Open 59 - Daytalk 12! (Game Over) before 545

[vollkan]

Posted as I read the thread

For those that haven't seen me replace before, I like to open up by posting a summary of what I read, and any thoughts/opinions I have on things as I read. A lot of this, therefore, will be straight-out note-taking of "X does Y", with analysis where analysis is due.

Page 1

Game opens on a serious note with ST voting JD because JD got annoyed when Oman forced JD's role upon JD - pointing to JD being scum. JD rebuts it by saying that his anger was over the fact that "if he were scum" it would have made him play worse. Cicero moves for a policy lynch, which is met with criticism from JD and some sympathy from Primate. I see this is as more of a meta issue than anything related to the actual game here, since there seems a real split of opinion on the matter of reading role PMs.

JD votes Cicero because Cicero wrongly used Primate to support his argument, instead of ST. Cicero says it was a mistake and that mistake=/=scum, and JD says it was Cicero not paying attention (assumes that not paying full attention=scum). I don't like the tricky semantics which JD is using here. See, when Cicero says it is a "mistake" that obviously means that he just muddled up who had said what (and, obviously, he was not paying perfect attention). JD, however, emphasises the lack of perfect attention as meriting a vote, presumably (going from seeing similar arguments in the past) on the basis that "scum don't care" (though experience also suggests that scum are actually more likely to pay close attention). To make what I am saying a bit clearer, let me crudely simplify their respective positions:
Cicero - "I made a mistake. I wasn't paying close enough attention."
JD - "You weren't paying close enough attention and that is scummy."

I disagree with JD here because his argument assumes from the outset that town are not going to lapse in their attention when, if anything, the converse is probably the case.

DS comes in with a weird vote for Cicero because Cicero supports policy lynches and is "gay".

Page 2

Some random votes and banter. ST wonders why zz stepped in for JD to say that JD's comments on "people who should never be allowed to live till the end game" were sarcastic. ZZ responds by saying that he will step in whenever someone wrongly (in his view) fingers something as proscum. I don't follow the reasoning behind ST's vote for ZZ. ST says that ZZ was making sure he misinterpreted what was said and in what order. I can see the misinterpretation over the word "significant" but the matter of order doesn't seem to emerge clearly when I read over this.

Page 3

ZZ says he doesn't suspect ST, but thinks ST is misinterpreting ZZ. It's unclear what he refers to here. Incognito raises a good point about ZZ assuming that town talking to scum will only result in scum slipping up, ignoring the possibility of scum fooling town. Discussion about the set-up lacking power roles, and Cicero thinks it favours scum.

Page 4

Some annoyance towards Adel for her refusal to use IM (I have AIM and MSN. I am very often on msn, but I will never

ever

appear online; you can still talk to me if need be though. I'll also make an effort to be on AIM a bit more often than usual). Adel makes a weird request for a town cop and scum GF.

[vollkan]

Wow, vollkan, long time no see! Still haven't changed from my first game, have you? Still making as long of posts as ever.

That post wasn't long...

[vollkan]

So okay, vollkan, you posted your summary, now what do you make of all this? Any leads from daytalking? Is anyone daytalking? Cuz if they aren't, people might as well post here.

The most interesting pages are, strangely enough, 1 and 2. My views on the page 1 issues are stated above, but I don't think it is anything other than inconclusive. As for page 2, there is some scumhunting going on there, but again the field is still very much wide open.

Basically, I don't believe that any obvious suspects have emerged at this stage of things. I disagree with JD on page 1, but that doesn't mean too much at all.

As far as the daytalking and activity side of things is concerned, I think I understand the root of the problems which you seem to be having. If only a few people are daytalking (specifically, the regular scumchatters) then the daytalking side of this game is incomplete and, thus, won't amount to much. I think that the focus of activity should be on the thread itself, with the external daytalking secondary to that.

[vollkan]

[quote="Mizzy:]
Um...guys? <_<
[/quote]

I agree with Mizzy.

I'm here. I posted my thoughts on everything up to replacement. Nothing has happened since then.

I frankly don't think the problem is lack of external day-talking. Obviously, there is a place for 1-on-1 msn talking and the like - but it needs to be supplementary to the thread.

The majority of the activity needs to be taking place right here in the thread (since I doubt a collective all-in scumchat meeting is going to possible to organise). And, let's face it - not much has occurred in this thread at all (at least in the sense of things which promote proper discussion).

[vollkan]

*sigh* 8 days until the deadline and there seems to be only 3 or 4 people posting.

[vollkan]

Vote: xyzzy

I'm riding this wagon in the hopes of it suddenly sparking some turnabout in activity...probably too optimistic

[vollkan]

Meh, if it comes down to the final seconds until deadline, I'll lend my vote to the xyzzy wagon just so we could end the day with a lynch. It would be sweet if people could actually post though... Deadline's in like 5 days or so.

Three days now

I really don't like how this is going. I mean, my understanding is that the conventional wisdom is that Lynch > NL due to the information garnered from a lynch (whether or not it succeeds in lynching scum).

This wagon on xyzzy is expressly random. Thus, we are basically hoping on blind chance that xyzzy is scum - those odds aren't good. The most likely outcome of this will be D1 ending with a lynch of town xyzzy that teaches us absolutely nothing.

Other than relying on random luck, I really see no justification for this wagon.

Unvote

[vollkan]

I'm riding this wagon in the hopes of it suddenly sparking some turnabout in activity...probably too optimistic

Add:
I like random wagoning. It often sparks discussion. In this case, it failed miserably.

[vollkan]

vollkan: post some long drawn-out post about why X is scum. I'm trying to prove something.

There is nowhere nearly enough meaningful content on which to make one of my enormous posts. I thought that my opening note post would have shown that pretty clearly.

unvote, vote:Incognito
Does anyone want to help me bus my scumpartner Incognito? I want to see him hang today.

Scum claim.

Vote: Adel

[vollkan]

vollkan: Why did you vote Adel for a scum claim where she also names you as scum and you don't go, "NU UH!" at all?

Adel hasn't mentioned me once.

[vollkan]

vollkan: post some long drawn-out post about why X is scum. I'm trying to prove something.

There is nowhere nearly enough meaningful content on which to make one of my enormous posts. I thought that my opening note post would have shown that pretty clearly.

Then why are you not providing any actual content in the interim?

Catch-22 of sorts - I can't make enormous content-laden posts until sufficient levels of content appear in-thread. I posted my thoughts on what little had occurred to the point where I replaced. I then set about trying to spark something with the wagon, which ended up going nowhere. My hope was for things to spiral into a self-sustaining argument. It failed.

unvote, vote:Incognito
Does anyone want to help me bus my scumpartner Incognito? I want to see him hang today.

Scum claim.

Vote: Adel

Why is this scummy?

I don't know if scum-claiming is actually a scum-tell? I haven't seen any evidence for this.

The three most likely explanations are:
1) Adel is scum and has gotten sick of the game
2) Pro-town Adel is being a shit-stirrer
3) Scum Adel is being a shit-stirrer

If it is 1), my vote is the right place. If it is 2) or 3), then my hope is that my vote will play a part in causing the stirring of some shit and creating an argument.

EBWOP: And why didn't you hop on my earlier scum-claim?

Where did you claim scum?

Hypothetical Second Vote: JDodge

contingent upon JDodge providing evidence of said earlier scum-claim.

[vollkan]

But if you don't know why it's supposedly scummy, why would you go after more people for it?

Also, unvote, vote: vollkan

I guess I'll put on my "serious face" and be real about unvote, vote: vollkan being the word, the way, and the truth!

Just as I expected: I slap a vote on Adel and now I have fleas to scratch.

You said it's probably either 2 or 3, and I agree with you. Adel isn't the type to throw a hissy fit and sabotage a game.

So that means we have Adel, of whatever alignment she may be, claiming scum most likely to "stir shit". Now, I have no objection to chaotic behaviour in principle, but most manifestations of it really rub me the wrong way.

I have not encountered any evidence, even anecdotal, that "trapping" behaviour, where one play does something explicitly not pro-town (ie. claiming scum, self-voting) in order to judge reactions is actually an effective means of scumhunting. I've laid traps of sorts in the past as town, but I've always done via questioning in argument rather than resorting to chaotic means (best example was Mini 486 with Oman).

My objection to chaotic means is two-fold:
1) Chaotic play can come from any alignment
2) Chaotic behaviour can elicit a wide spectrum of reactions from both alignments. No reaction is ostensibly "pro-town" or "pro-scum".

What I mean is that town is just as likely to be caught by such a trap as scum. Some town might jump on it as being genuine (ie. an actual scumclaim), others might see it as a trap and vote anyway because it is anti-town, others might steer clear altogether. Similarly, some scum might jump on opportunistically, others might steer clear to avoid being called oppportunistic. Neither of these is a restrictive list, but they both show the potential for diversity. The point I am trying to make is that I am do not believe such behaviour is actually a reliable means of determining the alignment of other players.

Scum-claims are probably the best example of this. @Adel, JDodge and any future fleas: How should a townie react on seeing someone claim scum?

I have no answer to that question, myself. As I said above, the variety of potential reactions is enormous. Thus, scum claims are something that I will not tolerate unless and until I receive some credible explanation as to their reliability.

So, why did I vote Adel?

By voting Adel, I have made myself the target of the fleas. Thus, I have defused the trap which was set by her chaotic play. Nobody else, town or scum, is going to be caught in it - because I have pulled the argument onto myself.

[vollkan]

So that means we have Adel, of whatever alignment she may be, claiming scum most likely to "stir shit". Now, I have no objection to chaotic behaviour in principle, but most manifestations of it really rub me the wrong way.

Is this because she voted you?

Adel's vote for me has nothing to do with this. Indeed, I expected her to vote me.

What inclines you to believe she is scum now?

She laid a trap which I have submitted was going to be useless at best and destructive at worst. That sort of play merits pressure and argument, and my vote. I don't take scum claims lightly.

Vengeful GF claim gambit.

Never heard of it.

Actually pretty much any small setup (7p or less) that is fully open can be broken by claiming scum. I'll have to explain the reasons behind it sometime; but not now.

I don't expect a massive theory discussion here. Do you mean broken in town's favour, or in scum's?

My objection to chaotic means is two-fold:
1) Chaotic play can come from any alignment
2) Chaotic behaviour can elicit a wide spectrum of reactions from both alignments. No reaction is ostensibly "pro-town" or "pro-scum".

1) Technically any play can come from any alignment. Are you objected to all forms of play?
2) Unless you have meta information to back up how someone will react in such a situation.

I agree with you that any play can come from any alignment. I'll try and flesh out what I meant in more detail, connecting both points.

Let's imagine two scenarios:
A) Player X is scum, and claims scum
B) Player X is town, and claims scum

In both scenarios, player X can claim scum, elicit the same reactions and make the same attacks on people based on those reactions.

Unless there is some reliable way of judging reactions to scum claims (and I am not aware of any) then tolerating scum claims effectively allows a means by which grounds for suspicion can be

easily

contrived.

Now, obviously any form of play can be utilised by scum, and I don't object to "all forms of play". What makes things like scum claims unique is the ease with which scum can exploit them - in contrast with, for example, having to stretch themselves to form credible arguments.

It's very easy for scum to claim scum and leap on those who react in wrong way (eg. by voting them for claiming scum). It's far more difficult for scum to build a case against people (I'm talking in a relative sense here).

Idiots; sometimes they're town, sometimes they're scum. Which is why traps are in general ineffective. Your entire argument is that traps are ineffective. How is playing ineffectively scummy?

Well, let's proceed with the idiot example. Pushing the lynch of an idiot is very likely going to be anti-town (since there are more town than scum) and, thus,

ineffective

. Unless I am missing something, that's the reason that there is objection against lynching newbies for what probably is the result of inexperience, or idiots for what is the result of idiocy. That sort of thing is seen as opportunistic and, ergo, scummy.

Now, laying a trap by claiming scum is also very likely going to be anti-town and, thus, ineffective UNLESS you have some reliable meta evidence supporting things one way or the other. As I have said, I've never encountered even anecdotal evidence that "Town are more likely to ___" or "Scum are more likely to ___" and, thus, laying such traps is really no better than pushing, with no good reason, for the lynch of an idiot.

Essentially, you decided to step in and play hero so maybe people will look beyond what you're actually saying. Tell me; how is preventing reactions in any way a pro-town action?

By preventing reactions I have prevented the potential for those reactions to be exploited. I have already argued my view that said reactions are worthless in terms of information value. No information has been lost, but the potential for exploitation of reactions has been stifled.

[vollkan]

So that means we have Adel, of whatever alignment she may be, claiming scum most likely to "stir shit". Now, I have no objection to chaotic behaviour in principle, but most manifestations of it really rub me the wrong way.

Is this because she voted you?

Adel's vote for me has nothing to do with this. Indeed, I expected her to vote me.

I see. Go on. There's still something else there; what are you hiding?

Let me run over my thinking and actions for you:
Adel tries to set what is mot likely a trap, of a nature which I disagree with and believe is anti-town. I vote Adel in the knowledge that, since it is a trap, she will end up retaliating (along with anyone else of a similar mind). In doing so, I not only defuse the potential for the trap to get out of hand but I also get to spark a proper argument regarding my actions (which this thread is crying out for).

What inclines you to believe she is scum now?

She laid a trap which I have submitted was going to be useless at best and destructive at worst. That sort of play merits pressure and argument, and my vote. I don't take scum claims lightly.

Again, how does uselessness = anti-town? You're incredibly good at dodging questions.

I didn't dodge the question. As I said: Useless at best, destructive at worst.

There is no reliable scum reaction for such a trap, so it's useless as a means of catching scum (ie. it has NO advantage)

However, it is quite foreseeable that a townie would be caught in Adel's trap and come under undue suspicion for that. Obviously, the same goes for scum also, but without any reliable sort of indicator (and, again, I don't know of any) this is basically just relying on probability, which obviously favours the scum. Thus, the trap has an anti-town effect.

Let's imagine two scenarios"
A) Player C is scum, and does something
B) Player C is town, and does something

Both scenarios are the same. My logic holds.

The point I made with my scenarios was directly leading into my discussion about ease of contrivance. A general "something" is distinct from the specific "claims scum".

Unless there is some reliable way of judging reactions to scum claims (and I am not aware of any) then tolerating scum claims effectively allows a means by which grounds for suspicion can be

easily

contrived.

It's something that involves reading deep enough into the situation where you can construct in your own mind a sort of "road map" of the exact psychological state of the person's mind at the time they made said claim, and extrapolate from that the exact thought process behind it. It's a skill that requires loads of careful observation of small-setup mechanics, but it's easier than it sounds. [/quote]

You're missing my point.

I agree with you that all of the above about reading deep etc. is going to be the best way to judge scumminess (in respect to scum claims and many other things).

However, I reiterate that I don't believe that reactions to scum claims can be reliably assessed. Proof of this to me was the fact that, like clockwork, I attracted votes after voting Adel. The letters "Q.E.D." are dancing around in my head right now.

But besides that, I can reasonably conceive of a non-newb townie voting someone for claiming scum (whether it be for the reason I voted Adel, or just out of belief that the claim was genuine). I can also reasonably conceive of scum voting someone for claiming scum (out of opportunism).

This brings me to two questions, for JDodge and Adel each to answer:
1) Can you judge responses to scum claims at least as reliably as you can ordinary behaviour (the threshold for it being non-harmful)?
2) What's your assessment of my response to the scum claim?

Now, obviously any form of play can be utilised by scum, and I don't object to "all forms of play". What makes things like scum claims unique is the ease with which scum can exploit them - in contrast with, for example, having to stretch themselves to form credible arguments.

Actually, there are numerous plays that can be exploited by scum - furthermore, how is it different from any other fake-claim? There should be some questioning about the circumstances of it before blind hopping on wagons.

That's why I said "things like scum claims" - I include things like fake-claims in that. To be more specific, I was referring to any form of play that is targeted generally (I've trapped specific players in the past), involves some form of deception (eg. a scum claim, calling for someone to be lynched just to see who goes along with it, etc), and which forms a grounds for suspicion in and of itself, rather than as a springboard (cf. wake-up wagoning).

That is a specific example missing a broader spectrum of possibilities. Here's my favorite example to show why that argument is crap:

Someone is scumhunting logically. They (through a logical series of conclusions) decide that a townie is scum. They get said townie lynched. Is that anti-town because it was technically ineffective?

It's anti-town in effect, but the behaviour itself is not.

However, as I've been saying, I don't accept that claiming scum is ever a good means of catching scum. If X is most likely going to hurt the town with no hope of any advantage, then X is anti-town - even if X is committed with the best of intentions.

It's easy for town to claim scum and correctly leap on those who react in the wrong way. Either way, I'm pretty sure you don't really believe what you're saying right now, so it's all good. It's far too easy for scum to build a case against people when you delve deep enough into the psychologies of mafia to learn exactly what sways people in what ways, and why it does so. I could easily build a convincing case against someone if given enough time and if I were to put enough effort into it.

You don't think I'm serious about this?

I didn't say that building cases is impossible for scum to do; it just requires effort and is far more exposing. If scum put themselves out in the open with arguments that can be logically analysed, they are far more liable to fail than if they rely on trap tactics which prima facie don't need to be justified

because they're traps

(similar to voting based on smell/gut/feeling/faith/etc.)

Now, laying a trap by claiming scum is also very likely going to be anti-town and, thus, ineffective UNLESS you have some reliable meta evidence supporting things one way or the other. As I have said, I've never encountered even anecdotal evidence that "Town are more likely to ___" or "Scum are more likely to ___" and, thus, laying such traps is really no better than pushing, with no good reason, for the lynch of an idiot.

If you have never encountered anything that says "Town are more likely to ___" or "Scum are more likely to ____", then how the hell do you even scumhunt? That is the entire basis of tells; ___ is more likely to do ____ than ____.

It might pay to consider the context of what I said. I was talking specifically in relation to dealing with scum claims and similar.

Information has been lost. Reactions are information. We can easily point out where someone is exploiting a reaction; we can't turn back time and figure out how people would have reacted.

Second order information (information about reactions to reactions) and so on (third, fourth, etc) was lost as a result of my behaviour.

As I said, my intention was to prevent first order reactions being exploited by defusing an unreliable tool. The cost was no higher-order reactions. As a trade-off, however, I opened a new field of higher-order reactions around myself (we've seen yours and Adel's already) and some nice discussion.

[vollkan]

Again, there is no reliable scum reaction for anything. What makes this any different? Even if a townie comes under suspicion for the trap, don't you think that will still help us in the long run? Personally, I don't think you "ran in and defused the trap" like you said. I think you stumbled right into it and are now trying to cover that up.

Scum claims (and similar) are different for the simple reason that grounds for suspicion are infinitely easier to contrive (there's no difficulty in claiming scum) and don't require the "claimer" (our apparent scumhunter) to actually justify themself with any meaningful explanation.

Concocting arguments to prove someone's guilt isn't hard - we all do it when we are scum. However, it's also dangerous for scum because it requires them go out on a limb and present arguments which not only need to be decent at the time, but that they need to keep a consistent playstyle in light of.

I don't think a townie being caught will be helpful in the long run. If traps are reasonable, and voting people based on their reactions is reasonable then, bravo, you've created an easy-access method for scum to push lynches.

As for there being no such thing as a reliable scumtell generally, I agree with you. All of the stuff you said about going into detailed analysis etc. is required no matter what the situation is. The point is that it's a lot easier to dissect arguments and logic than it is to judge reactions to things like scum claims. While any assessment requires consideration of the individual's playstyle, at least when it comes to the former class of things there are explicit things to look out for that don't depend entirely on how you read the individual (eg. contradictions from an experienced player, kid-glove distancing, etc.).

But in the end, most everything in the game boils down to that; either someone who does something, be it claim scum or whatever, is either scum or town. Your point actually works against scumclaim as a scumtell; if both town and scum can do it, it's not really alignment-indicative is it?

Scum and town can pretty much act any way they want during the day. Both have the ability to do

anything

within the constraints of the rules and their role.

Things that are factors in indicating alignment are behaviours which are ostensibly anti-town. Nothing is a total proof (again, both can do anything). I've already explained why I think scum claims are anti-town (for those of you watching at home, it's because there's nothing to suggest they are good at catching scum and will most likely end up hurting the town by casting suspicion on townies)

I just told you how to reliably assess them. When you can't win an argument, say "you're missing my point" and ignore the other person! What a brilliant debate tactic.

You did miss my point, though.

Your comments on deep analysis and psychological roadmaps have my entire agreement. That's the sort of thing that one needs to do in response to any tell, so you needn't have pointed that out to me. What you missed was what I had been trying to get across regarding the reliability of any assessment of scum claim reactions.

JDodge, if you had said: "Scum claim. Unvote, Vote: Adel" I would not have had a clue how to go about working out what your intentions were. I couldn't start from the assumption that you agreed with me. I'd be stuck thinking "Maybe JDodge is being opportunistic, but he might just have the view that Adel is serious or is being anti-town." It would basically be rendered as a null-tell in my head at that point.

I am voting you because you hopped on Adel's wagon while even stating that you did not know how a scum claim is scummy.

2) You hopped on a wagon because "claiming scum is scummy" without any substantiating evidence anywhere.

I'm voting for Adel because she committed behaviour which I think is anti-town, ergo a factor indicating scumminess. If Adel explains herself adequately, not to point of achieving my agreement (we'd be here arguing for a looong time), I will unvote and file her scum claim away in the null tell box.

1) As with all tells, how reliably you can judge someone with it largely varies from person-to-person, situation, etc.

I just mean generally. If X votes Y after a Y scum claim, do you find that you can reliably analyse X?

Ugh, you're one of those lynch-all-liars fanatics aren't you.

No, I don't advocate LAL. I've lied as town in the past.

My exact position is lynch-all-liars-unless-I-can-understand-what-they-are-doing-or-they-explain-themselves-to -me.

So you have no problem lynching a townie if they're supposedly "anti-town"?

I don't think I have ever lynched someone over a single anti-town play. I do, however, treat anti-town plays as scumminess indicators until they argue their case decently.

Testing the waters.

If town puts themselves in the open with arguments that can be logically analyzed, they are also liable to fail. Anyone is liable to fail at arguing. Anyone is liable to fail at anything, which is what makes your argument so shaky. And really, if you think voting on gut/feeling is scummy, then there's a bit more of an issue there.

Failure at argument doesn't equal automatic lynch. I know that lots of people aren't comfortable at it. However, serious, uncharacteristic failures/discrepancies are the things that I scumhunt from.

And yeah, I have issues with the gut.

What will you accept? How can I show you exactly what I mean when you just brush it off as nothing?

I think one aspect of this is the fact that I find such reactions pretty much impossible to judge as anything but null-tells, without some outside evidence strong enough to push my mental see-saw one way or the other. In that sense, short of crash course in "Reaction Judging ala JDodge" I'm not going to be swung round to agree with you.

That said, I see the sense in what you are saying and, were it not for the fact that I still don't think this can be judged reliably (again, the votes on me proved this to me), I would agree with you entirely.

[vollkan]

Imma get shot for this, you watch, but no, he DID pre-plan it. We (vollkan and I) spoke about "traps" via daytalk way before he "ran in" and I knew he was going to do what he did. He didn't stumble in by accident.

That is all, carry on.

She speaketh the truth. However, that discussion was in the context of Adel saying:

or we could just lynch xyzzy and call it a day...

[vollkan]

Vollkan, was it just the claim that you found scummy or was there more to it?

Before the scum claim, Adel looked like Adel; I find her incredibly difficult to read. Her behaviour leading up to the xyzzy lynch troubled me, but I couldn't work out if it was scummy or Adel-y. Then we hit today and she pulls a scum claim, which as I have said, I consider prima facie anti-town. Thus, I voted her.

[vollkan]

I'm...

weary

of Mr. Vollkan.

Freudian slip?

[vollkan]

Scum claims (and similar) are different for the simple reason that grounds for suspicion are infinitely easier to contrive (there's no difficulty in claiming scum) and don't require the "claimer" (our apparent scumhunter) to actually justify themself with any meaningful explanation.

Which is again not necessarily true. Any good player would ask for the reasoning behind the trap, and if the person did not give it, it would then be admissable to call it into question.

And what extent of "reasoning behind the trap" would you find acceptable?

An explanation along the lines of "To gather reactions" pretty much covers all bases, but I don't find it very reassuring at all. My paranoia

How "difficult" or "dangerous" it is depends on so many variables that to make a blanket statement saying "X is more Y than Z" in this situation is fallacious.

A major variable here will be your answer as to what level of reasoning behind the trap is reasonable.

However, if that reasoning is less intricate and requires less work than a proper case would, I feel it quite likely that the latter will be more difficult.

Of course, anything in mafia is going to be subject to a whole range of variables, but in most circumstances I know that if I was scum and had the choice between contriving suspicion from a trap and having to build a case, I'd go for the former in a heartbeat (in the hypothetical scenario that I didn't have an established loathing of trapping which would cause meta-inconsistency)

Your logic only holds if you automatically assume that town is going to follow traps without question - if they do, then quite frankly they're not doing their jobs well enough.

Yes. I am assuming that town can fall for a trap. I mean, I can fully envisage someone reasonably taking Adel's claim as genuine, voting someone that trappingly calls for a lynch on someone else, etc. Of course, the townies in question might not have taken the trouble to really think things through in the fullest way, or they might just be incapable of doing so.

I've already said that I find reading Adel a vexing and challenging task, so I think it perfectly plausible for people to misread her.

Again, anti-town =/= scum. This is a huge imposition on your argument. Furthermore, you have to take into account that there's nothing to suggest anything is good at catching scum and won't end up hurting the townies.

And I never said that antitown = scum. In fact, I said that nothing is a total proof.

Things which are anti-town are worth looking into and investigating, because they are good potential leads for scumminess.

And yes, I doubt that there is anything that doesn't have the possibility of hurting town. I've given my reasons as to why I think traps are more dangerous (and we are still discussing those reasons) than conventional argument.

JDodge, if you had said: "Scum claim. Unvote, Vote: Adel" I would not have had a clue how to go about working out what your intentions were. I couldn't start from the assumption that you agreed with me. I'd be stuck thinking "Maybe JDodge is being opportunistic, but he might just have the view that Adel is serious or is being anti-town." It would basically be rendered as a null-tell in my head at that point.

That kind of disproves your whole "scum-claims are anti-town" thing.

No it doesn't. It shows that I personally find reactions to these sorts of things meaningless. The possibility for people to come under suspicion for allegedly falling into the trap leads to the anti-town effects.

I find that I can reliably analyze Y to a level of close to full understanding and reliably analyze X to a general enough sense to tell if X's reaction is scum-like or town-like, yes.

Okay. Then our respective abilities on this front are going to be a source of continuous disagreement. I've already said that I don't trust myself to make a good judgment on these sorts of things. You say that you can do this.

Thus, you are going to be able to find value in such traps more often than I will.

This answer does not answer my yes-or-no question.

So you have no problem lynching a townie if they're supposedly "anti-town"?

Yes.

I don't lynch people on singular anti-town behaviours. I don't lynch people on a couple of behaviours. If I see a sufficient number (varies with circumstances) of anti-town behaviours which are unexplained upon my pressuring and which seem "scummy" to me (again, a judgment that varies wildly based on circumstances) then I will probably be happy to lynch them.

1. Explain issues with gut, please. I feel this is an important avenue to persue.

Just so I am clear that we are talking about the same thing, I mean things like:

Vote: X

My gut tells me he's scum

This sort of thing sets me rabid. Rather than giving evidence which everyone can assess, Joe adduces a subjective feeling that nobody can argue with. If Joe is called to explain his vote - he doesn't have to since it's "gut".

Whenever I get "gut" feelings about people, that often prompts me to reread them a little more carefully - but hell will freeze over before I vote because of that feeling.

How can the votes on you prove that reactions are entirely null-tells or incorrect, especially when there are other circumstances?

I'm not sure I entirely follow your question.

The fact that I have votes on me for voting Adel after her scum claim proves to me that both you and Adel (two players I respect) were not able to correctly evaluate me. I'm not saying that the fact you were wrong proves without a doubt that you can never be correct on these things, but it further supported my belief that voting for scum claim reactions is dodgy (no pun intended).

[vollkan]

How intricate the reasoning depends on how intricate the trap, and again, towns need to push trap-setters more. Automatically assuming scum based on "setting a trap" is just as scummy as "setting a trap" is in your hypothetical.

Well, I don't automatically assume scum in the case of a trap. I assumed Adel's trap was going to be anti-town based on my understanding of scum claims and, thus, I voted her to push the trap-setter (though, you seem to have stepped up in her stead).

Of course, the townies in question might not have taken the trouble to really think things through in the fullest way, or they might just be incapable of doing so.

Exactly my point.

No. Your point was that if the town follow unquestionably they aren't doing their job. I am saying that there is a wide margin of reasonable error judgment in these matters. The analysis might not be perfect, or the player might not be totally up to scratch. Either way, the trap presents potentially big consequences for what can be just a minor imperfection.

Traps are less dangerous if you know how to read into them, and I really don't think this two-sided argument is getting anywhere; for one, it's entirely based on a playstyle argument, and furthermore we're falling into a pattern of just repeating ourselves over and over again.

I agree with you on both fronts.

This discussion has taught me that traps can be useful for some people, if they are up to judging reactions. That's something I'm going to need to work on from now on.

On that note,

unvote

.

Which is exactly why you do not run in and "disarm" a trap before anyone has the chance to react on it. Even if you can't read it, perhaps somebody else can and can explain to you what the tells are within said reactions.

Yeah, I was wrong here. If a person can reliably read a trap, they ought to be able to do so and explain their thoughts on it afterwards.

But again,

I am not voting based on your reaction to the claim

. I am voting you based on two factors:

1) The intent to deprive the town of potentially useful information from reactions to the trap
2) The ease with which you voted someone stating that you didn't necessarily know why you found it scummy.

Well:
1) I didn't consider there to be any potentially useful information, because my conviction was that such reactions are unreadable. You've disagreed with me on this, and said you can read the reactions. In that sense, yes, I have deprived you of potential information.
2) I voted because I saw it as anti-town and wanted answers.

[vollkan]

Vote: Vollkan

JDodge's line of questioning is simple, direct, and hard to dodge without it being obvious. Vollkan has continued to dodge JDodge's questions and to reduce them to questions of pure theory rather than discuss them as they relate to the game at hand. I predicted as I read the last page the "Well, I concede the argument, let's be friends" ending that vollkan made on the beginning of this page. From what little I know of vollkan and from what I can percieve of his play this game, such a compromise and manner of reacting to questions = scummy enough for a vote.

I disagree that I was "reducing" it to a matter of theory.

I explained the reason I voted Adel right up. Then we moved into discussing the theory behind my vote. The whole debate was related to the game at hand, except it was done in more general terms - because at issue was the underlying theory behind my vote for Adel. So no, I wasn't talking purely in terms of "Adel scum claimed and I think that Adel...etc" because it was largely a debate about my reasons for voting - which are a matter of general principles.

It got to a stage at which I no longer pushed the argument because JDodge provided a good justification for the traps. You seem to have a problem with this sort of ending to an argument. I could have kept pushing the envelope, but it wouldn't have achieved anything other than me being stubborn and refusing to accept a viewpoint contrary to my own.

I find it interesting that you think compromise is unusual for me. Sure, I am argumentative and I don't back down easily. But when I am satisfied that what another party has presented is better than my own view, or at least also a viable position, I have don't see any reason to keep arguing for argument's sake.

[vollkan]

They've both been on both wagons and their playstyles in this game are very, very similar.

Today: Vollkan (2): Jdodge, Adel
Yesterday: Xyzzy (3): Jdodge, Sir Tornado, Adel

I don't likes it.

Why is playstyle similarity a problem?

Why is Adel/JDodge being on the same wagons a problem?

[vollkan]

Playstyle is a problem because they are both coming off as anti-town, whether it's on purpose or not, in the same fashion. JD I'm used to seeing that from, but not necessarily from Adel. It seems noteworthy enough for a vote.

So you meant they are both seeming anti-town?

Ordinarily, when someone says "playstyle" I think of meta things like "Well, so-and-so is always very emotionally reactive/bandwagon hops/has an aggressive tone/ etc." Hence, my question.

Because the first wagon was wrong. I had expressed distaste for that wagon multiple times, not just here but in chat with others. The lynch and the NK gave us pretty close to zero information. I don't like that they were the driving force behind the mislynch and I don't like that Adel is pushing for another lynch now.

I agree with you that they were wrong to push xyzzy, and I obviously agree with you on myself.

Don't ask me questions just for the sake of looking active.

That wasn't the point. The first question was because your use of the word "playstyle" confused me, and the second was to get you to elaborate on exactly what your problem with the wagoning was.

[vollkan]

@ All those on my wagon:

I just died in Mini 542. I was townie. In that game, a player (cop as it turned out) esploded and claimed GF at L-1. I hammered instantly, despite the fact that another player called for hesitation, (and this was back on Jan 10) because the scum claim "demands lynching".

I've argued here, and JDodge showed me that my adamancy was in error. Mini 542, however, demonstrates that I held my bombast objection in the best of faith.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: And the hammering occurred back on Jan 10.

[vollkan]

You are in fact dodging questions with your long posts that can seem contentful but shirk around the important stuff sometimes, by preventing reactions.

Here we see kab basically reiterating the main charges against me:
1) Dodging questions with long posts - Not true. I responded to JDodge on all questions asked. (Phate brought this one up as well).
2) Preventing reactions - Damn right. I intentionally stopped what I believed to be anti-town. I've had it explained to me, and I accept its legitimacy, but I stand by my actions.

A challenge for my growing pack of fleas: Find me a question that I either dodged, or did not reasonably attempt to answer.

And plus, you are acting way too close to our first game. It's almost word for word.

How?

[vollkan]

The thing is, even if what was happening was anti-town, the reactions it would have caused still could have provided us with information. And information, however gleaned, is not anti-town.

I've already debated this same point at length with JDodge. It might do for you to read over things again, but let me remind you:
I did not believe that any such information would be helpful because I considered it impossible to judge. JDodge has explained how I am wrong on that count, and I've already stated that he showed me in error.

@Vollkan- The last time we played, I said something, you attacked me long and hard about it, and then, after a little banter, you backed off. Someone pressed you for backing off suddenly and acting as if it hadn't happened and then you said basically exactly the same thing as this post:

Ohh of course. So, before I ask you to clarify, you say it is 358 "almost word for word" - but now it turns out that all you are referring to is me accepting someone else's argument in the end. And that's obviously scummy.

[vollkan]

Ohh of course. So, before I ask you to clarify, you say it is 358 "almost word for word" - but now it turns out that all you are referring to is me accepting someone else's argument in the end. And that's obviously scummy.

You blow things way out of proportion. I said, you may recall, it isn't that big of a deciding factor for me. It just didn't help. It was like another little rock added to a boulder, or some other such metaphor.

Let's go back to #245 by you:

I agree with JDodge on this one. Vote: vollkan. You are in fact dodging questions with your long posts that can seem contentful but shirk around the important stuff sometimes, by preventing reactions. Reactions to the words written on this thread are, in my opinion, the most telling of all the information we have. Okay, so it's not quite THAT important, but it's pretty high up on the list. And your stepping in did in fact hamper those reactions, and therefore the information given to the town.

And plus, you are acting way too close to our first game. It's almost word for word.

I've bolded the comments you make linking this to Newbie 358. Here, you make no mention of the extent to which you suspect me based on Newbie 358. You say my play here matches "almost word for word" my play in a game where I was scum. That's a pretty powerful accusation to be making. And, I am not being facetious and literal-minded about "almost word for word" - without getting into a semantics debate, you strongly suggested a high degree of similarity between this game and Newbie 358.

Now, after I question you on this issue (as well as examining the other points you make) you then explain the reference in this way:

@Vollkan- The last time we played, I said something, you attacked me long and hard about it, and then, after a little banter, you backed off. Someone pressed you for backing off suddenly and acting as if it hadn't happened and then you said basically exactly the same thing as this post:

I've argued here, and JDodge showed me that my adamancy was in error. Mini 542, however, demonstrates that I held my bombast objection in the best of faith.

That may be true, but it is way too close for my taste to just let slip by. That one isn't real condemning, but it is definitely not in your favor.

In an instant, what was a pretty strong accusation (ie. my play here allegedly being similar to my play in Newbie 358) is shown to be an absolute nullity - that I accepted someone else's argument in the end. The comparison you draw is also odious on a further level because I am nowhere near acting as if nothing had happened or trying to shirk from responsibility.

Also, the fact that you say this factor is just a rock onto a boulder doesn't in any way legitimise it. For one thing, there is no boulder - the point about me being evasive is complete rubbish (my challenge still stands ), and the point about me blocking reactions, whilst a legitimate argument against me, has been presented by you without paying heed to my justifications (which were ultimately proven wrong) for that behaviour.

But, moreover, the comparison point should not even be a "pebble" of an argument because it has no basis. As I have already said, the sole similarity is my acceptance of another's argument (out of interest, could you provide a reference to where in Newbie 358 you are talking about?).

[vollkan]

Probably not, I probably can't find it, I'm really busy with classes at the moment, however, if I find time to do it, I will try. I'm terrible at digging up old posts though.

So you were just going by recollection when you drew the accusatory link?

The thing is, I didn't mean for it to be a strong accusation, so the fact that you took it to be a strong accusation says to me that it actually has some merit.

I didn't take it as a strong accusation. As I said in my previous post, the argument you tried to make is so baseless that it ought not even qualify as a "pebble" in a "boulder" (remembering that the case you are pushing is by no means a boulder, as I already stated).

The "strength" of the accusation doesn't determine its legitimacy. You made a crap argument, and I blew it out of the water. Whether or not you intended the argument to be enormously persuasive is irrelevant to my refutation of it.

[vollkan]

In an instant, what was a

pretty strong accusation

(ie. my play here allegedly being similar to my play in Newbie 358) is shown to be an absolute nullity

Followed closely by...

I didn't take it as a strong accusation

Hm... which one is the truth?

They both are. You are making a really dodgy move here.

Let's take the first quote in full, shall we:

Now, after I question you on this issue (as well as examining the other points you make) you then explain the reference in this way:

@Vollkan- The last time we played, I said something, you attacked me long and hard about it, and then, after a little banter, you backed off. Someone pressed you for backing off suddenly and acting as if it hadn't happened and then you said basically exactly the same thing as this post:

I've argued here, and JDodge showed me that my adamancy was in error. Mini 542, however, demonstrates that I held my bombast objection in the best of faith.

That may be true, but it is way too close for my taste to just let slip by. That one isn't real condemning, but it is definitely not in your favor.

In an instant, what was a pretty strong accusation (ie. my play here allegedly being similar to my play in Newbie 358) is shown to be an absolute nullity - that I accepted someone else's argument in the end. The comparison you draw is also odious on a further level because I am nowhere near acting as if nothing had happened or trying to shirk from responsibility.

Also, the fact that you say this factor is just a rock onto a boulder doesn't in any way legitimise it. For one thing, there is no boulder - the point about me being evasive is complete rubbish (my challenge still stands ), and the point about me blocking reactions, whilst a legitimate argument against me, has been presented by you without paying heed to my justifications (which were ultimately proven wrong) for that behaviour.

But, moreover, the comparison point should not even be a "pebble" of an argument because it has no basis. As I have already said, the sole similarity is my acceptance of another's argument (out of interest, could you provide a reference to where in Newbie 358 you are talking about?).

Notice something?

The first accusation you made was that my play was "almost word for word" that of a game where I was scum. Then when I ask you to explain yourself, you say what is quoted in the quote above. It is AT THAT POINT, that I make the first quote taken by you, namely that what you had raised as a strong accusation was nothing more than a pathetic swipe at the fact that in both games I accepted an argument (You still haven't given a reference, btw).

Now let's take the second one in full:

I didn't take it as a strong accusation. As I said in my previous post, the argument you tried to make is so baseless that it ought not even qualify as a "pebble" in a "boulder" (remembering that the case you are pushing is by no means a boulder, as I already stated).

See my point?

To summarise this conversation -
Kab in #245: "Your play is almost word for word that of a game where you were scum."
Voll in #246: "How?"
Kab in #250: "In both games you accepted someone else's argument."
Voll in #252: "Oh right. So what was 'almost word for word' turns out just to be that I accepted someone else's argument in both. And that's scummy?"
Kab #254: "You're blowing things out of proportion. I didn't say it was a strong point."
Voll #255: "No. First you make the powerful accusation that my play is 'almost word for word' that of Newbie 358. After I question you, you reduce this powerful accusation to just that I accepted someone else's argument in the end. Also, the fact that you claim this argument is not crucially important to you is irrelevant - it's a bullshit argument either way. Oh, and could you provide a reference to my apparently acting this way in Newbie #358?"
Kab #357: "I probably can't find it, I'm really busy with classes at the moment, however, if I find time to do it, I will try. I'm terrible at digging up old posts though. Also, the fact you took it to be a strong accusation says that it has merit."
Voll #258: "So this was all recollection? And I didn't take it as a strong accusation. As I showed, it was completely baseless. The intended "strength" of an argument has no bearing on its legitimacy."

The point I am trying to stress here is that what Kab presents as a contradiction is simply the result of him cherry-picking two sentences out of an argument.

Kab makes a strong accusation ("almost word for word"). I question him and he drops it to something totally ridiculous about accepting another's argument. I then say that (as he quotes) "what was a

pretty strong accusation

(ie. my play here allegedly being similar to my play in Newbie 358) is shown to be an absolute nullity". Then, after I refute his argument, I say that it is not a strong accusation because it is baseless.

So let's review for the class shall we?
1) You rehash the initial line of questioning against me and ignore my discussion with JDodge
2) You concoct a bullshit argument that my play here is "almost word for word" that of a game where I was scum
3) After being questioned on this, you shift the story and turn this powerful attack into a really weak non-argument
4) After me challenging you on this, you now go about cherry-picking to contrive an apparent contradiction

Vote: Kabenon007

[vollkan]

No, you see, the fact that he called it a strong accusation and said "WAS" as you pointed out, meant that he took it, at one point, to be a strong accusation. As in the past. But then it was downgraded. But at one point he did in fact take it as a strong accusation. Why are you defending vollkan for him?

Then why the hell are you attacking him on supposedly saying two things at the same time when you admit yourself that he said that it was an admission that his past feelings have changed? Isn't that a bit contradictory?

As should be clear from my previous post, it wasn't the case that my own past feelings changed. Kab changed his argument to something weaker and invalid, which resulted in it changing from "what was a pretty powerful accusation" to something that "I didn't take it as a strong accusation".

And 5) As fast as he can, he tries to divert attention to Mizzy, who's also noticed his scumminess.

An excellent addition to the list.

[vollkan]

First, I am in no way diverting attention to Mizzy, I see something, I attack it, I by no means stopped my attacking of vollkan, so if you could please tell me how that is diverting attention? Thanks.

Mizzy criticised the arguments against me (as she has been doing for some time now) and you called her out for defending me.

You asked her:

Why are you defending vollkan for him?

Implying she needs some sort of justification, beyond having found a fault in your arguments, to actively criticise them.

It's diversionary because, once your arguments against me have begun to slide into the abyss, and you have begun to get suspected yourself, you strike in another direction at someone for a really dodgy reason (ie. defending me).

My main point here is that you took what I have said was not a strong accusation, and you called it a strong accusation. I did not intend for it to be such a strong accusation, yet you interpretted it that way. Did you not, vollkan?

Kab, I have said this already, but let me run over it again.

The first part of this was you saying that my play here is "almost word for word" like that of a game where I was scum. Regardless of what you intended, that was a tremendously strong accusation.

Then, when I ask you to explain yourself, you say (without evidence) that the similarity is that in both games I accepted somebody else's argument in the end. This isn't an argument against me at all. When I point that you, you tell me in #254 that it was just a "rock to a boulder" and was not significant.

Following this, as I said in the first quote you pulled up and labelled contradictory:

In an instant, what was a pretty strong accusation (ie. my play here allegedly being similar to my play in Newbie 358) is shown to be an absolute nullity - that I accepted someone else's argument in the end.

Now, it is at this point that you again reiterate that you didn't mean for it to be strong (and, simultaneously, you make a little side-swipe by saying "the fact that you took it to be a strong accusation says to me that it actually has some merit.")

Then, I make the second post which you label as contradictory:

I didn't take it as a strong accusation. As I said in my previous post, the argument you tried to make is so baseless that it ought not even qualify as a "pebble" in a "boulder" (remembering that the case you are pushing is by no means a boulder, as I already stated).

The "strength" of the accusation doesn't determine its legitimacy. You made a crap argument, and I blew it out of the water. Whether or not you intended the argument to be enormously persuasive is irrelevant to my refutation of it.

This, obviously, is directed towards your downgraded Newbie 358 reference (as opposed to the "almost word for word" which you dropped). I am saying that I never took this to be a strong accusation because it was "so baseless..." I also make the point that I don't much care as to the extent which you hold the argument against me - it's a bullshit argument regardless of its extent.

So, to summarise:
- The first Newbie 358 argument by Kab was that my play matched "almost word for word" my play in a game as scum. This is, obviously, a hugely strong accusation, and I rightly labelled it as such.
- The second Newbie 358 argument by Kab (which was formed after I challenged the first) was that in both games I had accepted someone else's argument (and we're still awaiting the evidence). This argument was never taken by me as strong; in fact I dismissed it as outright garbage as soon as it was produced.
- The contradiction Kab alleges that I have made is that I said the first was "strong" and the second was "not strong" ("bullshit" would be a more accurate descriptor). Needless to say, there is no contradiction because (as I have said thrice now) I was talking about two distinct arguments (or, rather, one strong argument which morphed into a second baseless argument)

[vollkan]

So, you don't think that saying someone's play matches a scum game "almost word for word" is a strong accusation?

[vollkan]

At the risk of sticking my neck out again, I think the reason Volkan would have taken the "your play matches your play while scum" thing as a strong accusation was because it could have been an underhanded and passive-aggressive way to call him scum. I would have taken it that way if someone had said it to me. He then didn't take it as a strong accusation, and I wouldn't have either, when you cheapened the whole thing.

Correct

What do you mean I cheapened it?

Here we go again

Your first meta attack was: Your play matches "almost word for word" a game where you were scum. That's a hugely powerful attack (it suggests that I am very scummy).

Your second, cheapened, attack was: In both games you accepted another's argument. That's not even dismally weak - it's a total non-argument.

[vollkan]

And do you maintain that the Newbie 358 link you suggested is still arguable as a chip against me?

[vollkan]

At this point can anyone see Mat_S being scum independant of opie?

Wrong game methinks.

[vollkan]

@NabNab:

Missing it within my miles of text is understandable, but I did address the very point you make, in response to JDodge's questioning:

I am voting you because you hopped on Adel's wagon while even stating that you did not know how a scum claim is scummy.

2) You hopped on a wagon because "claiming scum is scummy" without any substantiating evidence anywhere.

I'm voting for Adel because she committed behaviour which I think is anti-town, ergo a factor indicating scumminess. If Adel explains herself adequately, not to point of achieving my agreement (we'd be here arguing for a looong time), I will unvote and file her scum claim away in the null tell box.

Ugh, you're one of those lynch-all-liars fanatics aren't you.

No, I don't advocate LAL. I've lied as town in the past.

My exact position is lynch-all-liars-unless-I-can-understand-what-they-are-doing-or-they-explain-themselves-to -me.

So you have no problem lynching a townie if they're supposedly "anti-town"?

I don't think I have ever lynched someone over a single anti-town play. I do, however, treat anti-town plays as scumminess indicators until they argue their case decently.

Again, anti-town =/= scum. This is a huge imposition on your argument. Furthermore, you have to take into account that there's nothing to suggest anything is good at catching scum and won't end up hurting the townies.

And I never said that antitown = scum. In fact, I said that nothing is a total proof.

Things which are anti-town are worth looking into and investigating, because they are good potential leads for scumminess.

And yes, I doubt that there is anything that doesn't have the possibility of hurting town. I've given my reasons as to why I think traps are more dangerous (and we are still discussing those reasons) than conventional argument.

JDodge wrote:

This answer does not answer my yes-or-no question.

So you have no problem lynching a townie if they're supposedly "anti-town"?

Yes.

I don't lynch people on singular anti-town behaviours. I don't lynch people on a couple of behaviours. If I see a sufficient number (varies with circumstances) of anti-town behaviours which are unexplained upon my pressuring and which seem "scummy" to me (again, a judgment that varies wildly based on circumstances) then I will probably be happy to lynch them.

To summarise my position in the above:
I assume anti-town behaviour is "attack-worthy" unless explained properly. Obviously, nobody is perfect and townies will make mistakes. The important thing for me is that the behaviour is explained adequately (eg. with a defence of reasonable and honest mistake)

At that point, I considered scum claims utterly unforgivable, having never had an effective justification for them and knowing that they inherently cannot be a reasonable error. By virtue of the very fact that the claim was anti-town, I voted for Adel. If her behaviour could be justified from a town player (JDodge ended up doing the justification, obviously) that was the end of the matter - it was no longer unjustifiable.

Is it really reasonable to put Adel at L-2 because she's anti-town? You could have gotten the same information, had the same discussion, disarmed the same trap, and maybe not caught as much flak had you used a simple FoS. Instead, you choose to join an already popular bandwagon. You call it "pushing". I call it bullshit.

I agree that I could have asked the same questions (and probably had the same argument with JDodge) if I had simply used an FoS, so let me justify the vote:

As I have said, I viewed scum claims as completely unforgivable - that there was

never

any good reason for a townie to claim scum. Slight "anti-town" play (eg. a single act of misrepresentation) might just merit an FoS because it can be a reasonable error. To me, scum claims could not.

The bandwagoning issue didn't really play in my mind. I don't have a problem with bandwagoning less than L-1 (because L-1 is the point where you can have "accidental hammers" and, in most setups, claim demands). For me, the important thing is the

reason

for voting, or the reason for FoSing. As I have said, I viewed scum claims as lynch-worthy unless justified.

[vollkan]

You continue to not answer my question. You come close some times, but always back away at the last second. Is Adel scum or is Adel town? Utlimately, she can't be in between.

I did answer it.

At that point, I considered scum claims utterly unforgivable, having never had an effective justification for them and knowing that they inherently cannot be a reasonable error. By virtue of the very fact that the claim was anti-town, I voted for Adel. If her behaviour could be justified from a town player (JDodge ended up doing the justification, obviously) that was the end of the matter - it was no longer unjustifiable.
...
As I have said, I viewed scum claims as completely unforgivable - that there was never any good reason for a townie to claim scum. Slight "anti-town" play (eg. a single act of misrepresentation) might just merit an FoS because it can be a reasonable error. To me, scum claims could not.

That ought to make it clear: I considered scum claims as "unforgivable" unless proven otherwise with justification.

So, short answer: I thought Adel was scum.

This is just silliness. JDodge, a player who you have said you respect, just had a huge discussion with you in which he supported the validity of scum claims as a tactic. It's not even an issue of "error" vs. "correct play" (a silly notion anyway), it's an issue of playstyle. Having played several games with Adel, I would not put experimentation with traps or even pure bullshit past her, even when she's a townie. Either way, your personal opinion has no impact on the other player's intentions, which is what we're getting at in a discussion of allignment. I really don't care if you find scumclaims "unforgivable", does Adel?

I'm sure you would deny liking polcy lynches, but that seems to be just the way you play.

Did you even read what I said?

At that point,

I considered scum claims utterly unforgivable, having never had an effective justification for them and knowing that they inherently cannot be a reasonable error.

You asked me whether I thought Adel was scum, so I answered with my reasoning at the time. I don't think the same way because, as I have said again and again, justification (which JDodge provided) rebuts what was my view - that scum claims were auto-lynch material.

It isn't policy lynching, either. Policy lynching, in my understanding, is lynching because townies should not do something at all, no questions asked, (see: Fanatic LaL) or because they have some playstyle which doesn't help (see: Lynching quagmire for not reading his role PM). What I advocated in the case of Adel had this path of logic:

I held the view for some time that scum claims were completely wrong - that a townie should never do them. What I am saying is that, after having seen scum claims and thought about them, I had come to the view that there was never any good reason for town to do them. Sure, it's a subjective judgment, but it is one that I had arguments for. The way I rationalised my attitude to scum claims was not as a policy lynch but, rather, as demanding justification for what seemed prima facie scummy behaviour - out of my opinion that town would never claim scum without good reason. Therefore, I deemed scum claims unforgivable and required complete justification rather than excuse. Ultimately, I was in error in my absolute opposition, as JDodge showed me.

It's fundamentally the same sort of thing as jumping on someone for making a significant contradiction. I assume that the contradiction is something that someone playing honestly (ie. townie) will never do. Thus, I attack until I receive reasonable explanation.

[vollkan]

Policy lynching, in my understanding, is lynching because townies should not do something at all, no questions asked [/quoe]
Did you ask any questions of Adel before voting her?

No.

As I tried to say, the difference between a policy lynch and what I did is that, from what I gather, policy lynching doesn't allow for justification. Fanatic LaL, from what I gather, lynches the liar regardless of what reason they give. That's a policy: Anyone that lies, dies.

My position was that I could see no reason why town would claim scum, thus rendering it scummy to me, without justification.

You seem to be incredibly unforgiving of townies. Something that you have decided (through a complex/convoluted chain of logic, I migh add) is anti-town suddenly becomes "unforgivable"? And it takes nearly a page of discussion with JDodge to get you to change this conception? Even on matters that begin to shade into playstyle, you deliniate into black and white and vote on that distinction, and it's so frustrating because I know you're a man who recognizes the difference between anti-town and scum. Do you really expect every player in the game to read your mind and agree with you?

It becomes "unforgivable" (meaning: I will be intolerant and accept no excuses - only justifications) by virtue of the fact that I held the view that there was never any good reason for town to claim scum.

It took a page of argument because it was a position I had formulated and which only became sufficiently debunked to me once I got closure on the fact that JDodge can judge those reactions - thereby refuting my own position that such reactions are inherently unreliable.

I don't expect every player to read my mind and agree with me, and I don't know what gives you that impression. Maybe you could clarify?

Oh, and don't blow off the baby with the bathwater. So the part about JDodge is posdated. What about Adel's propensity for bullshit, on display even now? What about a player's natural propensity for being an idiot, on display even now?

Sure, I take that into account. As I have said repeatedly now, I didn't think town could claim scum with good reason. Thus, even coming from Adel it struck me as scummy.

[vollkan]

Pretty much that's correct, except that 4) should read:

4) Adel, who has scumclaimed, is therefore scum unless she justifies her claim.

[vollkan]

Define "justify" and we have a deal.

Does it mean providing a reason (convincing or not), or actually getting you to change your mind on the subject?

What JDodge did was an example of justification.

Essentially, all I mean is for the person to explain to me why they did what they did. I don't need to be convinced; the explanation just needs to be such as to allow me to reasonably conceive of town taking that action.

That reasonable explanation refutes 1) of my reasoning process - it gives me a reason as to why town might engage in that conduct.

What if Adel had defended herself? What if she had been "wrong"?

I'm unsure as to what you mean here. If I haven't answered it above, could you rephrase it for me?

[vollkan]

Now, I've done an quick/dirty meta on you. If anybody cares to add to or contradict this, they may. Essentially, when you're town, you take error into account. You give people passes, cite their metas, pay attention to anti-town vs. scum. When you're scum yourself, you hide behind logic. You expect exacting perfection from every player and point it out when they don't attain it, nearly always equals a light or full accusation of them being scum. Kab was clumsy in the way he made it, but he might have a point.

Comments?

Well, first and foremost, as I have already said: In Mini 542 I hammered instantly for a scumclaim (despite calls for restraint) and I was town there.

Now, I agree that the anti-town/scum distinction is an important one, and, as you say, I am careful to pay attention to it. The reason I pay attention to it, however, is that whenever I am attacking someone and I am town, I always have in the back of my mind the following question: "Can I envisage myself doing this as town?" If I can reasonably conceive of myself doing something as town, then I will always be more hesitant about condemning someone for it, though I may still push them a little to tease out their reasoning.

As I have already said, scum claims are something which, until JDodge, I have never been able to say "I might reasonably do that as town". My opposition to scum-claims, in itself, stemmed from my dislike of pushing things which can reasonably come from town - intuitively, I thought it was always reasonable for town to vote scum-claimers and, thus, it never seemed to me that it could achieve anything other than contriving undue suspicion.

Thus, whilst I have always been mindful of the potential for

human error

- I never saw any reason to have a scum claim fall into that category. Scum-claiming is a conscious and deliberate act which, I thought, could only ever result in contrived grounds for suspicion. You can't "accidentally" claim scum (except from so-called "perspective tells", but that isn't what we are talking about here) so I have never considered it a possible reasonable error.

As for your meta of my scum play - you're completely correct. I do try and keep my logic as tight as possible as scum, mainly by asking myself: "Can I justify this from a pro-town perspective?"

[vollkan]

What more is there to say? I've defended myself on things. Granted, I haven't been around much to formulate new opinions on things. Adel's play continues to confuse me, vollkan I think I am confusing between my two games with him, and I can't differentiate between the two. And JDodge adds nothing to the conversation save yay, lynch kabenon, lolz. Not that I'm doing much better, but he at leasts claims to be around.

I'll try and reiterate what I would like you to explain.

Kab, the line of attack you've made against me here has been distinct from the other ongoing game.

You voted me for three reasons, at least going by your post:
1) Dodging questions
2) Preventing reactions
3) My play being "almost word for word" that of Newbie 358

Now, before looking at each of these, it is important to realise what you did not include in your pre-vote analysis: Any sort of evaluation of the JDodge debate or what I had said in that context.

Now, let's review each reason:
1) You failed to provide any example of me dodging questions, and you never met my challenge. NabNab did raise the issue of the Antitown/Scum distinction. I didn't dodge that point (I addressed it in my discussion with JDodge) but I admit that I could have been clearer in explaining how I reason on these matters (I think that the discussion with NabNab has drawn it out in full).
2) This was where the ignorance of the Voll/JDodge debate showed most clearly because you undertook no discussion of my justifications for stopping those reactions. As in, you seemed to adopt a clear-cut "Preventing reactions = scum" position without making any examination of my position on those reactions.
3) This is the most complicated one, so let me do some quoting.
You first raise it as:

And plus, you are acting way too close to our first game. It's almost word for word.

That's it. Any reasonable observer would see this as a very strong attack. You simply declare that my play is effectively identical to that of a game where I was scum.

I challenge you on this and it becomes:

The last time we played, I said something, you attacked me long and hard about it, and then, after a little banter, you backed off. Someone pressed you for backing off suddenly and acting as if it hadn't happened and then you said basically exactly the same thing as this post:

I've argued here, and JDodge showed me that my adamancy was in error. Mini 542, however, demonstrates that I held my bombast objection in the best of faith.

That may be true, but it is way too close for my taste to just let slip by. That one isn't real condemning, but it is definitely not in your favor.

Effectively, what was once damning is reduced to a non-argument - and you are quick to downplay its significance to yourself as a reason for suspecting me (You go on to call it "another little rock added to a boulder"). This 'downplaying of significance' I dislike immensely because: 1) You avoid having to justify the logic of the (non-)argument and 2) You then start deflecting onto me for blowing things out of proportion.

THEN, Kab, we have you attempting to portray my own conduct as contradictory with this:

In an instant, what was a

pretty strong accusation

(ie. my play here allegedly being similar to my play in Newbie 358) is shown to be an absolute nullity

Followed closely by...

I didn't take it as a strong accusation

Hm... which one is the truth?

Without rehashing everything in detail (see my previous posts for full explanation) I resented this because the unexplained actual shift in position was your own downgrading of the accusation.

Then you start pushing against Mizzy for defending me.

What I would like you to answer are the following:
1) Why did you change "almost word for word" to "you attacked me long and hard about it, and then, after a little banter, you backed off. Someone pressed you for backing off suddenly and acting as if it hadn't happened"?
2) Do you accept that the current manifestation of your meta argument against me is a dodgy argument (see my previous posts for explanation of why I reject it)?
3) Do you accept that your effort to portray my behaviour as contradictory was illegitimate?
4) Why should Mizzy not have defended me?

[vollkan]

I believe he is dodging posts, hiding behind his long lengths of text and using them to make it look like he is adding a great deal of content without actually doing so. If you can say it with less words, then say it with less words. It need not be prettied up with repetition and huge explanations. In my opinon, they are just empty words.

I'm verbose. Deal with it.

It's just my writing style - repetition for emphasis and explanations for logical transparency.

[vollkan]

Gah! Sorry

I meant to say hello, but I responded to Kab in length, forgetting to do so. Then I saw his newest post immedately above my own and responded to that.

Hi Guardian!

[vollkan]

Then you start pushing against Mizzy for defending me.

...

4) Why should Mizzy not have defended me?

I didn't really defend you, I just pointed out what I thought was something he was either missing completely, or trying intentionally to make others miss. I didn't like it that he tried to make someone seem contradictory who had not been.

Yup. I should have been clearer there. You didn't actually defend me per se; you criticised kab's attakcs. He just called it a defense.

So that what I am saying is clearer:
@Kab - Change question 4 to:
4) Why should Mizzy not have criticised your attacks?

[vollkan]

I believe he is dodging posts, hiding behind his long lengths of text and using them to make it look like he is adding a great deal of content without actually doing so. If you can say it with less words, then say it with less words. It need not be prettied up with repetition and huge explanations. In my opinon, they are just empty words.

I'm verbose. Deal with it.

It's just my writing style - repetition for emphasis and explanations for logical transparency.

So you agree that you are using repetitions as a manner of artificially inflating your points?

No. Over-writing is a problem that plagues me no matter what I am doing (mafia, or uni assignments). If I am given a word limit for an assignment, for instance, I often write at least five times more than I need to and then just cut out huge chunks.

It isn't that I intentionally use repetition to inflate myself. I think it is more the case that I make such convoluted explanations that I then think I need to reiterate my initial point.

[vollkan]

I find most of his posts can be boiled down to random vendettas against a person he thinks may or may not be scum.

Explain.

[vollkan]

I assume you have evidence for this?

[vollkan]

I don't like the kab wagon, due to talking to him.

If you have good reasons for not liking the kab wagon, wouldn't the sensible thing be to release them in-thread? If not, why not?

I do like the vollkan wagon more

Not liking volkan so much

I'm loving the depth of reasoning from these two

[vollkan]

Jdodge just basically told me that he hasn't been reading the thread very much, except for skimming my posts and trying to trounce them, because if taken by itself, it would appear that my post was against vollkan, but if taken in context, it is obvious that I was talking about Jdodge. And only scum don't read threads. unvote, vote:Jdodge

The reasoning of yours here seems to be:
1) JDodge makes error about my post
2) That shows JDodge is not reading the thread properly
3) Only scum don't read
4) JDodge is scum + JDodge is just trying to attack me for anything

If I am wrong, let me know.

Anyway, I have problems with 2) and 3).

Why 2) is wrong

- Ask yourself if it is conceivable as a reasonable mistake. Unless JDodge actually had the context in mind as he was reading (unlikely, since he had already posted since the context-building posts were made) then it is quite feasible that he might think it was about me, rather than himself. Now, one mistake on this account does not prove JDodge is not reading the thread properly. It proves he is human.

Why 3) is wrong

Well, it mightn't be wrong, but you haven't given evidence. Prove to me that scum are less likely to read the thread with a toothcomb.

And Mizzy, you are doing nothing to assuage my thoughts of you being scum trying to butter up to vollkan.

I've considered the possibility of mizzy being scum buddying to me, but I see nothing actually scummy about her play thus far, so I've got that in the "Conspiracies" file for the time being.

Moreover, I don't even think her play really looks like buddying. Her early skepticism of the case against me stemmed from the fact that we had already discussed my attitude towards traps. She knew from the outset what my position was. Then we had her criticising Kab's attacks.

[vollkan]

[quote="Voll"
Why 3) is wrong Well, it mightn't be wrong, but you haven't given evidence. Prove to me that scum are less likely to read the thread with a toothcomb.

Quick question about this, I want to make sure I'm answering what you want me to answer: do you want me to prove that scum don't read threads, or do you want me to examine the possibilities of other people not reading threads?
[/quote]

Both are necessary; neither is sufficient.

[vollkan]

Er...you don't get my point.

What JDodge did is something which can reasonably be thought of potentially being a mistake. That means that you need to pay heed to the likelihood of that mistake occuring.

Proving "that scum do something" doesn't make something scummy. Example: Many scum may use capital letters. That doesn't make capital letters a scumtell.

Proving "the possibilities of other roles not reading the thread" doesn't prove that scum are more likely to do it. Example: Showing that town are very likely to use full-stops does not make absence of full-stops a scumtell.

You need to prove both to have any semblance of an argument.

[vollkan]

I agree entirely. Scum don't need to gain information. Scum can just make up crap. And scum can save themselves time by not reading.

But let me throw out an alternative: Scum need to read the thread closely because they need to make sure their arguments/etc. are watertight. If they fail to do so, they are more likely to slip up, since their arguments are ultimately contrived. This doesn't at all mean that paying tight attention is a scumtell, but it does mean that, without empirical evidence, I won't accept the proposition that scum are less likely to pay attention.

[vollkan]

Of course it's entirely possible that scum might not pay attention, and that they particularly might do so in the heat of battle. In no way whatsoever does that make it likely.

[vollkan]

You never asked me why a townie would do it!

Anyway, I already answered that question:

What JDodge did is something which can reasonably be thought of potentially being a mistake. That means that you need to pay heed to the likelihood of that mistake occuring.

Kab, let me remind you that YOU are the one who is asserting something is scummy. The onus is on YOU to prove what I have already requested - that what JDodge did is scummy. Thus far you have given me game-theory speculation, which I countered, and nothing else.

[vollkan]

I said it was more likely a scum would do it than a townie, so I assumed that you would, in refuting it, tell me why a townie would do such a thing. I've used this same argument on other persons, and it has worked in the past.

Kab, I have already said this twice now: A townie would do something like that simply as a result of reasonable error.

Why are you ignoring this? Why have you still failed to provide proof that scum are more likely to err than town? Why are you trying to flip the onus of proof by continually asking for explanations of why a townie would do this (which I have provided) without providing actual proof of your own position?

And please point out to me this meta-reference of this having worked in the past. If you have good evidence, surely you would be up-front with it.

You choose to believe whatever reasons you wish, I choose to believe the reason is that he got in the heat of the argument or whatever and didn't fully read what was necessary to make the proper argument against me

I'm not believing anything. I am being, as you said, skeptical.

It is you who is making the assertion without evidence. I find it rather telling that you throw this back to an "I choose to believe" - rather than providing evidence. Either justify this belief with proper arguments, or drop it entirely.

If he had just refuted my argument, it would have been slightly less damning. But the fact that he used my post (wrongly) in an effort to attack me tells me that he was just looking for ways to attack me and got a little carried away.

Yes, he could have gotten carried away in an effort to attack you. So what? You still haven't proven this to be the case, and you've even failed to prove that it was likely to be the case.

I remind our listeners that kabenon has yet to present

anything

other than a conspiracy theory. He has identified behaviour from JDodge and asserted that it was a scum-slip, with nothing further to support this assertion.

[vollkan]

How in the world am I supposed to prove what he did or didn't do off the computer? He chose his words carefully before he put them on here. How am I supposed to prove that what he placed on this thread is the result of an error or scummy behavior? You ask the impossible in this regard vollkan.

I'm not asking the impossible.

You've called one instance of behaviour from JDodge's scummy and yet you've failed to justify the assertion that it is scummy. If it's impossible for you to even reasonably attempt to justify the position, beyond a mere conspiracy, then you shouldn't hold that position.

Obviously, 'proof' is impossible in this game. When push comes to shove, we always have to make assumptions, but it's a matter of making a careful and well-reasoned judgment and, given the explanation you have given, it's clear that this is not the case.

If you do not believe anything, then why are you only arguing one side? If you believe nothing, should you not be neutral? And yet you obviously support one side over the other.

Did I say that I believed it was actually a mistake? No. I am neutral on it. My position is precisely this: It could have been sneakiness from scumDodge; it could have been an error from townDodge - I ultimately don't know and I am not prepared to judge him on it alone.

What I am doing here is putting your positive theory (That his behaviour was scummy) through the wringer of logical analysis.

I am not "neutral" insofar as I do not agree with your position, but I am neutral in the sense that I don't get any read from his singular action here.

[vollkan]

I'm saying it can be seen in either light, and in this case I see it as scummy. If you choose not to, that's your priority.

You might "see it as scummy" but until you either reasonably justify (I need not agree for your justification to be reasonable) or you relinquish, I will argue against this.

And yes, it is your prerogative (not 'priority' ) to hold whatever crazy ideas you want; that doesn't mean I am not going to demand justification.

The truth of the matter is that, statistically speaking, scum are more likely to not read the thread than town.

Oh joy Now we have statistical evidence in addition to that meta-reference you mentioned earlier.

I've now got an IOU from Kab for:
1) Meta-reference for him successfully lynching scum based off "the argument" he is making against JDodge; and
2) Statistical proof that scum are not more likely to read the thread than town

Actually, on that second one, it wouldn't mean anything for the purposes of your argument if "scum were not more likely to read the thread than town", since that does not prove they are less likely to.

And JDodge doesn't strike me as a townie who would not read the thread or would make such a simple mistake as misjudge who the post was aimed at if the post in question was only one or two posts under the question you posed.

JDodge is very likely a human being. The sort of error we are debating is something which I have already said could reasonably occur.

[vollkan]

I'd defend myself from your accusation, but vollkan has done that rather well (which is somewhat odd IMO) for me.

Odd that I defended you, or odd that I did it well (or both)?

[vollkan]

As for clarification, vollkan, you assumed that when I said I had used this argument before that it resulted in my catching scum. What I meant was that I had gotten into an argument similar to this one, and people backed me up on this. Solid players. I was taught this tell by Adele I believe, and have since used it in a few of my other games, and it was agreed on by most, if not all players present. So I never actually lynched anyone on account of it, but it has been used and praised in games before.

And the statistical evidence?

Volkan - I think his pushing on Kab in the way he is soemthing scum would do...And I think Kab is town...

You state two views here:
1) My pushing kab is something scum would do
2) Kab is town

I would like an explanation of both, thanks.

[vollkan]

Sorry, but:

Kab - As i've already said I think he sounds sincere with this latest wagon on him and I think he's town. I'd have acted the same about xyzzy's inactivity.

Doesn't explain anything to me.

You're basically saying:
1) I think kab is town and genuine [unexplained]
2) I think voll attacking kab is something scum would do [unexplained]

Let me make my questions a bit clearer for you:
-Why do you think Kab is town?
-Even if you do think Kab is town, why does that make me scum for attacking him? Are you just assuming that I must be scum for attacking someone you think is town, or is there something about my attacks that you don't like?

[vollkan]

I made a mistake. I must be scum.

[vollkan]

While you're pressuring me about my apparently scummy-as-hell unvote to not partake the lynch of someone I didn't think should be lynched, why don't you get on Phate's case, because he voted a totally useless vote and he could have tied things, too. In fact, scotmany didn't even bother PLAYING, and could have helped. Primate wasn't voting, either. So why am I getting all of the flack from you for a crappy case with no foundation?

Guardian, you might also note that I also unvoted without casting a vote elsewhere. I didn't think any lynch was valid - nobody was scummy enough to justify a lynch, and an effectively 'random' lynch would achieve very little

[vollkan]

When I replaced in, I was suspicious of him, asking him a question about vollkan, but then I got sypathy for him when I PM'd him, thinking he was just a newer player having troubles (he complained about all the experience in this game, etc). looking at it, hist join date is only a little after mine...

Join date is deceptive Guardian. He only has 760 posts. He's hardly a "newbie", but that's worth keeping in mind, regardless of how scummy his play has been.

Exactly...it was a page of banter. It accomplished nothing, and within that page, I can't find evidence of you getting off your rear and doing anything. Just debating. All talk, no action. A LOT of talk, really, and no action. You even failed to defend yourself properly.

Sigh, at least she's consistent. Consistent in her refusal to see wrong in vollkan. He does exactly the same thing I did that whole page, except that you only target me. Pay attention to this, as this should cause red flags in some people's scumdars. Talk is action in this game, it's the only action we have. Any posts, be they short or long, provide some sort of information. And obviously I didn't fail to defend myself, as some people's opinions have changed of me. Granted, they changed back, but that's beside the point.

You completely miss the point. I assume Mizzy is referring to Page 16, focussing on my critique of your attacks on Jdodge.

I'll run through the discussion on that issue to show you why your side was just "banter":
Kab votes JDodge for apparently proving that he is not paying attention.
Vollkan deconstructs the reasoning Kab is using and shows it rests on two invalid assumptions (Numbers 2 and 3 of the list)
Kab asks me whether I want him to prove that scum don't read threads, or to examine the likelihood of other roles reading threads.
Voll tells him that both are needed but neither suffices.
Kab says "If neither is sufficient, then what good would my providing answers do? "
I explain in detail exactly how this works.
Kab makes a theory-based "Scum will" argument.
I show how empty this is by refuting it with an alternative.
Kab then ignores the effect of what I just did, by saying that his is "entirely possible"
I acknowledge it is "entirely possible", but maintain my original point - that he has proven nothing.
Kab then dodges my point again, by flipping the onus of proof and asking me to prove why a townie might not read, saying I dodged his "main question".
I point out that he never asked me such a question, but I answered it anyway: reasonable error.
Kab again maintains his flipped onus and says:

I said it was more likely a scum would do it than a townie, so I assumed that you would, in refuting it, tell me why a townie would do such a thing.

Effectively: "I made an assertion, so I assumed you would prove it wrong". Then he goes on to try and slither out of things by throwing everything back onto belief. Then he reiterates that JDodge abused his post, ignoring everything I had been saying.

I then tell him this: that he is flipping the onus, that he's appealing to beliefs and that he's making conspiracies. The same point I had been making again and again which he has been dodging.

Then he asks me how the hell is he meant to prove what JDodge did. And he asks me how I can say I don't believe anything when I am taking a side.

I then tell Kab, again, that the onus is on him to justify his assertion. And I explain the obvious: That I am neutral in regards to JDodge's alignment on this point, but that I strongly dispute Kab's "case".

Kab then makes another appeal to personal beliefs, saying that he sees it as scummy and that I can choose not to. Then he throws up a bullshit reference to statistics (which he's still failed to provide ) and says JDodge is not the type to make a mistake like that. Again, all assertions, no evidence and he dodges the thrust of my argument.

I point out his appeals to beliefs, that he now owes us meta and stats and that JDodge is probably human.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In short, what Kab says is just empty words - he's posting

around

my argument by trying to flip the onus onto me, and appeal to beliefs, and so on. All of this has the effect of trying to escape from having to justify himself.

Finally, @Kab: I can haz statiztix?

[vollkan]

Vollkan, I've already said that it's an obvious thought process. Scum have reasons not to read the thread, even if that is one out of one hundred scum that don't read thread, that is still more than townies who don't read thread.

Scum have just as many valid reasons to read the thread as carefully as possible than they do to skim through. You've proven nothing.

I assume that by "read the thread" you mean pay ultra-close attention to detail.

Since you have failed to prove either of your assertions ("that scum don't read" and "that town do") the rest of this post is bullshit.

Mizzy once again attacks my posts, reducing the so called fluff. Most of said fluff that she crossed out is directed at her and so she declares it to be fluff. Awesome. unvote, vote: Mizzy.

And again, he fires off at another target

Let me review the 'fluff':

Sigh, at least she's consistent. Consistent in her refusal to see wrong in vollkan.

Bullshit. She's been critical of the arguments against me, but she's hardly canonised me.

Pay attention to this, as this should cause red flags in some people's scumdars.

Bullshit. What she said was true, so you are just calling her scummy here with no basis, other than your assertion of disagreement.

Granted, they changed back, but that's beside the point.

I'm not sure this bit is actually fluff. The fact people changed back just reflects how your play is being viewed, which is important.

You are very selective in what you bring to the table.

Assertion.

I also believe you are not voting me. Are you noncomittal as well? We should make a club.

Not fluff. She had voted you though. YOU AREN'T READING THE THREAD!! The stuff about her being noncommital is meaningless swiping.

...rather than try to read your mind and guess which parts are insubstantial, so that I may better give information.

You're just tagging on an obnoxious ending.

You do not like them and therefore carry a certain view about them even before you hear about them, and it seems to me that it is likely that you wouldn't listen to the greatest scumtell in the world.

Baseless conjecture. You're just blindly pushing against her now.

Whiny, according to dictionary.com is complaining, fretful, cranky.
...
I take what you accused me of, repeated it so anyone who hadn't seen your accusations might know what I was referring to, and then refuted it. That's not complaining, that's going about refuting your argument in a logical and organized fashion. I am however cranky, but wouldn't you be too if no one is believing you?
And I can't think of something clever to say about not being fretful, but, eh, I'm not. That about sums it up.

Thankyou for that :roll Well, I think the term 'whiney' is quite appropriate, but that's besides the point. Why do you need to go to such lengths to reject the word 'whiney;?

~~~~~~~~~~~~
To describe Kab's argument against Mizzy as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental.

[vollkan]

The limerick for NabNab was shite,
Day 2 had a very quick night,
So Kab wasn't scum,
His attacks were still dumb,
But in the end I wasn't right.

Pale imitations must die - mod

[vollkan]

I'm thinking we should eventually no-lynch, and force the scum to kill someone else, removing a potential suspect. If we lynch incorrectly today, we lose, so we might as well get the scum to get rid of someone for us before we try.

Well, it opened at 9:3 - so we are now at 5:3. A mislynch will result in a loss. No lynch is a sensible option in these circumstances.

[vollkan]

Vote: No Lynch

[vollkan]

No Lynch is the best option for us today. We will then open up tomorrow with more information. Prolonging discussion today will not be of any substantial help (at best) and will potentially give the scum more of a lead regarding who to NK.

[vollkan]

No Lynch is the best option for us today. We will then open up tomorrow with more information. Prolonging discussion today will not be of any substantial help (at best) and will potentially give the scum more of a lead regarding who to NK.

*sigh* I just feel like it's giving up, I guess. But you're right.

Vote: No Lynch

It's not giving up - it's recognising that there is no advantage gained from stalling a No Lynch.

[vollkan]

we can talk at night too

So, who constitutes "we" then?

[vollkan]

Good game guys. I enjoyed this one and was sad to go.