Seemingly Normal Mafia (Over)

[RichardGHP]

Mod-Edit Votecount 1-3

magnus_orion - 5

(Kairyuu, Jack, danakillsu, farside22, Primate)

Farside22 - 2

(bv310, magnus_orion)

Jack - 1

(Haschel Cedricson)

Haschel Cedricson - 1

(Flareonage)

Flareonage - 1

(Kyle99)

TheLonging - 1

(RichardGHP)

Primate - 1

(ElectricBadger)

Not Voting - 7

(Kise, DocPotter, Anon, Toonfighter, DeeJayCee, Nul, Seacore)

With 20 alive, it takes 11 to lynch.

Still to confirm:
Anon

V/LA:
TheLonging (exams)

---

vote: magnus_orion

.

Wagons are 50% off for today only! Hop on!

[magnus_orion]

Yeah, I realize that he's going to give his opinion on it anyway, but I feel asking prevents a tired conversation of people accusing me being self-contradictory, when asking questions isn't really the point, its moving the conversation on. As to whether the questions are non-rhetorical, I feel the "what?" is more an accusation of ridiculousness than an actual question. The other questions were similar.

Tell me what part of my post is invalid?

People have to make invalid points to be scum? News to me.
I don't see anything really invalid in the post.

LAL is something I rather heavily disagree with, because there are plenty of pro-town reasons to lie, usually most involve lies that you reveal you were lying, as opposed to being found out.
OMGUS is similarly ridiculous. I gave a reason that was independent of you voting me. If I hadn't then, yes, it is a scum-tell, however, if that is not the case, then the OMGUS accusation shouldn't give you a shield from ever being attacked by someone you are voting.

[TheLonging]

vote: magnus_orion

.

Wagons are 50% off for today only! Hop on!

That's a bad reason to vote.

Anyways since I missed 3 pages since I last posted, I guess I'll read them over later (when I can get back on the laptop)

[RichardGHP]

BTW, I am V/LA as of now. Back Sunday.

[Toon Fighter]

That was weird, Richard. You just voted for magnus for him being in a bandwagon, and after TheLonging said that you said you were V/LA. Coincidence? I think not.

FoS: RichardGHP

magnus_orion also feels scummy, but not much. I believe that post 40 by Primate had some reason behind it, based on his role, but that theory is unconfirmable right now.

[farside22]

OMGUS is similarly ridiculous. I gave a reason that was independent of you voting me. If I hadn't then, yes, it is a scum-tell, however, if that is not the case, then the OMGUS accusation shouldn't give you a shield from ever being attacked by someone you are voting.

Oh really lets see that reason again

Farside's post doesn't show an attempt to continue a conversation with me in order to gain evidence to further gauge my alignment. Instead, its written with a purpose to convince other people to follow his ideas.

Town should be trying to ask me questions at this point, or at least trying to get me to talk more, scum will be trying to push town skepticism toward suspicion by making drawn out explanations, but not asking questions. (well, he does ask questions, but they serve rhetorical purpose, not inquisitive)

Yest Jack says this:

Vote:magnus_orion

Your job to convince me I'm wrong.

Read post 68 for primate

looks for questions and finds none or anything engaging. But you picked me who shows good cause on a vote and reasoning and it's not OMGUS.
Please your excuses are terrible.

[farside22]

Sorry for the double post but forgot to add onto this

I gave a reason that was independent of you voting me

Your vote was saying I wasn't asking question which I proved I did ask questions nor was I looking to engage with you. None which is true so yes your "case" is clearly OMGUS.

[Seacore]

Sigh, so much reading to do, I'll get to it over the weekend.

[magnus_orion]

jack never told me whether he thought I was scum or not. I suspect that he is merely trying to prove a point while withholding judgement on my alignment, (or leans scummy on me). However, that's still irrelevant, since Jack did not make an attempt to try and convince others of his opinion, so there's no real scum motivation behind it, just not fulfilling the town motivation. I wasn't lying when I said I assume that people are town unless I think I have reason to suspect otherwise. So despite him not fulfilling what I consider to be the standard town motivation (not necessarily saying its a bad way of going about it), he's not trying to push other people to accept his positions, so I'm not going to accuse him of being scum.

On primate, his post was similarly constructed without the intent to convince others.

And before this becomes an issue, I should say I meant "game" not "games" for when I said I could provide examples of this scumtell working. The "s" was a typo.

Dattebayo

[farside22]

I so disagree with your logic to the nth degree. I can't begin to tell you the number of scum I found who just vote to blend in and make no ways then actually try and make a case because it's easier.
The rest of your point is no one but scum build cases which is udder BS.

[farside22]

On primate, his post was similarly constructed without the intent to convince others.

Add backtracking with no reason on a point to the scum list against magnus.

or
DIE SCUM DIE.

[ElectricBadger]

Jack did not make an attempt to try and convince others of his opinion, so there's no real scum motivation behind it, just not fulfilling the town motivation. ...he's not trying to push other people to accept his positions, so I'm not going to accuse him of being scum.
...
On primate, his post was similarly constructed without the intent to convince others.

Could you explain what you mean by "convince others of his opinion"? How does that differ from giving a reasoned vote with evidence? If farside called explicitly for more votes I missed it; Richard on the other hand did exactly that without eliciting any comment.

[farside22]

Jack did not make an attempt to try and convince others of his opinion, so there's no real scum motivation behind it, just not fulfilling the town motivation. ...he's not trying to push other people to accept his positions, so I'm not going to accuse him of being scum.
...
On primate, his post was similarly constructed without the intent to convince others.

Could you explain what you mean by "convince others of his opinion"? How does that differ from giving a reasoned vote with evidence? If farside called explicitly for more votes I missed it; Richard on the other hand did exactly that without eliciting any comment.

PFFT it's garbage. I presented a case he can't defend so he is attacking me for that case. This way he doesn't have to respond to the case and sweep it under like it's nothing at all.
His attacks against EB senseless drivel.
Attacks against farside OMGUS, backtracking nonsense.

[magnus_orion]

Keep hitting that strawman. I didn't say nobody except scum make cases. That's like saying nobody except scum will lie. However, I think that scum would be more likely make cases this early in the game that do not have systems for attempting to continue conversation to gather more evidence. Its simply too early, there is simply too little information, for you not to want to try to gain more and make sure your right.

As to your other point, its not really relevant, because just because my point is scum like to try to convince town doesn't mean that scum don't also try to avoid making claims. Some scum behave differently than others. It would be silly to layout a single criteria and say that every scum you run into will behave exactly like this.

And yes, I'm used to the backpedaling attack (changing one's mind is not a scumtell, how could anyone think that is beyond me), but I fail to see how it applies to that quote... Maybe I missed something? That was literally what I thought when I read the post. And you specifically told me to address primate's post in your post. How is that backtracking without a reason?

dattebayo

[magnus_orion]

Jack did not make an attempt to try and convince others of his opinion, so there's no real scum motivation behind it, just not fulfilling the town motivation. ...he's not trying to push other people to accept his positions, so I'm not going to accuse him of being scum.
...
On primate, his post was similarly constructed without the intent to convince others.

Could you explain what you mean by "convince others of his opinion"? How does that differ from giving a reasoned vote with evidence? If farside called explicitly for more votes I missed it; Richard on the other hand did exactly that without eliciting any comment.

PFFT it's garbage. I presented a case he can't defend so he is attacking me for that case. This way he doesn't have to respond to the case and sweep it under like it's nothing at all.
His attacks against EB senseless drivel.
Attacks against farside OMGUS, backtracking nonsense.

Richard isn't trying to convince people, he's just calling for more people...

At this stage, town want more information, so, weather they realize it or not, they'll be more likely to ask questions of their suspect than just post everything they've done and explain why its scummy.

As for not defending against your case, farside, your argument is easy to refute, if you really care that much
Your argument goes something like this, no?
1. Magnus made actions that are illogical or unusual (most of your post was spent illustrating this point)
2. All illogical or unusual actions are scummy (implicit)
3. Magnus made actions that are scummy.

I take issue with 2.
Since when does unusual imply scummy? Such a necessary premise in your argument is completely unfounded. There is no incentive for scum to behave in an unusual manner. In fact, one could argue that the entire motivation is for scum to attempt to act as normal as possible.

Dattebayo

[Kise]

Sigh, so much reading to do

4 pages..?

I actually can't believe RVS ended this suddenly in a large theme. With that said, I'd like to let all my fans know that I'll be weighing in at high noon tomorruh.

....

[farside22]

Keep hitting that strawman. I didn't say nobody except scum make cases. That's like saying nobody except scum will lie. However, I think that scum would be more likely make cases this early in the game that do not have systems for attempting to continue conversation to gather more evidence. Its simply too early, there is simply too little information, for you not to want to try to gain more and make sure your right.

Right because people are mindless zombies that doent' know how to read a thread and make there own assement on a player. (sarcasm in case you missed it)
Lets see you makes a comment and fought with EB, it's page 4 where most players are doing RVS or jokes and then we have the players who vote without commenting that look like gliding under the radar types that are something to be aware of. We also have player player not confirmed so far.
Mostly it's you who has made multiple sins of scumminess.
So yes in four pages you are the best looking person as scum so far.
Counter point?

As to your other point, its not really relevant, because just because my point is scum like to try to convince town doesn't mean that scum don't also try to avoid making claims. Some scum behave differently than others. It would be silly to layout a single criteria and say that every scum you run into will behave exactly like this.

But its' that exactly you point against me so far an your so called "case" hypocrite much?

Do you find so far a point you made that was valid against me and why?
You pointed to EB saying gut with reasoning and now this time me with nothing more then hey scum act like this and just now you comment I quoted is completely hypocritical in leu of it all.
So again what is your case?

[Jack]

unvote:magnus,vote:doc_potter

You posted in our other game, but not this one...

[farside22]

I take issue with 2.
Since when does unusual imply scummy? Such a necessary premise in your argument is completely unfounded. There is no incentive for scum to behave in an unusual manner. In fact, one could argue that the entire motivation is for scum to attempt to act as normal as possible.

Your going to need quotes for me to understand which one is 1, 2 or 3.
I didn't number it so I dont' know which point you consider illogical or unusual actions.

[farside22]

The following players have not posted in this game:

DocPotter
Kairyuu - v/la till friday
Anon - C
DeeJayCee
Nul


My search looking a players profiles seems to be on the fritz but I notice kairyuu in another game saying he was on v/la.

Jack did you notice any other player who has been online or around since the game started?

[Flareonage]

I've seen Doc Potter and DeeJayCee online

[farside22]

Here is a point about some players that just vote and add nothing to the convo to slide under the radar. In regards to magnus comment here:

However, I think that scum would be more likely make cases this early in the game that do not have systems for attempting to continue conversation to gather more evidence

flare as scum


kyle as scum


zwet as scum

These are the worst of the worst (no offense to flare) K7 personal as a mod has me have a post or die rule along with no crap clause because how much he lurked and played so far under the radar it was rediculous.


Also I don't see how I'm calling people to lynch you or vote for you based on my orginal case so how about some proof on that.

[Flareonage]

Haha, I completely blew that game. I suck more as scum then I do as town

[Jack]

I've seen Doc Potter and DeeJayCee online

Doc just posted in another game

[magnus_orion]

I'm confused. Farside, do you believe that every single scum behaves the same exact way? In other words, do you believe that there is no scum tell that can apply to some behaviors of scum, and not others?

For example, its scummy to active lurk. Its also scummy to try and lynch a non-counter claimed cop (which involves posting content)

Do you think one of these actions isn't scummy, considering the fact that they are mutually exclusive?

Your going to need quotes for me to understand which one is 1, 2 or 3.
I didn't number it so I dont' know which point you consider illogical or unusual actions.

That was an application of proper argument and logic to your case. Generally an argument is premises that support a conclusion

Everything you posted was evidence for (1)
And then you reached the conclusion (3)
To get from (1) to (3) you need an implicit premise (2) which allows for the argument to work.
You never actually said (2). You threw up a bunch of stuff I did, and declared it to be scummy.
You never gave a reason why the actions I committed were scummy.
To put it in the simplest possible terms:

magnus is making absolutely no sense with his attack on EB. He's calling EB scum for either post 40 which I took as a joke or because of the primate theory which he's seems to think it's something more.
vote: Magnus

I'm questioning the premise that if you can prove "magnus is making no sense" then it follows "magnus is scum"

While even if I agree I was making little to no sense, I contend that that still doesn't make me scum.

Dattebayo