Newbie 873 - Game Over.

[brother]

/confirm

[brother]

Excuse me for my short absence. It was my birthday a couple of days ago, so of course there was the visit to Disneyland, the family party, and all of that other fun stuff that comes with turning another year.

Honestly, I'm surprised why the votes aren't on dimaba. From the start he's been unnecessarily wordy, dragging out all of this unneeded gibberish and processing. His pattern is mostly, "

I am voting you, and here's why,

" to "

But let me consider this possibility,

" to "

Well, even so, my vote stays.

" A good example of this is in Post 41, when dimaba begins his accusation against McGriddle.

(the following is just my personal take on it; please take a look at the actual post)

---------- "

His vote was just as bad as Crimmy's. He found CSL scummy when he acted pro-Town.

"
---------- "

Oh, but I'll accept that he's just a new player...

"
---------- "

But, no, if he was Town he would've admitted being wrong. Vote stays.

"

Wordy,

wordy,

wordy

!!

Sure, considering all possibilities is a good thing, but when the actual process of it is plastered everywhere, it seems as if he's saying, "I am a Townie, looking for scum at every possible angle. Notice how logical and pro-Town I'm being."


Now, regarding the foilist13 bandwagon itself, here is Post 24 by dimaba:

I'll trust your judgement on that. I did get a feeling that we were rushing things, getting to a lynch with just 2 RL days of play.

unvote: foilist13

While he is still by far the most suspicious player for me, I don't see how it would do us any harm to wait a little longer. I assume by waiting longer with the lynch you're hoping to gain more information from people's reasoning?

Oogh, this post just

reeks

of scum. The blue text, along with the unvote, is basically him going for more Town appearances. But what confuses me moreso is the red text, where he says "foilist is by far the most suspicious player." The guy made

two

posts: one confirmation and one random vote. If there were somehow obvious scumtells in those two very appropriate posts, then I'd like to be enlightened. What's far more scummy than foilist's SE information and late confirmation, however, is dimaba's

jump on the bandwagon

,

*

his

retraction

of said bandwagon when, he claimed, foilest was the scummiest player, his rather apparent

attempts at Town appearances

, and his

wordiness

in a whole.

*If a player seems suspicious, then leave votes on them and

pressure

them. Even in the foilist bandwagon situation, where it was L-1, having let the votes stay for better reactions wouldn't necessarily have been risky, as everyone knew that if they hammered the quick-lynch, they would instantly be on the top of the suspects list.

Vote: dimaba

[brother]

I was always taught that when presenting argumentation it is important to show that you are aware of the other side of the issue. I think this is especially true in a game like this.

Let's stop right there. I truly wonder what sort of education you're getting if they teach you to present both sides of the argument. In persuasive essays, for instance, you never focus on the opposing side--you never focus on what they

could

be right about; it takes away the effect of being

persuasive

. In debates, you never say what the other is right about, just what you're right about. Think about presidential elections: Do you think they'll announce to the people, "They're right, but you should vote me?" Your thinking is flawed.

Sure I'm trying to look pro-town. Sure I'm looking for scum everywhere. Sure I'm trying to be logical and pro-town. And what's wrong with that? If my reasoning is sound and logical, what does it matter how I present it? If all my words aren't used to cover up false arguments, does it matter if I publicly consider all posibilities?

You're misunderstanding my argument. It is not a bad thing to

be

pro-Town or to

look

pro-Town--it is not a bad thing to be logical and deductive--but what

is

a bad (and, yes,

scummy

) thing is when those qualities are put on display: "

Look at me, everyone! I'm being so pro-Town! Don't consider me as scum!

" is the message I get out of your posts. Yes: scummy.

As for the second part of your post, what I found suspicious about foilist was his late confirmation despite being active on the forums. Nobody else had done anything scummy that I had recognised (I didn't recognise putting foilist at L-1 as a scumtell since I didn't know how frowned upon that was until a few posts later). Therefore, he was the scummiest player as far as I was concerned. I did realise it was a weak tell so I wasn't very committed to the vote. I also noticed that the deadline was so far away that I would have plenty of time to vote for him again if necessary. So I decided to trust the experience of the SE and be the one to unvote. That is why I unvoted even though I found him the most suspicious player.

Alright, fair enough. But I'd like to use this very paragraph to support the scumminess in wordy posts. It is generally accepted that those who talk too much are the ones that have something to hide. I don't care if you're always wordy in essays and such (in fact I have no reason to actually believe you), so I'll definitely keep your talkative style in my scumdar. Come on, now, haven't you ever seen Death Note? (<-- joke: for you can't-pick-up-jokes-on-interwebs types) Read your own paragraph above, and then read my edited version below. Which is less scummy?

As for the second part of your post, what I found suspicious about foilist was his late confirmation despite being active on the forums; nothing else was scummy that I recognized. After realizing the L-1 and the deadline, however, I retracted my vote to keep safe.

And I

would

like an answer to that, however ridiculous you may think it is.

[brother]

Conceding a point to the opposition is not poor debating at all. Why dispute or ignore something you know is true? No, better to mention it yourself and explain why you feel it is insignificant. I mentioned something he might try to use as an excuse and explained why I felt it wouldn't be good enough. That's not poor debating, that's just anticipating what the other might say and shooting it down in advance.

I feel like I need to stick you in a Mrs. Brady class; I can't believe I'm going so far just to prove

how to debate

, but, apparently, it's necessary. Let's say there is an argument between you and McGriddle; you're both convinced the other is mafia, and you need to persuade Town to vote with you. How do you do this? Certainly not by saying what's good about the other--not focusing on what they're right about but what they're wrong in, what's so scummy about them. Let's also say you're the cop, and you have a guilty on McGriddle. You want to get him lynched without having to claim, if possible, and if you even so much as hint to the others that he

might

be Town by acknowledging his rights, you lose the effect and purpose in all. What I'm arguing right now does not so much relate to your scumminess, but it's indeed good to know.

Oh I got your point alright, since you said pretty much the same in your earlier post... You seem to think that I'm scum just from the fact that I use more sentences to make the same point.

I would agree with you if I was trying hard to push

false arguments

on you, if I was trying to overwhelm you with words so you wouldn't notice the fallacies. But I haven't heard any comments on my actual reasoning yet. I'd like to debate the content of what I say, not wether I should take 3 or 30 lines to present it. As long as my actions match up with my appearance, I still don't see how a long post makes me scummy.

So what if I am trying to say "don't consider me as scum"? If I don't vote as scum and don't reason as scum, I don't see how it's wrong to make other people notice that.

I am not here to debate if your argument is valid against McGriddle or not, I am here to make an argument of my own against

you

. Your case against McGriddle may be justified, but I'm not concerned about it, to be honest. If you're scum, that doesn't mean that you make nonsense cases and false accusations; to be a good Mafia you need to sound convincing to the Town in what you say, so arguments that aren't justified won't get you anywhere anyway.

It seems I have to restate my argument

again

: You being so wordy is not the

primary

problem, it's the way you pattern your posts (in being so wordy) that make you seem like you're promoting your Towniness.

And, yes, that

is

a bad thing! If you can appear Town-like without having to make a show of it, if you can appear Town-like by just

being Town

, then that's good, but the way that you make it a presentation is where the scumminess kicks in.

"I think McGriddle is suspicious, and these are my reasons. However, I realise that I could be making mistakes and I want you to point them out to me."

This is basically the same thing as above. If you made mistakes, someone will point them out to you. You don't need to ask someone to point out your mistakes, in which doing so you

are

saying, "Notice how I consider all possibilities." If you have pro-Town attributes, don't point them out. They'll be noticed and acknowledged by others.

Second, I don't find one to be more scummy than the other...

Interesting. Okay, that's fine. I'd also like to ask everyone else the same question (regarding which of the two paragraphs is more scummy, if that). Cooperating and answering would be a big help. Also, dimaba, one more question for you: Who's more scummier in your mind, McGriddle or myself?