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

[Incognito]

unvote

in expectation of fallout from NabNab.

Adel, what do you mean by this?

[Adel]

unvote

in expectation of fallout from NabNab.

Adel, what do you mean by this?

NabNab is about to fuck things up. Everything will be different.

[NabakovNabakov]

@Adel: Seriously, now.

Policy lynching, in my understanding, is lynching because townies should not do something at all, no questions asked

But here's the crux. Did you ask any questions of Adel before voting her?

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?

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?

[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.

[NabakovNabakov]

LAL is a lynching policy. Anything can be grounds for a policy lynch.

Before we go further with this, I want to make absolutely sure the terms are clear.

This is my conception of the thought process which led you to beleive Adel was scum:

1) Scumclaiming will never benefit the town.
2) This is true because my powers of logical reasoning tell me it is.
3) Because scumclaiming is anti-town, no townie should do it
4) Adel, who has scumclaimed, is therefore scum

Feel free to suggest any alterations, big or small.

[vollkan]

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

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

[NabakovNabakov]

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

[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?

[NabakovNabakov]

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

Because a perfectly well meaning townie could be completely and totally wrong. The distinction between anti-town and scum is such an important one because it takes into account

human error

.

People are going to make mistakes. They're going to make choices you disagree with or are just plain poor, and they're going to do it in good conscience. That has to be accounted for.

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?

[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?"

[NabakovNabakov]

"I might reasonably do that as town".

Change "I" to "Somebody", and you have my perspective. That's why I think you're too harsh.

But too harsh =/= scum, even when there's a meta on it.

Where's everybody else?

[Oman]

The "Probably Time To Do One Of These" Votecount

In decending order of Mob Hatred:

kabenon007 (3): Jdodge, Phate, Vollkan

Adel (2): Incognito, Mizzy
Vollkan (1): kabenon007


Not Voting (4): People not mentioned above.
10 alive, 6 will lynch.

[Mizzy]

"I might reasonably do that as town".

Change "I" to "Somebody", and you have my perspective. That's why I think you're too harsh.

But too harsh =/= scum, even when there's a meta on it.

Where's everybody else?

I'm here, just listening, and checking out the meta information you found. I don't personally like meta because it's often times unreliable, but it does make an interesting read sometimes.

I feel volkan's answers have been sufficient and don't find his actions scummy at this time.

[JDodge]

"I might reasonably do that as town".

Change "I" to "Somebody", and you have my perspective. That's why I think you're too harsh.

But too harsh =/= scum, even when there's a meta on it.

Where's everybody else?

Watching the fireworks, waiting for kabenon's lynch

[Mizzy]

I do want to point out that the Volkan <--> Nab exchange has allowed kab to slink to the shadows once more and I'd like to hear more from him.

Unvote

because after reading the entire exchange between JDodge and Volkan again, I find myself wondering if Adel would be so blatantly scummy if she were actually scum. Considering that I've just smacked myself in the kisser with a WIFOM argument (I hate me) I can't keep a vote on her and sleep at night for the moment.

Not that I can sleep anyway, but you know.

[kabenon007]

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.

[Oman]

Guardian replaces Sir Tornado

[Guardian]

Hey guys . I like, like, most of the people playing, and Oman, and daytalking = yaus, so here I am.

Will read in the next few days (or hours ).

[Guardian]

Okay, or minutes >_>.

I read pretty quickly, going to try and re-read in depth shortly. First thoughts:

Daytalking seems cool, and I think can be effective, but not to the extent that it detracts from the game. It seems to help scum more than town, town can use it in a couple of ways tho. Plan actions with someone you really think is town, pick someone's brain who might not want to reveal it publicly... If there is more than that, bring it up, we have no advantage here besides daytalking, so we want to use that. I feel that there hasn't been enough discussion about *how* to use daytalk.

For example, I don't see how interrogating someone privately is better than publicly, and many seem to have implied that. I once daytalked with scum (Yosarian2 ) over AIM, even, and I'm not sure how effective that was. I thought he was scum, but I thought so before and after the daytalk.

If anyone wants to daytalk with me, shoot me a PM and we can make a quickboard topic thing, and see where it goes -- I find them much easier to read than PM-chains. I haven't been on AIM a lot recently, and I'm not going to change that for this game. Post in thread is as important if not more than daytalk though :\.



About the players:

Adel, I'm really unsure about. Seriously "lynch my buddy" or whatever? I'm not sure how sparking discussion in that manner is pro-town. "Add a godfather and a cop"? Changing setup midgame just seems really really odd to me. I agree that we are in a tough spot (we have only 1 mislynch available to us, or we lose, and no powerroles), but chaning the setup midway seems unfair. Adel is crazy though (:.

I can see the case on kab. He hasn't explained his vote on vollkan particularly well, and doesn't seem to be reacting well to pressure. I'm not sure what is so bad about his lemmingness though, it doesn't seem to be a pattern for him, and doesn't seem particularly prevalent.

Phate, on the other hand, has been a lemming also, and hasn't attracted much if any attention for it. He has also been more of a lemming. Those two combined make me suspicious.

vote: Phate

. He also has kinda been lurkerish.

Adel and Phate would prob. be my top 2 atm. I definitely want a concentrated re-read on Adel. I can understand the reasons for wagons on Adel and on kab, so there's nothing I can point to particularly as "X is trying to railroad townies --> scum".


Kab, can you summarize in one post your thoughts on vollkan? Who else are you suspicious of?

Adel, sup with NabNab?

I'll re-read more in depth at sometime, maybe now, maybe a few days, depends. I'm going to try and look at people's stances on xyzzy and scot, and look to see if there are any players who bear collaborating with.

Right now, I'm not sure who I'm interested in having private convo with. I I think I'll shoot a PM to kab but that's it at the moment.

[kabenon007]

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.

[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.

[Guardian]

Vollkan, I don't even get a hi?

[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!

[Mizzy]

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.