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

[Mizzy]

Yes... and that isn't putting her opinion out there...

The fact that you missed two words in a sentence when analyzing it isn't opinion, it's fact...hence starting this with "the fact that."

[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

[Phate]

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

[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.

[kabenon007]

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.

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?

[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)

[kabenon007]

Meta is in my opinion not a strong tell, and therefore isn't a strong accusation. If you took it to be strong, that's your priority. You can do what you like.

[vollkan]

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

[kabenon007]

Not really. I just said it because while it did not condemn you, it certainly did not help you. I find meta to be a good way to maybe begin a search, but not for a full fledged attack.

[Mizzy]

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.

[kabenon007]

What do you mean I cheapened it?

[Mizzy]

What do you mean I cheapened it?

Have you not been paying attention at all? I'm not going to answer this because it's already been said. Go read.

[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.

[kabenon007]

Okay, but with a very townie attitude like yours, one which everyone almost automatically believes, any discrepencies (sp?) I find I will point out, and I think are therefore arguable.

[vollkan]

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

[Adel]

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

[vollkan]

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

Wrong game methinks.

[kabenon007]

It is a small piece, yes, I believe that.

[NabakovNabakov]

I'm very sorry for my total non-participation. I haven't had a lot of time for Mafia lately, and I dedicated nearly all that to a spectacular failure in Big Love. (Plus, Page 9 scared the shit out of me).

@Adel: Stop it.

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

Fair enough.

It was remarkably frustrating watching you dance about the issue of anti-town vs. scummy. Had I been participating at the time, I would have pounced immediately.

"Anti-town" is a very unwieldy phrase. When compared to "scum", it is quite difficult to type. Now, I realize that sometimes it can be worth the effort to type "anti-town", when you are making a purely tactical evaluation for example. "Anti-town" and "pro-town" are used simply to define actions which may or may not hurt the town. "Scum" and "town" are used to explain the intentions behind those actions. I am careful about these distinctions, and it appears that you are too.

Now here's the thing. You constantly call Adel's actions anti-town. That's fine, depending on your perspective, they probably are. You also voted Adel, putting her at L-2.

To me, those two don't gel. Usually, there's an intermediate step where you call the person scum. You wisely avioded that step because you realized Adel was only acting anti-town, not scummy. However, that doesn't mean you're still not going to twist your ankle in the missing step. 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.

On topic, I think something like this was what JDodge was driving at when he asked. "What inclines you to believe she's scum now?" This isn't a case where you get to define your own terms. If you want to answer his question straight-up, you have to use his, "scum" and (by extension), "town". Maybe I missed it, but in your many walls of text, we got no definite evaluation on Adel's

allignment

. However, you could always provide us with one now.

I'll be back with opinions on more recent stuff later.

[Adel]

I totally adore NabNab.

[Adel]

unvote

in expectation of fallout from NabNab.

[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.

[NabakovNabakov]

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.

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.

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.

[Oman]

Sir Tornado and Primate have not picked up their prods. Everyone else has. I will be replacing Sir Tornado and Primate ASAP

[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.