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

[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.

[kabenon007]

If neither is sufficient, then what good would my providing answers do?

[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.

[kabenon007]

Well, scum don't have to read thread because they know who the scum are, and therefore do not have to search the thread for information as to who they need to investigate. They can just pick and choose and make up crap to instigate things against townies, or better yet just allow townies to kill each other off. So scum can save themselves time by not reading useless information. And I see no reason that any other role would not read the thread.

[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.

[kabenon007]

Why? Isn't it entirely possible (and more likely, for that matter) for a scum to not pay attention than a townie, especially if they are in the middle of an attack on someone?

[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.

[kabenon007]

But why would a townie do such things? You dodged my main question there, vollkan.

[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.

[kabenon007]

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. You may just be skeptic, that's all. JDodge either made a mistake or mis-read the thread, this is true. 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. 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.

[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.

[kabenon007]

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 believing anything. I am being, as you said, skeptical.

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.

[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.

[kabenon007]

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

[Mizzy]

Well, scum don't have to read thread because they know who the scum are, and therefore do not have to search the thread for information as to who they need to investigate. They can just pick and choose and make up crap to instigate things against townies, or better yet just allow townies to kill each other off. So scum can save themselves time by not reading useless information. And I see no reason that any other role would not read the thread.

If your opinions on scum were true, scum would win a lot less than they do. They blend in as town by knowing how the town acts in a specific game. That means reading. It's when a scum fails that blending in that we find them.

Regarding your perceptions of scum - JDodge and volkan don't fit this at all...JD hasn't made up crap from what I can tell, and neither has volkan. And if what Guardian's hint about what he thinks of me is indicative of anything, I'm, being grouped with them, and I certainly don't fit this, either.

And you do realize that your play has come off as "instigating things against townies" that are "made up crap" right?

@Guardian

: Before you judge my alignment, I suggest you look at the voting history and maybe try asking me questions/talking to me, first. Just accepting Kab's views on me and anyone you haven't spoken to is the lazy way out.

[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.

[kabenon007]

You misunderstood. I can't post now about it, I have class, but when I return, there shall be some clarification. You misunderstood something that has become a point of contention that I believe can alleviate some stress here.

[Mizzy]

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

Can we see some statistics that you didn't pull out of your ass to back up the claim that scum read less often than townies? Can you provide proof that said person making mistakes is because their of their alignment and lack of reading the thread and not due to any other factor such as level of business or because of an honest mistake?

If you can make a valid case of this, I will listen to you. However, as it stands right now, you're falling into your own opinion of scum in the sense that this is a crap case aimed at who I feel are townies with the intention of causing a distraction.

In fact, this bullshit case is such a distraction that I can't imagine a kabtown would be doing such a thing. He'd be trying to validly scumhunt, not pull random "facts" out of thin air that are actually groundless opinions that are most likely based on his own tendencies of playing scum himself...in which case, there is proof in this thread (his making errors due to mis-reading, whether intentionally or unintentionally) that fit him square into his own case for scum.

I do not feel that a townie would be playing the way kab is, and I have had suspicions about him for a long time now.

Vote: kabenon007

If he can provide a VALID case against JD and volkan, then I will not only consider taking my vote off of him, but I will most likely listen to him a bit. I, however, don't think he's capable of doing such a thing.

[JDodge]

OK then, it is out of context. This is what I get for posting late at night when I'm not really paying attention in the first place. Replace that first part (regarding vollkan) with "then what do you call the big argument with vollkan"?

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

[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)?

[Incognito]

Woah. I'm not exactly ready for kabenon to be at L-1. I'd rather kabenon follow up with this:

You misunderstood. I can't post now about it, I have class, but when I return, there shall be some clarification. You misunderstood something that has become a point of contention that I believe can alleviate some stress here.

before having him that close to lynch.

Damn... You guys posted a lot while I slept. I have to catch up on what happened last night.

[Incognito]

Oh I meant to

unvote

.

[Guardian]

Good unvote. The Kab wagon seems really misguided to me. Again, re-read needed. Maybe now...

[Mizzy]

Woah. I'm not exactly ready for kabenon to be at L-1. I'd rather kabenon follow up with this:

You misunderstood. I can't post now about it, I have class, but when I return, there shall be some clarification. You misunderstood something that has become a point of contention that I believe can alleviate some stress here.

before having him that close to lynch.

Damn... You guys posted a lot while I slept. I have to catch up on what happened last night.

I doubt he'd get hammered because the folks that haven't voted him seem to think he's sincere...otherwise I would not have put him at -1L. I wanted some pressure on him to respond well to what I've said and what others have said...I'm sick of his wishy-washy responses.

[Incognito]

I doubt he'd get hammered because the folks that haven't voted him seem to think he's sincere...otherwise I would not have put him at -1L. I wanted some pressure on him to respond well to what I've said and what others have said...I'm sick of his wishy-washy responses.

While I agree with you for the most part, I don't think L-1 is the right way to go about it at this time. kabenon promised that he would follow up with content and while the likelihood of someone hammering him while he's at that position is unlikely (especially if he's scum), I'd rather not take that chance. I'm still extremely interested in seeing what Xtoxm has to say about the game so far, and I still dislike Adel's posts in this game. I feel like she's almost getting a free ride while other people scrutinize each other or defend her actions.