

Can I ask what that is?

[FaerieLord]

I didn't like the way he tried to sugarcoat his statements - tactlessness is a virtue. More importantly, I don't like the way he stayed quiet and then suddenly became active starting with a defense of MoS. Pretty sure I mentioned all this.

What the hell? SJ was active the whole game!

Oddly enough, that's exactly what he says here - the signup for a game which you're not in, and in which you have no reason to have read. I also highly doubt you just happen to remember what someone wrote in a signup thread back in May. Unvote: Miztef ; vote: Mastermind of Sin. DIE, PLEASE.

Not to protect MoS, but we did become acquaintances over scumchat...

As for MoSs play, the game i played with him on scumchat, he did get p/oed easily.

[FaerieLord]

screw the acquaintance part. Missed were he said he almost signed up.

[Cephrir]

Oh, and btw: Consider me an official supporter of the MoS wagon (not that two votes are much of a wagon). In fact, just to get it in bold:

Vote: Mastermind of Sin

That said, I think Miztef is almost as scummy, for different reasons, and would be an official supporter of that wagon also.

Don't like this post at all. I've already FoSed you though, so that would be redundant.

[Phate]

Let's see here. Dismissive comments, Fallacy of Negative Premises? Yeah, you're really convincing here. Nice try, Shirley. Why don't you go back to school and take an apple with you next time. Here, I'll give it a spit shine for you. I'm sure your teacher will do her job this time.

I'd just like to say that the above quote sets the tone for the rest of your post - you may as well be talking to yourself.

Incidentally, you need to brush up on your formal fallacies. The Fallacy of Negative Premises, more accurately known as an affirmative conclusion from negative premises, is only committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion based on only negative premises.

An example of an affirmative conclusion from negative premises is the following:

Code: Select all

No scummers use logic, and no logical people are wrong, therefore all scummers are wrong.

Are you actually suggesting I've made the above error, and if so, would you like to point it out? Or are you simply throwing around philosophical terms to try to sound intelligent?

In your quoted posts, you make assertions, but with precious little to back them up.

Your first quoted post: "It's not a big deal, guys. I didn't say that was some huge scumtell, I just thought it was worth a vote."

Your second quoted post: "Insert profanity with no fucking explanation here. Insert implication of Phate/Miztef scumpair here, just because Miztef agrees that SJ agrees too much. SJ has good logic. I agree. You're stupid, and you have no business posting anything that implicates me."

Your third quoted post: "This logic is meaningless. The fact that they defended me is not inherently scummy [editor's note: <-- This is an example (I think the first I've seen from you) of logic. Way to go, MoS! Everybody give MoS a hand!]

Your fourth quoted post: "SJ's not too agreeable, and he has good logic. I said this before, so I'll call it 'presenting an argument,' regardless of my lack of any kind of supporting points for this statement, and say you've ignored it."

No, you're right. I haven't given you any logic in this game. Not at all.

That's about the size of it.

Your last paragraph is empty once you take out the elitism and bravado. So a merry Fuck You to you too, good sir.

[Phate]

@spurgistan.

You were second on the no-lynch wagon, you made a seemingly meaningless post on the 12th about how you can't imagine why any scum would claim vanilla (don't really see how this helps town at all, and at worst, it could be an attempt to preemptively cast suspicion on those who claim trium)

[Phate]

@FaerieLord

I didn't say he was inactive, I said he was quiet. There's a difference between being inactive (ie actively lurking) and making filler posts exactly (count 'em, exactly one post per page except P2) once per page. I'd call that quiet. And his posts begin to get much longer as soon as MoS is suspected. I'd call that getting active.

[Mastermind of Sin]

Let's see here. Dismissive comments, Fallacy of Negative Premises? Yeah, you're really convincing here. Nice try, Shirley. Why don't you go back to school and take an apple with you next time. Here, I'll give it a spit shine for you. I'm sure your teacher will do her job this time.

I'd just like to say that the above quote sets the tone for the rest of your post - you may as well be talking to yourself.

I was having fun.

Incidentally, you need to brush up on your formal fallacies. The Fallacy of Negative Premises, more accurately known as an affirmative conclusion from negative premises, is only committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion based on only negative premises.

An example of an affirmative conclusion from negative premises is the following:

Code: Select all

No scummers use logic, and no logical people are wrong, therefore all scummers are wrong.

Are you actually suggesting I've made the above error, and if so, would you like to point it out? Or are you simply throwing around philosophical terms to try to sound intelligent?

No, it was just the closest thing I could come up with. There isn't really a syllogism involved. It's just that you first assumed a negative premise and came up with two conclusion, both of which were reliant on a premise that you had not established yet.

Premise: MoS has given no logic this game.
Conclusion #1: I have no logic to analyze.
Conclusion #2: MoS is scum.

Conclusion #1, of course, follows if the Premise is true. However, Conclusion #2 has not been shown to follow in the first place.

Therefore, one could argue that your assertion is instead that:

If MoS is scum, he would give no logic in this game.

However, that is a non sequitur fallacy, as anyone who has read my games should know.

In your quoted posts, you make assertions, but with precious little to back them up.

Your first quoted post: "It's not a big deal, guys. I didn't say that was some huge scumtell, I just thought it was worth a vote."

Not a huge scumtell does not means that it's not a scumtell at all. It's still a scumtell, and it was worth a vote at the time. Your subsequent posts have not convinced me to lift said vote.

Your second quoted post: "Insert profanity with no fucking explanation here. Insert implication of Phate/Miztef scumpair here, just because Miztef agrees that SJ agrees too much. SJ has good logic. I agree. You're stupid, and you have no business posting anything that implicates me."

Given that you both made an illogical attack on SJ after you (Phate) made an attack on me and SJ countered it, it was a fairly logical thing to point out. Not pointing out the connections would have been dumb.

In addition, you have yet to show how SJ's posts were just agreeing with people. I would assert that he specifically went into more detail in his opinions than most people, which would require original material and not just agreeing. Neither of you showed how everything he said was an unoriginal thought that was merely agreeing with what the majority had already said.

Your third quoted post: "This logic is meaningless. The fact that they defended me is not inherently scummy [editor's note: <-- This is an example (I think the first I've seen from you) of logic. Way to go, MoS! Everybody give MoS a hand!]

Hmm, we might make you into a decent logic detector yet. If you hadn't already missed several other examples...

Your fourth quoted post: "SJ's not too agreeable, and he has good logic. I said this before, so I'll call it 'presenting an argument,' regardless of my lack of any kind of supporting points for this statement, and say you've ignored it."

I have said this before, and I just said it again up above. You HAVE ignored it, and you have NOT shown how he has just given examples of stuff. You are accusing him of doing something that is NOT obvious. Therefore, it is up to you to SHOW that he has done this. Merely claiming it is so does not make it so. My assertion is the base assumption that does not require me to show anything unless you have shown to the contrary already.

No, you're right. I haven't given you any logic in this game. Not at all.

That's about the size of it.

Your last paragraph is empty once you take out the elitism and bravado. So a merry Fuck You to you too, good sir.[/quote]

Clearly you didn't get the reference and were too pissed off to realize that I actually put it there for a purpose. Plus it was funny.

[Elmo]

Odd things stick with you sometimes.

It was six months ago. It's not odd, and it's not memorable.

Because you have *how* much experience playing with me that you can evaluate to know what overdefensive is for me?

Do you have some kind of psychological issue that causes you immense fear and stress when people ask you perfectly simple questions?

[Mastermind of Sin]

Odd things stick with you sometimes.

It was six months ago. It's not odd, and it's not memorable.

Erm, not odd in that sense of the word. Odd as in random or unexpected.

Because you have *how* much experience playing with me that you can evaluate to know what overdefensive is for me?

Do you have some kind of psychological issue that causes you immense fear and stress when people ask you perfectly simple questions?

The fact that you think I could have immense fear and stress over anything on the internet answers my question for me.

[FaerieLord]

@Phate. Why not fos me aswell then? I was hardly active in the first few pages. He started posting long posts when he saw there was something he didnt agree with. I cannot see the scummy thing in all this

[Mastermind of Sin]

FaerieLord, Phate's just attacking SJ on the assumption that I'm scum, so you can pretty much disregard what he's saying.

[Cephrir]

It also just so happens that SJ can't defend himself.

[Phate]

@MoS

Code: Select all

Premise: MoS has given no logic.
Conclusion: MoS is scum.

I have not made anything like that statement. I think the fact that you're reluctant to use logic makes you scummier, but absolute (justified) certainty is hard to come by in mafia.

I'm not going to bother to quote it, but go back and look at the post where I note that all of his points of dissent are covered in things like "I don't disagree with this," "I can see where I was being unclear," etc. I never said he

just

agreed with people.

@FaerieLord

Fine, you're on my suspicion list.

No, seriously. MoS is right - I think he's scum, and therefore, I'm likely to be suspicious of anyone defending him, especially if it looks like he's being ultratactful in order to stay on the public's good side.

@Cephrir

Nonissue. I was attacking him before he left. Besides, anyone who replaces in as someone under suspicion can use that excuse to try to clear themselves.

[Cephrir]

I'm not "trying to clear myself". I just can't be expected to answer for him, as I don't know his thinking, etc., etc. But I mean, attacking SJ at this point serves little purpose.

[FaerieLord]

@FaerieLord

Fine, you're on my suspicion list.

No, seriously. MoS is right - I think he's scum, and therefore, I'm likely to be suspicious of anyone defending him, especially if it looks like he's being ultratactful in order to stay on the public's good side.

Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. You are saying that anyone that defends SJ is his scum partner or are you saying that "I think SJ is not scummy." is a very scummy phrase?

Either way, I don't agree with your post one bit, especially the part where you treat suspicions as though they are a triviality.

If you are saying that you find someone scummy, give reasons other than "because you defended SJ"

Meanwhile, I shall

Vote: Phate

[Phate]

Neither.

"MoS is right - I think he's scum" = "MoS is right - I think MoS is scum"

[Elmo]

Mastermind of Sin is still not lynched. This brings shame on our town.

[FaerieLord]

...on our town

I find that scummy

[FaerieLord]

...on our town

I find that scummy

[Mastermind of Sin]

@MoS

Code: Select all

Premise: MoS has given no logic.
Conclusion: MoS is scum.

I have not made anything like that statement. I think the fact that you're reluctant to use logic makes you scummier, but absolute (justified) certainty is hard to come by in mafia.

So what

other

reasons do you have for me to be scum? That's the only reasoning I've seen from you so far, and you seem pretty hellbent on declaring that I'm scum and getting me lynched. Please, enlighten me.

I'm not going to bother to quote it, but go back and look at the post where I note that all of his points of dissent are covered in things like "I don't disagree with this," "I can see where I was being unclear," etc. I never said he

just

agreed with people.

So when is it scummy to agree with people and do other stuff as well? Everyone does it. Hell, you're as guilty of that as anyone else. Wtf is the point of your attack on SJ, then?

@FaerieLord

Fine, you're on my suspicion list.

No, seriously. MoS is right - I think he's scum, and therefore, I'm likely to be suspicious of anyone defending him, especially if it looks like he's being ultratactful in order to stay on the public's good side.

I'm being tactful? That's a new one. And here I thought I was going out of my way to be an unmitigated asshole with an enormous ego...where did

tactful

come out of that?

[Phate]

Ok, I think I'm running a perfect nohitter for people understanding my use of pronouns. Let's revise this.

Fine, you're [editor's note: FaerieLord] on my [editor's note: Phate] suspicion list.

No, seriously. MoS [editor's note: MastermindOfSin] is right - I think he's [editor's note: MastermindOfSin] scum, and therefore, I'm [editor's note: Phate] likely to be suspicious of anyone [editor's note: hypothetical scenario pointed at SpiderJerusalem] defending him [editor's note: MastermindOfSin], especially if it looks like he's [editor's note: talking about SpiderJerusalem now] being ultratactful in order to stay on the public's [editor's note: the players in Triumvirate mafia] good side.

Will respond to the rest of your post when I have more time, MoS.

[somestrangeflea]

I'm just wondering why anybody would claim vanilla, given that they could conveniently claim an unlynchable role. Vanilla claimers are not confirmed town, but no WIFOM, I couldn't understand scum under duress claiming vanilla when those are the only players we can safely lynch.

But if all the Mafia claim Trium, then none of the Mafia will claim Vanilla. If this is true, why would we ever want lynch Vanilla townies?

I'm going to give a

FomS: spurgistan

, because I feel that he's playing this game from a "defend the Triums" perspective, rather than the "kill the scums" stance which we should have...

If the mafia get a cop results and don't claim it, then we know someone has not claimed. This narrows the field down over time, because the number of people who have not claimed results decreases.

Care to explain how you're arriving at this conclusion? You seem to be assuming that players can only be given the Cop power once per game...

[FaerieLord]

Actually now that I'm looking at it, I support a mass claim.

Look at it this way, people that claim vanilla won't be scared of being lynched, which decreases the possibility that mafia claim vanilla. If during the night we see triumvates being killed, we'll find it easier to deduct. Mean while during the day we lynch those that claim vanilla. We will lose townies, but for the mafia its a lose / lose scenario.

Also, Awol until thursday. 'D prefer if you didnt replace but it's your call