Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
mrfixij I didn't think the idea of random voting was to try to "land on scum", more to see what reactions you get- i.e. scum may react defensively to your vote even though it wasn't serious etc., which then makes you wonder why they are so defensive.
Perhaps a random self-vote isn't that constructive when you're town, especially because it makes others suspicious of you, but I hardly think it can be considered a hanging offence by itself.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
I find it hard to read scumminess/towniness into any of Ectomancer, mrfixij or vollkan based on their discussion alone, it all seemed fairly well argued. I did read it all, also
I am of the opinion that while certain things such as self-voting are in and of themselves harmless, if there is a convention of suspecting people who do it even if it is during the random voting phase it may still be beneficial for discussion. As with some other "obviously scummy" actions, if someone tries their luck by doing it, either out of newnewss i.e. not knowing the attention it will attract or to deliberately engineer a controversy then the town can put pressure on them. As with all pressure, this may lead to them cracking and giving away mafia tells or it may help the town identify their overzealous prosecutors with too weak a case, who in that case would be the likely mafia.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
I'm changing my random vote on springlullaby to a real one;
For, as Mana_Ku pointed out, self-voting then saying the following:
springlullaby wrote:
Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.vollkan wrote:
Hi springlullaby,
Unvote, Vote: vollkan
IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.
What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.
Vote Vollkan-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
I have to agree with this to a large extent.mykonian wrote:It wouldn't be my choice of a case. I don't think it should be yours. That's all.
I think this whole discussion to be weird. It is mostly about theory (the self vote, what is "gut") and there are only a few people actively posting. Personally, as noob, I'm quite scared by the huge posts, but what I get from them, doesn't seem to be worth the effort, as it doesn't tell me a lot about the game itself. From that, people suddenly find scum. That is why I vote.
In this discussion it's hard to distinguish an argumentative nature from excessive aggression (and even excessive aggression isn't a guarantee of scuminness).
Thus far I've entertained many different hypotheses e.g. the self-vote and ensuing discussion was one big gambit by vollkan or he was simply trying to bait people into attacking him irrationally to show up scum. He is/isn't in league with SpyreX. mrfixij is/isn't in league with Ectomancer etc. I don't particularly favour any however I've got a leaning against Ectomancer, especially in light of how orangepenguin and SpyreX represent the progression of his argument.
So I'm going toVote: Ectomancerwhich puts him at L-2. I wouldn't suggest anyone else votes for him without providing (very) strong justification at this point.
Also to springlullaby: your last post (114) still does not explain why you self-voted then voted for vollkan for doing the same.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Just to clarify so I understand: by this you mean keeping my vote on you past the joke phase and then changing my vote to Ectomancer? If so why do both of these votes suck exactly? I don't follow.springlullaby wrote:Vote: ortolan
Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks.
I already had that question addressed to you at the end of my post, and in the process of writing it I decided to change from FoSing Ectomancer to voting for him. Just because I decided there was enough of a case against him to vote for him doesn't mean I should deliberately omit what I wanted to ask you from my post. Would you prefer if I'd made another post especially for you?springlullaby wrote:
1. I already answered on the 'contradiction' thing, though it was mistakenly addressed to spyrex. Don't like the way the question addressing me is dangling at the end of that post, looks like scum changing vote but putting something at the end to signify that they aren't dropping former suspicions entirely to appear consistent.]
What's there not to understand about my vote against Ectomancer? I believe there is a mild case against him, but that this case is stronger than the one against SpyreX. And when you say I agree with SpyreX and OP, yes I think orangepenguin's summary shows Ectomancer's case against vollkan was relatively insubstantial but quite keenly pursued. Also the only reason I mentioned the L-2 was that I was effectively lynched in another game for putting someone on L-1. I feel if I draw attention to exactly how many votes are on someone (because sometimes the vote counts by the admin can be wrong) then this prevents people putting on the L-1 then lynching vote and being able to claim they were mistaken about the number of votes. It was as much for my own benefit as anyone else's, noting just how close to a lynch we were.springlullaby wrote:2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP? Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.
Saying what I did about my varying hypotheses was meant to relate to what I said about the theory discussion being relatively unhelpful in actually turning up scum. To support, this I started that all it had given me were various hypotheses, none of which have particularly more support than any other (but obviously, I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer). And you can hardly say my post was like that of a mere spectator, obviously it was at least substantive enough to draw a vote from springlullaby.mrfixij wrote:I'm confused to all hell as to WHAT exactly ort was saying in his vote post. You're basically saying that you have no read on Voll's affiliation with Spyre, have no read on my affiliation with Ecto, and have no opinion although you entertain the ideas of the starting discussion. While it's great to have you sitting on the sidelines as a spectator, I'd kindly like to ask you to step into the playing field and give aBITmore material than a bunch of non-reads.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Oops, sorry.
Unvote.Vote: Ectomancer
mrfixij, as I have already said, my post was intended to express that I have ultimately, unfortunately, gleaned little from the extensive and verbose theory discussion about who is scum in this particular game. If my post expressed this (that I had gleaned little), then this was partly the point. It also hardly seems contentless to me- it contains a vote for Ectomancer based on orangepenguin/spyrex's arguments, and it asks springlullaby for an explanation.
And what does "policy" in this context mean anyhow? You mean you have a policy of voting for those who you feel makes contentless posts? I didn't say my post was objectively "good", however I believe it expressed what I wanted it to express.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
So it's not just enough for me to cite others arguments, I have to put it in my owns words as well? I'll try my best, sorry if I'm still not convincing.
I'll be honest. I did read through the theory discussion before. Now I've had to read some of it again in order to express why exactly I'm voting for Ectomancer. Can I firstly take a leaf out of his book and go with "whatever argument you make use of, it's still ultimately coming from your gut instinct". I cite springlullaby's last post (144) as an example of this- her 2 points against me are basically entirely subjective: one is putting an additional question at the end of my post after voting, and the second is deferring to others' reasoning- if no-one agreed with anyone else in this game I don't see it going very far.
I also acknowledge the case against Ectomancer isn't particularly strong. It's possible he is townie and just likes indulging in lengthy theory discussions mid-game. I also see it as quite viable, however, that, as mafia, he tried to jump on you for the self-vote (as can often be done successfully in other games) then realised after your rebuttal that no-one else would support it, was drawn into a deep discussion of why he had reacted against it, and whether that sort of thing is good or bad in general (a discussion which he tried to curtail in post 99). My other reason is simply I have a slight leaning towards him over SpyreX, again call it gut if you will. Thus I wanted to tip him into the more likely to be lynched category. It's ironic that, as a side effect of extremely lengthy theory discussions to get "reads" on people, I find the progression of argument too convoluted for it to serve this purpose, and am forced to regress, in a way, to gut instincts.
Also, originally, I posted orangepenguin's summary in post 136 as a reason for voting for Ectomancer. Please explain what was wrong with it and why it was not worthy of citing as a reason for voting Ectomancer.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Unvote
Ok. I acknowledge the case isn't strong enough to keep a vote on him. Unfortunately this will probably just bring me under further suspicion as past experience has dictated. I blame your gambit, Vollk.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
The extremely convoluted debate means it is impossible to construct a good argument for someone being scummy in this particular game, as it is impossible to separate arguments purely about theory from posturing which has a particular purpose in the context of this game. Other people, being obliged to post something of content, are then drawn into trying to launch hard to justify cases in order to actually participate in the game, as there is simply little of use to go off in the discussion so far.
Thus I do not think the discussion has had much use for town. I'm not blaming Vollkan, but I am saying the debate he instigated has had little benefit for turning up scummy motives in this game.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
vollk, I don't really believe in your clear delineation of objectivity and subjectivity. And I'm really not convinced by links to fallacies. When you've seen enough apparently archetypal "fallacies" you realise several of them contradict one another and can be read into almost anything. Another reason why one might, on principle. regress to gut.
I have acknowledged there was insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I no longer see sufficient reasons for voting for him. Why, then, would I try to convince you of something I don't believe? That itself would be illogical and hardly town-ish. I had insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I have acknowledged this. Also, how can you possibly try to characterise my withdrawn vote as "slinking away and hoping no-one notices"? I openly drew attention to the fact that when I withdrew my vote it would likely simply lead to more suspicion placed on me, as it did in another game.WHY DID YOU VOTE ECTO?
This just looks like "I voted but have been called out and cannot justify myself so I will slink away and hope nobody notices
Well actually, I did already back down. Which in fact makes this whole point moot (straw man, etc.)Either find reasons for them, or back down.
That seems a pretty subjective claim to me again. For example, do you mean pro-town content i.e. content that is more likely to help town and turn up scum, or just content. I don't see how we're going to find out whether this discussion was in fact helpful for town until at least the end of this day (when we'll find out whether the lynch that stemmed from this discussion was a townie or scum), and probably not until even later than that, so I'll hold my judgement until then.Everybody else seems to managing very well (this game is actually VERY good for content).
You seem oblivious to the potential irony of this. You're exactly the sort of person who, as scum, would fill this category.Otherwise we run the risk of having strong, articulate scum being able to pull the wool over townie's eyes just by posting impressively.
Please justify why you are equivocating "paying no attention" with "playing scummy" (implied by your vote on me). I see no reason why scum would pay any less attention than town.This post just shows you are paying no attention.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Saying that I "hedged" my arguments then attempted to "slink away" seems to be exactly the sort of thing that falls into the category of being unrebuttable. It's a particular spin you're putting on my actions. While it is certainly a feasible hypothesis that I am scum and tried to distance myself from the responsibility for my vote from the get-go, I can only claim what it was- a poor voting choice. And people I feel often forget on the first day that, chances are, you're not going to catch scum, you're going to lynch a townie. Thus in some sense I feel people read more into votes than there is. Technically if you feel you've come to odds better than what your prior probability would be (20% or 30% in this game depending on whether there are 2 or 3 scum) at any point then a vote's probably justified. Of course, what your publicly announced justification for your vote is is a different matter. As I said, I had, at the time, a slight preference for Ectomancer. I was then asked to justify it, so tried. I believe there's a psychological phenomenon whereby if people believe something, irrespective of whether it has any factual basis, they will attempt to rationalise it by coming up with supporting arguments. I'm also of the belief that some people often go on hunches or even more sophisticated reasoning than that they actually announce to the town- because there's certain accepted conventions in mafia that irrationally make some ways of argument more "accepted" than others. One example is putting a vote on an existing bandwagon without what is felt as acceptable reasoning by others, as I did. Then if you stay on it, you're asked to give better reasoning. If you unvote, you're portrayed as distancing yourself from your initial vote. So it can often almost directly lead to your own lynch, just as for example self-voting can in other games (sometimes even if done during the random phase).Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Ok can I just say I'm going to be fairly busy so might be a bit erratic in replying for a while. Whatever you do however, do not lynch me without my further input following this post. Also forgive me if I don't reply to every point against me made by all 4-5 people.
Part of my defence:
Yep.Mykonian wrote:I have to agree with orto that the length of posts just blinds me from any tells.
You can make an argument for someone being scum for joining a bandwagon at any stage. "You started the bandwagon against him, therefore you're scum", "you were the second vote in the bandwagon, if that isn't scummy I don't know what is", "you were the third vote on the bandwagon- you were trying to join an already established bandwagon and hope you could ride it to the end"..."you hammered, you're getting lynched next". I worry that most people's case against me relies on very specific interpretations of what my goals were, which are no more privileged than any other interpretation. This is really no different from what I said in post 143:Ecto wrote:
Mine was a developing wagon. My opinion is that you may have been trying to reserve a 'safe' seat on the bus.
It's speculation about my motives rather than any coherent and internally consistent case for me being mafia.Thus far I've entertained many different hypotheses e.g. the self-vote and ensuing discussion was one big gambit by vollkan or he was simply trying to bait people into attacking him irrationally to show up scum. He is/isn't in league with SpyreX. mrfixij is/isn't in league with Ectomancer etc. I don't particularly favour any however I've got a leaning against Ectomancer, especially in light of how orangepenguin and SpyreX represent the progression of his argument.
I could say for example "vollkan's gambit was intended purely so he would have a device for continually launching suspicion on different people- firstly he could launch suspicion on those who called him on his self-vote, then he could launch suspicion on those who called the caller on his self-vote etc., basically a mafia's dream". However this is just an interpretation. It is ironic however that the people who attack me either aren't aware of or deliberately ignore the fact that what I am being attacked for- making a subjective determination, is exactly what they're doing in attacking me, they're just better at pretending they're not being subjective.
This is also very relevant to springlullaby's case against me:
(The statement I quoted was "Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks." and asked for an explanation for it)
No. Your statement was unclear, and did not make sense in the context of what came after it. I made one joke vote against you, then stipulated it had become a real vote. Then I changed my vote to Ectomancer. You did not offer any explanation of why my original vote on you sucked (apart from simply the fact that it was on you, maybe). And I was only "deliberately isolating" your statement in the most obvious sense i.e. quoting it without quoting what came after it, as I was simply replying to it (and it was NOT supported by what came after it).Are you deliberately isolating my statement from the rest of my post here? Here your quoting makes it appear as if I have voted you without reason, but the rest of that post you quoted states clearly why I think your votes sucked.
2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP?
Well, yes, I did say I agreed with them. I don't see this as being particularly revelatory however.
Firstly; you're the one that formulated that phrase. Secondly, you detected what you wanted into it. And finally I reiterate my point about citing other people's arguments. I understand if there is something wrong with it, if it shows that you haven't been following the argument etc. However you can't say both that it implies laziness and scumminess. Vollkan had the same problem with me citing other's arguments. If it straightforwardly means you're trying to diffuse responsibility then it would always seem to be a scumtell. In which case if I am scum I must be pretty dumb for using it (of course I am not suggesting I have not been dumb so far, but merely that it points no more to me being scum than townie). A far more effective scum strategy would seem to be lurking (*ahem*) and then just saying "hehe I don't find anyone scummy".Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.
I don't agree with vollkan suggesting my arguments are qualitatively different from springlullaby's, either
Sorry, what about her process of reasoning is objectively ascertainable? She is saying I could be scum for leaving a question dangling at the end of my post, then says she (again, subjectively) detects shedding of responsibility in my citing of others' arguments. These both seem to be about the most subjective justifications one could give. And furthermore I don't necessarily agree with your doctrine of arguments needing to be necessarily capable of being rebutted- it seems to amount to falsifiability, which while often paid lip service to in many sciences is hardly universally agreed on as a philosophical position, see for example Positivism or versions of Relativism to a scientific approach for contrast.What I am saying is that giving an inference with explanation is fundamentally different to saying "my gut says he is scum". Obviously, there is always subjectivity involved (eg. different people will weight things differently). The point is, though, that the reasons for suspicion should be objectively ascertainable, even if there is disagreement.
Going to spring's point as an example (BTW - I notice a typo in post 165. "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective" should read "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is objective"). I don't agree with her reason - her subjective weighting of one interpretation is one I don't agree with, but I can see her reasoning process.
"Gut" or "feeling" are wholly subjective. They don't refer to any reasoning process that leads to a conclusion. By definition, I cannot attack somebody's "gut" reasons, because there are no reasons. In the case of spring, however, I can see her process of thinking and, even if I do have a theory disagreement, the important point is that there are reasons for me to disagree with .
I suppose the litmus test for "subjective" / "objective" in the sense I am using those terms would be this: Is the argument capable of being rebutted?
It was intended merely as a hypothetical and not to imply any necessary connection between the two. And why would drawing a faint possible connection between you and Ecto lead to you being likely to be lynched tomorrow unless, of course, he turned out to be scum? Your post actually implies he would flip scum on a lynch. Why is that?mrfixij wrote: This is relevant to my interests because one: if you had your way with your vote, ecto would be on his way to getting lynched, and you meant in your post that there is SOME connection between me and him, which places me under suspicion tomorrow. Naturally, I don't want that, so I'd like you to explain yourself. Also, I don't like this because my vote is on Spyre, and if there were a pairing or antipairing between Spyre and Voll, I should find Voll suspicious, which at the moment I have no lean on him.
No. I am not. How could you interpret that from my post? Furthermore why would I say something so obviously scummy if I were scum? Which part of my post didn't you understand?mykonian wrote:
Orto, post 178 is from the start just plain unreadeble. I don't know how to say it in English, but the form doesn't make it clear. First sentence is good, but are you advocating that the first day you shouldn't try your best to lynch scum?
You can call it a nay-sayer vibe, or you can call it the truth (which it is). Ironically if I were to be lynched it would be vindicated.mrfixij wrote:Also, why is it that you seem to have a persistent nay-sayer vibe about you? It seems that the only opinion you're consistent with is that of scum-tells not being effective and the likeliness of lynching a towny. That seems scummy, and a future-justification of lynching a townie by accident.
Sorry if my post is too long or insufficiently cohesive, the site kept crashing due to exceeding bandwidth quote when I was writing it. Again; please don't lynch without my right of reply.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
I can be impulsive sometimes (can't we all). That is my response to your case. Sorry if it wasn't what you were hoping for.Ectomancer wrote:
Here's my problem. I dont get the impression that you unvoted because it was a poor voting choice. I get the impression that you are now saying it was a poor voting choice due to the flack you got over it from all sides. (something Im certain you didnt expect) Your case wasn't developed because you were trying to ride the coattails of others. Mine was a developing wagon. My opinion is that you may have been trying to reserve a 'safe' seat on the bus. You didn't start the wagon, thus avoiding too much attention, and you don't have to end it either, once again avoiding too much attention.ortolan wrote:While it is certainly a feasible hypothesis that I am scum and tried to distance myself from the responsibility for my vote from the get-go, I can only claim what it was- a poor voting choice.
The telling event here is your referencing orangepenguin as a source for your case, when he said himself that it wasn't one. Additionally, you had to climb over the posts where I demonstrated where his analysis fell short, or was just wrong. You didn't even talk about those points at all, or really any other point from anyone else either.
I'm also not satisified with you answer concerning the justification of your original vote. Telling us that you no longer believe it, therefor why would you explain something you don't believe is hogwash. You know why you did it back then, and current belief holds no bearing on a belief you supposedly once held.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Yes, we are masons. In case you're wondering my role pm specifically guarantees both our alignments (town). And yes, I'm aware I played very badly as mason and your point is noted OP.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
I would have mentioned it earlier to avoid wasting everyone's time (seeing as I was otherwise probably going to just get lynched anyway) but I had the vague hope someone might put on an obviously dodgy vote for me (as I did on Ectomancer, lol) which could be called into question when me/OP claimed.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Ok, it looks like I need to post something. I was a bit reluctant to contribute for two reasons: firstly my previous attempt to contribute, by voting Ecto, attracted attention for all the wrong reasons. Secondly now that the town "knows" that I am a mason, I am more wary about whom I place suspicion on because you "know" my comments are not scum-motivated.
I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target. As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour. That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.
By saying you would keep your vote on me "until somebody else really screws up" you were trying to hedge your argument in exactly the same way you criticised me for doing. You were implying you were only voting for me "because I had screwed up the most", rather than that I was actually scum. Also, assuming we are telling the truth about our mason claim, you were, in fact, asking for an explanation where one in the form you wanted didn't exist. I didn't have a good enough argument for voting Ectomancer, according to you, so this request was impossible to satisfy. This doesn't, however, entail that I am scum. There are many other possible explanations e.g. that a townie felt your convoluted discussion was not helping in the lynching of scum and decided to take a different approach to break the stalemate.And I thought Ecto suggesting that my questioning myself justified his questioning was bad! Now you are blaming my gambit for your absurdly vague play.
And I don't care that you unvoted - justify your initial vote.
WHY DID YOU VOTE ECTO?
This just looks like "I voted but have been called out and cannot justify myself so I will slink away and hope nobody notices"
Until you give an explanation (or somebody else really screws up),
Unvote, Vote: ortolan
Vote: vollkan
Sorry if I sound like I am reiterating a lot of what mykonian has said, I independently considered a case against vollkan before his most recent posts, but was reluctant to state it due to the circumstances.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Then I simply have a different playstyle to you- one which may rely more on gut. Why did this ever merit a vote then? Furthermore, there's a problem with this. It may be that in fact your playstyle is more effective at catching scum. However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.
There was more. This was an introduction to the case that I then launched against you. Did you just single out a statement to avoid relating it to it's context? I think we've "seen that before" this game...vollk wrote:
Unless you are trying to set a precedent for auto-lynches of me, there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me.Orto wrote: As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.
Another example of your double standards:vollk wrote:Springlullaby wrote:
Are you deliberately isolating my statement from the rest of my post here? Here your quoting makes it appear as if I have voted you without reason, but the rest of that post you quoted states clearly why I think your votes sucked.
I didn't pick up on this. Good find.
So here you say you don't take opposition to people opposing self-voting, but if they ask for *justification* for the act of self-voting, you do. You also repeatedly stress that you require people to give reasons for their opinions and votes. Thus, if someone did oppose self-voting, presumably you would require them to give reasons for this stance. If they gave these reasons, presumably they would be along the lines of mrfixij's response, that from a certain perspective self-voting can never help town as votes are intended to be used for pressure purposes and self-voting inherently voids this purpose. This amounts to "asking for justification for the act of self-voting", thus you'd now deem them scummy.As I have said repeatedly now, I don't take opposition to self-voting as a scumtell (that would be absurd). Ecto challenging my self-vote was not scummy in and of itself. What followed, and the reason I challenged his question requiring an explanation, was to see why he thought that self-voting needed justification. As I have said, it became apparent that his attack was all bark and no bite.
You essentially have three principles
1)If someone criticises self-voting this is not scummy
2)If someone asks for justification for not voting this is scummy (I find it ridiculous that you even try to draw some substantial distinction between these two positions in the first place)
3)Someone must give reasons for their argument
However if someone acts in accordance with principles 1 and 3 this implies 2, and thus it is impossible to both comply with rule 3 and criticise self-voting without appearing scummy.
Thus I feel your "principles of play", set up with much pomp are in reality a mere device- impossible to comply with, they allow you to springboard suspicions safe in the inherently-biased "groundwork" you have "laid out".
On that note, I would like you to define "scummy" in the sense you used it in your last post. It has multiple possible interpretations, including: being anti-town, acting in a way which benefits scum, acting in a way which implies you are scum. I would like you to clarify which meaning you're using it with exactly- are you still suggesting I am mafia this game despite being a claimed mason?-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Ugh, I just typed out a response and then closed the browser window.
Um no, the only reason I quoted only the second paragraph was to conserve space (which I will no longer worry about as it seems to merely leave me open to crummy attacks like this). I was responding to what you wrote in both the paragraphs jointly, and to suggest otherwise is outright deceptive (what I quoted doesn't even make sense without your previous remarks).vollkan wrote:
You've (again) cherry-picked one bit of my post out of context to attack me. Nothing I said at all addressed whether or not gut is scummy. I was specifically addressing whether or not logical posting is a town-tell. That's a completely different matter.Ortolan wrote:
Then I simply have a different playstyle to you- one which may rely more on gut. Why did this ever merit a vote then? Furthermore, there's a problem with this. It may be that in fact your playstyle is more effective at catching scum. However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.Vollkan wrote: But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.
What you actually said was:
Now I *CLEARLY* responded to all of this- discussing the inconsistencies in your request for "reasons" etc. so the suggestion I somehow cherry-picked and misrepresented your argument is rubbish.That's pretty much correct. What I would add, and I know that my saying this is loaded with WIFOM, is that I think the Achille's heel of logic-scum is in the assumptions as to reasonableness. As you say, all logic in this game depends on assumptions (see the last point I make to Orto below as a great example - my assumptions as to what is reasonable to expect are completely at odds with his). I guess this is the reason in part why I insist so much on reasons for suspicion - because I know firsthand that reducing things to the base assumption of "What makes the most reasonable hypothesis that this is a scummy action?" is probably a good way of breaking skilled scum. (Another reason I detest gut play - because it shirks explaining the basis for the assumptions)
But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.
No, actually, I am making an altogether different point. I am saying scum do not in fact play logically but rather benefit from maintaining a facade of doing so. If they in fact played logically, this would not benefit them as using arguments logically and consistently inherently benefits town. Instead there will be underlying inconsistencies in their logic and approach (in order to enable directing accusations where scum want them), they will merely attempt to conceal them.vollkan wrote:
*headdesk*Ortoloan wrote: However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.
This is precisely what I HAVE BEEN SAYING. Logical play is not a town-tell. I don't know why the hell you are acting like you've stumbled upon some fantastic revelation - I said as much myself that logical play can come from town and scum.
I gave two examples in my previous post... You claim to be a logical player but your "logic" has in fact not been consistently applied.Now, how about explaining to me why you "think" I have been exploiting my playstyle in this game? Because thus far, you've provided nothing but innuendo.
Haha! Nice try. Let's have another look at what you actually said:vollkan wrote:
*double headdesk*Ortoloan wrote: There was more. This was an introduction to the case that I then launched against you. Did you just single out a statement to avoid relating it to it's context? I think we've "seen that before" this game...
Yes, that was the introduction. But if you bothered paying ANY attention to my post you would see that I addressed each part of your argument.
There was more than that to justify a lynch of you. You just cut it off, as though this point was being made somehow independently of the rest. Furthermore you seem to be misinterpreting what I was saying here. I was not saying "you play logically", I was saying you assume a "logical demeanour" which implies it is only an act and your approach is not, in reality, logical and internally consistent. Again, I gave two examples of this.vollkan wrote:
Unless you are trying to set a precedent for auto-lynches of me, there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me.Orto wrote: As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Err, what? Now you're just further muddying the waters. My post was a perfectly valid response to yours. Reread:Well, how was I meant to know that? Nothing you said made sense as a response to the first paragraph and the one sentence you quoted in isolation made it look like I had contradicted myself by drawing an equivalence in playstyles.
That's pretty much correct. What I would add, and I know that my saying this is loaded with WIFOM, is that I think the Achille's heel of logic-scum is in the assumptions as to reasonableness. As you say, all logic in this game depends on assumptions (see the last point I make to Orto below as a great example - my assumptions as to what is reasonable to expect are completely at odds with his). I guess this is the reason in part why I insist so much on reasons for suspicion - because I know firsthand that reducing things to the base assumption of "What makes the most reasonable hypothesis that this is a scummy action?" is probably a good way of breaking skilled scum. (Another reason I detest gut play - because it shirks explaining the basis for the assumptions)
But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.
I understand perfectly how this paragraph relates to yours. Have you been reading something else?Then I simply have a different playstyle to you- one which may rely more on gut. Why did this ever merit a vote then? Furthermore, there's a problem with this. It may be that in fact your playstyle is more effective at catching scum. However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.
In case it is still unclear to you (you seem to keep misinterpreting my argument), I will try to express it more simply. You claim to have a very logical and skeptical playing style, with certain "principles" such as demanding people justify their reasoning and voting patterns, and giving your own (i.e. in opposition to gut play). I am saying as scum, you would have a vested interest in not doing this, as if you for example were forced to give your *real* reasons (that you want to get a townie lynched), then you would be discovered. Instead, you need to find ways to obfuscate your real intentions. One way you could do this is by still using these "principles", but applying them inconsistently and opportunistically. I gave two examples of where you had done this: you apparently dislike people "hedging their arguments" i.e. implying they are not confident in their vote and distancing themselves from the outcome of it (as you accused me of doing so). Yet you did the same while voting for me, by saying your vote would stand "until someone screws up more", which serves as a way of distancing yourself from your vote.
The second point is that you attacked me for "taking something out of context" when you did the same yourself. And stop saying you didn't:
Saying "there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me" IMPLIES that is all the evidence I gave in support of lynching you. In fact it was an introduction which flowed on to the valid points I then made.Unless you are trying to set a precedent for auto-lynches of me, there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
vollkan; a glimpse at your profile allows a weighing up of your play this game compared to your meta. In both games I compared your play to your posts are almost universally shorter and actually seemingly express quite concise ideas, which I can see despite not playing in those games. In contrast, even when arguing with you this game I barely understand your remarks in response to my arguments. I get the impression your main tactic is convoluting things to the point of confusion (how can one person have so much to say about self-voting?) For reference, the reason I didn't respond to your last post was that I just got tired of us circling over the same issues. Anyhow; here's some more examples of you trying to spin your way out of my arguments:
No, this was not my thesis. My thesis was that you would act ostensibly logically, while applying this logic inconsistently. It included examples. You still have not responded adequately, apart from various attempts to straw man it.Yes, vollkan-scum would have a vested interest in bending the rules if he thought it would be to his advantage. Any scum player would do the same thing?
In one breath you acknowledge that point wasn't intended to be judged by itself, then in the next you imply it was intended to "carry" a lynch, as though it was the SOLE or OVERRIDING EVIDENCE for the lynch. You can't slip out of this inconsistency with weasel words.Yes, Orto, I am not blind. I know you had more material. Let me spell this out for you as clearly as possible:
The "vollkan is hard to catch as scum point" cannot, by your own admission, carry a lynch.
They are both qualitatively similar because they both express that there is a contingency in one's vote. Furthermore, if your remark "until someone screws up more" is perfectly ordinary play and merely entails voting for the scummiest person, why did you ever feel the need to make this remark, which you claim was already implied, explicit?Also the example you give is completely invalid. You hedged because you were presenting your suspicions as "slight leaning" and a "mild case", without actually giving any substance as to why.
In contrast, I voted for you "until someone screws up more". As I have already said, all that means is that I was saying that I would be voting you unless somebody scummier came along. That isn't hedging - I never once expressed self-doubt. In fact, it's perfectly ordinary play - voting for the scummiest person.
Now what worries me here: You have strong reason to believe I am a confirmed mason at this point. Having attacked you, if you were town, I would think you would try very hard to see the merit in my arguments, as you would wonder what possible reason a townie could have for suspecting you. Instead, you've pretty much remained on the offensive. You're basically trying to discredit me by suggesting my case is motivated purely by revenge. As for the "error" comment, I'm feeling that's less likely with your every post.His arguments against me were, as I have submitted, very dodgy indeed. I'm not sure if this is just error on his part, or taking advantage of his claimed position for a bit of OMGUS-style revenge; I'd hope it's only the former.
And if more support is needed for my argument that vollkan's "principles" have been applied only opportunistically this game, take SpyreX's post 268:
Here SpyreX simply quotes a post of mine and says it would make him want to vote for me again. He doesn't explain why. I still don't know what problem he seems to have with it. vollkan has constantly told us how much he hates gut play i.e. attitudes given without reason. He also hates merely citing others' arguments, as he told us in Post 165:SpyreX wrote:I'm getting this bizarre sense of deja vu.
Orto, nice simple list: Why do you think Volkan is scum?
I see a lot of words again, however I see a severe absence of "X is scummy for Y" or even "X is scummy"
This alone, if you were not a claimed day-1 mason, would make me want to vote for you again.I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target. As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour. That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.
And, obviousy, there is room for agreement in this game. The point is, though, every player should still be able to explain things themselves.
At best, Ecto's post is the first case- expressing an attitude towards me without giving reasons. At worst, it is the second case- hoping by merely parroting vollkan's suspicion of the paragraph he will be vindicated by whatever vollkan makes of it.Yes. Because if you cannot articulate your reasons, you avoid accountability (because it means that you are protected by the other player's reasons).
Yet, vollkan hasn't even felt he should mention it. He's carried on as though nothing's happened, and benefited from SpyreX continuing to defend him. Clearly, vollkan has been highly opportunistic with his "principles" this game.
My final reason for voting for vollkan: town still has absolutely nothing to show for your thoroughly wordy play throughout this game. To me your posts have seemed motivated more by gaining authority for yourself as a "thoroughly logical player" (which then gives you leeway in spinning things, as you've done) than actually catching scum.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
1) You're just parroting vollkan's claim here, I already made about 3 posts arguing with him about this, but if you wanted to follow vollkan's "approach" you should come up with your own arguments.SpyreX wrote:
I didn't think I had to if you reread it. However, I'll be more than happy to explain.Here SpyreX simply quotes a post of mine and says it would make him want to vote for me again. He doesn't explain why. I still don't know what problem he seems to have with it. vollkan has constantly told us how much he hates gut play i.e. attitudes given without reason. He also hates merely citing others' arguments, as he told us in Post 165:
1.) You are saying you want to hang him because you cant meta read him as town or scum.I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target.1.)As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves.2.)And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.3.)That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little.4.)Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly.5.)He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others.6.)I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.
2.) You say that because he would play the same as scum... its an indictment of him being scum?
3.) How did this discussion "muddy the waters"? A statement like this needs backing.
4.) You are implying the attack wasn't valid (see how many people were voting for you because of your play)
5.) This is true. Period. Even if you know your mason is town its not a "dont try to play the game free" pass.
6.) Its equally valid that you did this just to break a stalemate and had no feelings on the issue?
So, yes, I would have voted you in a heartbeat had this not been a day 1 mason claim. Emphasis on the day 1.
2) Ditto.
3) We haven't gotten very far in 13 pages. vollkan's approach allows him to jump off suspicions on any number of players before we have anything at all concrete to go on. See him attacking Ecto, me, springlullaby (may have been another in between) also in a mainly opportunistic fashion. I was not the first to observe the "muddying of the waters" elicited by vollkan's "gambit".
4) Firstly; this commits the fallacy of argument from majority. I notice vollkan didn't pull you up on this either, another case of his double standards. And this point depends entirely on how you define "valid" anyhow. If you think lynching masons through bandwagons is a form of "valid attack" then obviously you're going to consider that one.
5) Yet it's exactly what you've just done, as I've shown- you're implicitly parasiting from vollkan's arguments.
6) You've totally misread this. I was not referring to the "validity" of my actions but rather the validity of possible hypotheses vollkan could have held about my behaviour.
What purpose did this serve? Voting for someone without giving reasons and promising them in the future is no different to voting for someone without giving reasons simpliciter.SpyreX wrote:Hold onto your hats boys and girls.. I think I've got me a case a brewin. Something new, something fantastic... something that has to wait until I'm awake.
To spark the fire though:Unvote, Vote: Springlullaby
Now I see in post 296 vollkan has completely changed his mind about springlullaby. Good job SpreX, says he: a proper case! I was trying to bandwagon ortolan but he's a mason so let's revisit some aging posts and read scumminess into them that I failed to notice the first time round!
Um is this a joke? You specifically quoted her drawing attention to this as a "good find". If anything you drew as much attention or more to it as she did.That said, she never did explain at all why the "dangling question" was a scumtell (Why is X scummy for Y?). Same goes for the second point; she draws an inference of shirking responsibility. That said, however, neither of these is a compelling argument at all; they both make large assumptions which, whilst objectively explained, aren't supported enough by evidence to carry a vote.
@ SpyreX: I think it's a bit rich for you to be complaining about lurkers- all your arguments find some way of agreeing with vollkan so when posting you're rarely obliged to respond to his massive attack posts. For others replying to vollkan the volume of text one has to deal with can be very off-putting.
On the whole, I am very unconvinced with the case on SL- a large part of mrfixij's case against her seems to be dredging up a seeming inconsistency in her self-vote which I already brought up much earlier. While I still don't really understand the point of it, it seems a minor point and I fail to see how you can properly read scuminess into it. I also don't like the way SpyreX, vollkan and mrfixij are all trying to re-interpret her posts to make her look scummy when no-one acknowledged this the first time round- seems highly suspect to me. I am increasingly happy with my vote on vollkan.
Finally; mrfixij:
I didn't see much of the "good and bad", seemed more a direct attack on her.So to get down to the nitty gritty, the good and bad of the spring case.
I don't agree in any way that her play "has been deteriorating". I was skeptical of her play earlier in the game and am actually less so now. This statement is much more subjective than you make it sound.But Spring's play has been deteriorating, and it was really only a matter of time before she was called out on it.
Whose most likely target? You certainly haven't convinced me of anything.Yes, I think Spring is scummy and is our most likely scum target.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Dare I say it, but I have a strange gut feeling about Ixfij. By no means am I saying he is suspicious or anything, but it is my intention to reread him more closely in the near future to work out why I am worried.
This is your most shameless inconsistency yet.Conjecture - I have much disdain for this category. This includes things like "gut" (when used as a justification for suspicion/vote), a declaration that "something seems fishy/ungenuine/etc." The reason is simple: claims of this nature CANNOT be challenged or rendered unreasonable. They depend entirely upon what the individual making the claim thinks (or, in the case of scum, purports to think). I cannot prove I am not "ungenuine", for instance, or even prove that is not a reasonable explanation. Because it is one wholly subjective interpretation of my play.
And please don't say "I didn't actually say he was scummy, I said I'd read into him further". You made a very, very deliberate choice to say emphatically you get a strange "gut" reading from mrfixij, without backing it up. Why? We have little interest in hearing about your private introspection, and as you say anything announced without explanation amounts to conjecture, which you despise. Why did you say this rather than wait until you could actually dredge up the "reasons" underlying your gut suspicion of him?-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
You're still expressing a gut feeling, it just happens to be a neutral one, tinged with suspicion. Also; there is something wrong with it, it's an attempt to elicit an emotional and/or irrational response- which you earlier attacked me for. I ask you again why you would make the comment in the first place if you didn't intend it to carry some weight?vollkan wrote:1) Nothing I have ever said is against the viability of gut as an indicator of "maybe you should read up on this person", which is precisely what I said. There is nothing wrong with me saying that I have a funny feeling, provided I don't use it to back up a declaration of suspicion or a vote. And, in fact, I specifically stressed that I don't consider Ixfij scummy simply because of the feeling.
Ah, yes, great trapping skills you've exhibited. Unfortunately, the fact remains your position is inconsistent. Also; you're saying you intended to trap me here: what did you hope to gain for town by this?2) To see who would jump on this as an apparent contradiction. Would it surprise you if I said that you were my first guess?
That's not a "point", especially within your own framework where opinions need to be "justified". It rather amounts to an announcement of an action you intend to undertake in the future. I ask you again- why did you feel the need to tell us about it?3) To make a point. Rather than saying "I think Ixfij seems odd, so he is therefore scummy", I have said "I think ixfij seems odd, so I need to reread him more closely". This is precisely the distinction between objective reasons and subjective feelings.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
If you didn't want to communicate something to us by it, you shouldn't have told us.vollkan wrote:It's only an attempt to elicit a particular response if I use it as a conclusion, which I didn't. I didn't say I found him suspicious or anything; I simply said that I felt that something was odd and I would be reviewing him to find out why.
You are falsely framing things by suggesting that I HAVE to intend all my remarks to carry weight. In this case, I am just saying that I want to look at ixfij more closely; that's it. It's pretty clear I didn't intend for what I said to carry any weight.
Also, you still haven't told me what you intended to gain by "trapping" me with such an intricate bait
I think vollkan is very very very very very very scummy and would like him lynched. It's just a gut feeling, I'll come up with some reasons later. Oh damnit, he already pointed the finger at me for doing this to Ecto. Surely he then wouldn't be as hypocritical to do the same thing himself...come on, you know that this is not inconsistebt. He is just explaining his thouhtprocess. He doesn´t say he has reasons for a vote on mrfixij, only that he is going to look for reasons that could explain his feeling about mrfixij.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Btw,
may not make sense as you "appear" to have already responded:Also, you still haven't told me what you intended to gain by "trapping" me with such an intricate bait
I still want to know how exactly it was craplogic?What I "hoped to gain" was to show this or, alternatively, show that somebody else was using craplogic to attack me.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
I am still sensing hypocrisy from vollkan
Mafia is as much about what is not said (or rather, what is said implicitly), as what is said. You had no valid reason for announcing your gut suspicion beyond *wanting* to imply something in this way, yet deny it has any meaning. It's also amusing you think my response in some way demonstrates I am "prejudiced". You still haven't answered what you intended to achieve by "trapping" me either. If you simply meant you thought it somehow demonstrated I was prejudiced, I don't accept this at all, so you haven't achieved much. And in your use of "prejudiced", you earn +1 scumpoint for use of emotive language, +1 scumpoint for an entirely subjective judgement, +10 scumpoints for your hypocrisy in the following criticism of sl in your recent post:The craplogic proceeds thus:
1) Vollkan thinks gut is scummy when used to justify votes/decs of suspicion
2) Vollkan said he had a gut feeling that something was weird with Ixfij
3) Combining 1 and 2, Vollkan is inconsistent and therefore scummy
Furthermore you are being entirely disingenuous on this point anyhow, as you appear to be interpreting SL's argument as deductive (premises clearly follow from the conclusion) rather than inductive argument (premises support conclusion), which it clearly is. I happen to agree with her claim that your discussion is not at all helpful in regards to scumhunting in this game, and am equally skeptical of the inconsistencies and opportunism which you've demonstrated (and which I've continually attempted to draw attention to).And then we get to the "unclear perspective" point.
Your only "evidence" given for this was:
Purely subjective twaddle about a "clear train of thought". This has no tying to anything I have done and is just an unfalsifiable claim - how can I possibly prove that I have a clear train of thought?SL wrote: Well, I think you've been arguing a lot with lot of people and you seem to be pretty strong in your convictions when it comes to what you apparently think is good play, but I do not discern clear train of thought when the discussion is out of theorical grounds and when it comes to scumhunting.
Furthermore the vast majority of your arguments (and indeed, everyone's) are inductive and so your criticism of the unclear perspective point on the basis they are not valid deductively is little more than opportunistic posturing.
Funny, here sl has to "prove" her interpretation of your misplaced post was correct. Again you are deliberately equivocating obligations in deductive vs. inductive logic, but that's not the worst part.vollkan wrote:
Well, it kind of shoots down any objective credibility to your argument.SL wrote: Just because you say it is nonsense doesn't make it so. I don't get why you are referrencing that game here, I get that it is where the misplaced post was supposed to be destined to, but so what?
Simple challenge: Prove to me that your explanation of my misplaced post is more reasonable than the explanation that I just made a mistake with my tabbed browser.
Start with post 177 where you accuse me of hedging my arguments. I reply in post 189 that this amounted to:
In reply:ortolan wrote:speculation about my motives rather than any coherent and internally consistent case for me being mafia.
I could say for example "vollkan's gambit was intended purely so he would have a device for continually launching suspicion on different people- firstly he could launch suspicion on those who called him on his self-vote, then he could launch suspicion on those who called the caller on his self-vote etc., basically a mafia's dream". However this is just an interpretation.
...vollkan Post 204 wrote:See my rant at the top of this post. Every attack has to rely on a specific interpretation because town doesn't have complete information. This is no defence and is simply a means of using a poor theory argument to justify any sort of behaviour.
So, when you're attacking me, it's alright to use a specific subjective interpretation of my actions which is no more likely than any other, but sl's interpretation of your actions has to be "proved" to be more valid than the alternative you provide. One standard for vollk, different standard for everyone else.vollkan Post 204 wrote:Your logic here is absurd, because ANY action can be spun as something that either town or scum could so. If we didn't hold people culpable for any actions which might possibly be "poor voting choices", town wouldn't ever win. A scumbag quick-hammers: "Oopsie! Poor voting choice". Somebody fakeclaims cop: "Oopsie! Poor claiming choice". Etc. etc. This is a game of incomplete information for town and, as such, town HAS to rely upon drawing reasonable inferences as to the likely motivations of certain actions. By this logic, the only time it is ever possible to lynch somebody is if they are confirmed by the mod to be scum - which, needless to say, doesn't happen in mafia until after death.
TDC, OP, Spolium it would nice to hear you each put a case against someone or multiple people, that way we may be able to break the essential stalemate we have currently. vollkan's recent posts have only made me think him more likely to be scum.
Spolium has asked and is currently in the process of being replaced - Rage-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
vollkan wrote:
I didn't *want* to imply anything; I've already been clear about that. I was just saying the way I felt. Maybe someone else felt similarly; maybe the day would end and it could serve as a note to myself or another; maybe it would set in motion a train of discussion about Ixfiij. I don't know. Enough with your bullshit conspiracies about my intentions. It's as though you won't be satisfied unless I specifically give some specific outcome that I sought. If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.Orto wrote: Mafia is as much about what is not said (or rather, what is said implicitly), as what is said. You had no valid reason for announcing your gut suspicion beyond *wanting* to imply something in this way, yet deny it has any meaning.
You have clearly stated you intended to voice an "opinion" on mrfixij, but have given no reasons for it. This means you are relying on gut- which you've given us an incredible song and dance routine over because of how much you supposedly detest it. Basically, you're being very, very hypocritical.vollkan Post 151 wrote:What we reason to be scummy is a product of reason (what would scum be most likely to do?) and experience (what do scum typically do?). For some people, they may be able to make those judgments by "gut" (know something is scummy just when they see it). BUT they still have reasons and, if asked, they ought to be able to explain them. If a person cannot explain their suspicion, then it is essentially just emotional or subconcious and, since they have no way of distinguishing, basic pricniples of precuation say that they shouldn't proceed in their suspicion.
You may have proven to yourself I am "prejudiced" (your argument is terrible though- apparently because I pulled you up on something you wrongly claim is objective this proves I am "prejudiced"), but I'm afraid you'll need to convince other people also to have accomplished anything.vollkan wrote:
Emotive language is only problematic if unjustified. "prejudiced" can be emotive, but in the context I am using it, it is justified. My judgment is not "subjective". I've already said that I wanted to see whether and how you would react to me saying something which I knew would provoke charges of hypocrisy from a careless or judgmental observer, into which category I predicted you would fall.Orto wrote: It's also amusing you think my response in some way demonstrates I am "prejudiced". You still haven't answered what you intended to achieve by "trapping" me either. If you simply meant you thought it somehow demonstrated I was prejudiced, I don't accept this at all, so you haven't achieved much. And in your use of "prejudiced", you earn +1 scumpoint for use of emotive language, +1 scumpoint for an entirely subjective judgement, +10 scumpoints for your hypocrisy in the following criticism of sl in your recent post:
I entirely agree with her that your arguments show an "unclear perspective" i.e. the positions you adopt are inconsistent and opportunistic. Not only has she provided evidence of this but so have I. I fail to see how you can think this point is somehow derived from nothing.vollkan wrote:
Sorry? I have no clue what you are trying to get at here. Her arguments are conspiracy (premises pulled out arse to justify conclusions)Orto wrote: Furthermore you are being entirely disingenuous on this point anyhow, as you appear to be interpreting SL's argument as deductive (premises clearly follow from the conclusion) rather than inductive argument (premises support conclusion), which it clearly is.
I disagree completely. Your attempted rebuttals only make you look more scummy in my eyes. Unfortunately this only further supports the notion that we are at a stalemate and need input from a third party to progress.vollkan wrote:
I happen to think that I've done a damn good job of rebutting the attacks that SL and yourself have made against me.Orto wrote: I happen to agree with her claim that your discussion is not at all helpful in regards to scumhunting in this game, and am equally skeptical of the inconsistencies and opportunism which you've demonstrated (and which I've continually attempted to draw attention to).
Well there's your first mistake- inductive arguments don't need to be "valid". You asked her to prove her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid. Firstly; this is unnecessary- inductive arguments are good just in case the premises give decent reason to believe the conclusion. Secondly, it flies in the face of what happened earlier when I questioned interpretations of my "dangling point" and "hedging my arguments". You argued that you and sl's interpretation of my actions was perfectly valid, and made no such mention of an obligation to prove your interpretations were more valid than mine. Again, you're being hypocritical.vollkan wrote:
Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.Orto wrote: Furthermore the vast majority of your arguments (and indeed, everyone's) are inductive and so your criticism of the unclear perspective point on the basis they are not valid deductively is little more than opportunistic posturing.
..Funny, here sl has to "prove" her interpretation of your misplaced post was correct. Again you are deliberately equivocating obligations in deductive vs. inductive logic, but that's not the worst part.
Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.
You've missed the point here, see above. And, again, you did not provide any reasons for your pointing of the finger at mrfixij so this is untrue anyhow.vollkan wrote:
No. Because when requested I can and do justify my premises (the assumptions of why scumminess is most reasonable).Orto wrote: So, when you're attacking me, it's alright to use a specific subjective interpretation of my actions which is no more likely than any other, but sl's interpretation of your actions has to be "proved" to be more valid than the alternative you provide. One standard for vollk, different standard for everyone else.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Unfortunately your replies to my arguments are mostly one-step-behind.
You did express an opinion on mrfixij. You even acknowledged such:vollkan wrote:
The paragraph I quote above by Orto is pure falderal for one simple reason: I didn't express an "opinion" on mrfixij, so it is absurd that he would suggest I need to give "reasons".Orto wrote: You have clearly stated you intended to voice an "opinion" on mrfixij, but have given no reasons for it. This means you are relying on gut- which you've given us an incredible song and dance routine over because of how much you supposedly detest it. Basically, you're being very, very hypocritical.
vollkan wrote:If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.
There's no getting out of that I'm afraid.
ad hominemIn any event, this pretty much confirms you aren't a Freemason; they have a requirement that members be of sound mind.
You assert this, and I disagree. Furthermore you offer no proof.vollkan wrote:
You pulled me up on something where, if a person was taking a sobre and unbiased attitude to my actions, they wouldn't have leaped to the conclusion that I was being contradictory.Orto wrote: You may have proven to yourself I am "prejudiced" (your argument is terrible though- apparently because I pulled you up on something you wrongly claim is objective this proves I am "prejudiced"), but I'm afraid you'll need to convince other people also to have accomplished anything.
(I'd couple this with the fact that the rest of your attacks against me have all been "big swing, no ding"
Perhaps in your own mind. If anything I've felt the gist of my attacks have been validated by your replies.vollkan wrote:
I think I have refuted every single example either you have brought up.Orto wrote: I entirely agree with her that your arguments show an "unclear perspective" i.e. the positions you adopt are inconsistent and opportunistic. Not only has she provided evidence of this but so have I. I fail to see how you can think this point is somehow derived from nothing.
As I already said, the vast majority of arguments are inductive. And yes, this entails them necessarily not being "deductively valid". You're vastly over-emphasising deductive validity.vollkan wrote:
That's nice to know. Arguments that don't need to be valid are just superOrto wrote: Well there's your first mistake- inductive arguments don't need to be "valid".
I dispute this because using the phrase "hedging your arguments" implies a deliberate act, especially in the context of a game of mafia where everyone is under suspicion. Thus in using the phrase "hedging your arguments" you precluded the explanation that my unclear and qualified opinions could be a "mistake", and implied I was scum. Thus it was still equivalent as a "biased interpretation" to sl's interpretation of your misplaced post, and thus the point stands.vollkan wrote:
Yes, I know the difference between inductive and deductive logic.Orto wrote:
You asked her to prove her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid. Firstly; this is unnecessary- inductive arguments are good just in case the premises give decent reason to believe the conclusion.voll wrote: Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.
Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.
But, what I was trying to get at is that I don't think that SL's logic even is valid inductively.
I mean, a classic inductive argument is something like:
1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
Now, take the "misplaced post" example. The logic as advanced by SL is basically:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Scum would benefit from showing meta-consistency (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was scummy (conclusion)
Both premises are sound. The trouble is that there is a competing inductive argument that I have advanced:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Vollkan of any alignment could have made the post by mistake (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was a nulltell (conclusion)
Are we to shrug our shoulders and adopt an "anything goes" agnosticism? No. This game is all about lynching the people most likely to be scum. You can make inductive arguments to prove just about anything about any action in this game. It's NOT enough to simply show that something could be scummy; you alsoneed to showthat that is a reasonable conclusion relative to the other possibilities. I underline "need to show" for the simple reason that we shouldn't forget that the onus is on the person deeming something scummy or towny (the base presumption being all things are nulltells unless proven otherwise).
Returning to our friend Socrates for a moment, consider the following argument:
1. Socrates was a genius. (premise)
2. Most geniuses don't eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates did not eat fish. (conclusion)
If we are interested in the question of whether Socrates ate fish, it's not enough to simply say that he ate fish because he was a Greek. That inductive argument is necessarily impacted upon by the one I just made up. If we are to learn anything about Socrates's eating habits, we need to look at other factors which impact upon that question. SL's inductive logic is internally sound, therefore, but is completely invalid in terms of this game (which is the important thing).
Quantitative proof that, say, more mis-posts end up being by scum would be great - but it would be absurd to expect that. What is needed, though, is for it to be demonstrated that it would make less sense for a townie acting reasonably to do something than for scum to do it.
It was a fact that you had hedged your arguments - the question was what to make of it. The question is then whether it is more reasonable to think you did it for scummy reasons (a leave-pass to avoid accountability) than as a mistake. A reasonable townie wouldn't cast a vote based on admittedly weak reasons outside exceptional circumstances. Scum, on the other hand, has every reason to want to downplay the strength of their opinions. The prospect that a reasonable townie could have done it, of course, is not at all ridiculous, but that doesn't make it a nulltell - it just means that it isn't an auto-lynchable offence.Orto wrote: Secondly, it flies in the face of what happened earlier when I questioned interpretations of my "dangling point" and "hedging my arguments". You argued that you and sl's interpretation of my actions was perfectly valid, and made no such mention of an obligation to prove your interpretations were more valid than mine. Again, you're being hypocritical.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
And, as I have already said, this is inconsistent with the way you attacked me for "hedging my arguments"- you implicitly privileged your interpretation of my behaviour and refused to explain why it was superior to my alternative hypothesis that it was mistaken, impulsive behaviour.As my last post shows, all I am emphasising is that inductive logic has to give due consideration to competing hypotheses. It's not enough for a person to spin one narrative and run with it.
That was all I needed to do to refute your argument, because your response hinged on your incorrect claim that it was an objective fact that I was "hedging my arguments". In fact it was still your interpretation, because it implies I tried deliberately to pre-empt accusations of my case being wrong by distancing myself from it. This is simply not an objective fact- I know that this wasn't my intention in writing the post. Thus you are still open to the drawing of an equivalence between your interpretation of my vote on Ecto and sl's interpretation of your misplaced post.Let the record show that tut of that entire piece I wrote repudiating Orto and SL's craplogic, Orto only addressed the bit about hedging.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Even when you first made this point it was only ever a false dichotomy- that either I must be a confused newbie or scum. By assuming this you then went on to argue that I was unlikely to fall into the former category due to your interpretation of my posts as intelligent. However this ignores that there was no evidence I had to be in one or the other of these categories to begin with. For the record; at the time I was: new to the game- yes, confused- somewhat, making intelligent posts- subjective. You didn't consider that I could make seemingly intelligent posts while being new to the game and somewhat confused. By reducing interpretations of my behaviour to a simple binary choice you were able to place me under suspicion.The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.
As I have already said, phrases such as "a lack of commitment to your own argument" and "your arguments were hedged" are loaded phrases.First up, I'd like to draw an analogy with contract law. When a contractual dispute is being resolved - when the court tries to resolve the meaning of the contract - the lawyers and judges don't ask themselves "What did Party X want when she asked for this clause?". Instead, you determine the intention of the parties based on what is manifest in the contract. Because it is impossible to know what is in Party X's head, you judge subjective intention objectively.
Now, it is a clear fact that your post contained a number of phrases which indicated a lack of commitment to your own argument. That means your arguments were hedged - it doesn't matter what your intention was. I don't know what your intention was; only you do. Of course, your intention is very relevant in judging scumminess, and I have already explained why I think a scummy explanation is the most reasonable
If I was to say "Ecto seems the most scummy, I'm not sure about him but enough to warrant a vote" is this "a lack of commitment to my own argument"? No, because my argument is only that he has acted the most scummy and thus warrants a vote, not that he definitively is scummy. You're importing your own prejudices about what a vote signifies by saying otherwise.
Again with the phrase "hedging your arguments"- this to me strongly implies a *deliberate* act, which I dispute it was- it may have had the effect of looking to others as though I was trying to justify why I may be voting for a townie- but this is just an interpretation based on the circumstances. So again, I deny that it is an objective fact that I "hedged my arguments".-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Sorry can you explain this sentence? Are you saying vollkan wouldn't want to argue with me because he thinks I am stupid, or something else?Ortolan was an early candidate for a VI. I can see why Vollkan might be inclined to not want to argue with him if he thinks he is a dim star on a cloudy night.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Sorry, I just find the notion that vollkan would "not want to argue" with *anyone * laughable
And just remember I was the first to express skepticism that the process of "argument" in this game was actually getting us anywhere.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
It was not pointless, you've either not understood or deliberately pretended not to. I was going to again reply but this debate isn't leading anywhere, so I'm not even going to bother. At least two players are not keeping up in this game, quite possibly explained by the sheer verbosity explained by vollkan. So I'm happy to concede the best debater award to vollkan for a chance for the game not to stall entirely.
The inductive/deductive thing was pointless. It was just a lot of noise from Orto that obfuscated the simple point about having to prove which story is correct.Myk wrote: post 404. Personally I don't know what the whole discussion on deductive vs inductive logic is, and it seems a lot like theory discusion, so I don't care.
I think vollkan is right in the part where orto accuses him of double standarts. There is nothing wrong with a story that explains what happened, you only got to prove that story is the most likely.
For the record I still disagree, but the effort of again deconstructing your arguments is not worth the reward it will bring. An argument from majority (which is all you'd have to resort to) wouldn't change my mind either. And again I repeat the point that your ability in debating/rhetoric is independent of the likelihood of you being scum, and trying to divert the game down that road seems scum-motivated. Everyone knows debating is skill-based and relies on people's skills in twisting neutral topics one way or the other. You seem to want to do this (and are willing to lynch people based on it) based on how you twist your perceptions of their skill at argument, rather than hunting them based on your determined probability that they're scum.And the attacks aren't ad hominem fallacy. They just stem from my frustration at what is an unending torrent of silly arguments from Orto (and I am entitled to use the word 'silly', because thus far there hasn't been a single point that I haven't rebutted. He just keeps jumping from point to point.)
This is not at all convincing. You've been so keen to analyse and deconstruct everything this game except the only occurence so far that is actually relevant to game content (a mason claim).vollkan wrote:
Uh...my policy reason was the reason I didn't ask. I thought it was premature for a claim, and claims should only occur explicitly.TDC wrote: vollkan I have a bad feeling about, but I can't quantify where I actually got it, and the case on him is not particularly enforcing it. Still don't like how he kept his vote on the claimed mason for policy reasons instead of just asking them about it.
actually, as I already stated, your play this game is not consistent with what I've observed of your meta. Actually, wait, there was one other game where you played just as arrogantly (refused to claim at L-1 etc.). You were lynched and flipped scum.(brief glance over my meta will confirm this beyond a shred of doubt)
Can we get some activie towards whether we're going to lynch sl or vollkan (or me, I'm happy to put my head out to prove how ridiculous and un-town-motivated vollkan's attempt to turn on a claimed mason is).-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
don't worry I'm still going to reply to vollkan's latest and possibly previous post when I can muster the energy, but solely on the earlier meta point (which is probably more useful than merely responding to your latest crappy arguments), I didn't think we were allowed to reference ongoing games, so was loathe to refer to specific games (the one in which you were lynched and flipped scum was an exception as clearly your alignment was already revealed)Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
I'm still happy to oblige sl's request, if for no other reason that it will prevent suspicion being wasted on two players who I know to be town- myself and him (I pmed Rage as vollkan suggested, am still waiting)Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Meh, there's not much more I can say according to what Rage said really-I'm a mason with orangepenguin and the pm explicitly states we are both town (presumably in case I or OP speculated that the other was scum)Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
vollkan, let it be known I still find your drawing of very loose analogies between how you're playing this game and how you've played similarly as town in other games entirely unconvincing.
Here you're suggesting in one game you "trapped" another player due to you being a dayvig (btw I don't even understand what actually happened in the other game from the way you described it) and he took your bait and flipped scum. That's all well and good. Except you draw an analogy with this game, where you said you had a bad gut-reading on mrfixij and acknowledged it was an opinion with no basis, having previously said you loathe opinions given with no basis. You claim (wrongly, in my opinion) that giving voice to a gut suspicion is not voicing an opinion. You then further stretch your argument to saying that by pulling you up on this, this proves I am "prejudiced". Please explain how a game where you can prove you caught a claimed scum is analogous with a game where we have no knowledge of your alignment and in which you made a subjective, weak (and in my opinion downright wrong) argument for having "caught" me being "prejudiced".An even more extreme example is Mini 486. This game had an unusual setup. Mod confirmed at the start that "There are 3x mafia, 3x masons that win with the town, and 1x day-vig that can be a mafia, mason or townie." I had the fortune of being a dayvig-mason. On D1, a very bad wagon occurred - a player named Nelly632 self-voted (just after random stage) and got put to L-1 for it. It wouldn't surprise any of you to learn that I didn't like the wagon at all. So, I took a big gambit. I prematurely claimed one-shot dayvig (Not vigmason, in the hope that it would save my life by making me an unattractive kill target), influenced largely by the fact that I feared being NKed. Anyway, I started toying with Oman (Oman again Razz) and proposed a BS dayvig shortlist (risky, given that the mod had confirmed the possibility of a scum-vig). He took the bait and got dayvigged. He was scum.
////////////////////////////////////////////
You make use of traps in the game of mafia. That's fine, don't we all. This doesn't change the fact that your argument that you "trapped" me is entirely weak and subjective and I'm certainly not the slightest bit convinced by it. The fact you devoted so many words to describing two meta-cases which plainly aren't at all analogous with this game is suspect.Trapping doesn't at all go against my principles of logic. In the examples above, I work out what scum would likely do in response to certain conduct, and then proceed to test people. In this case, my test confirmed my suspicion of Orto's prejudice. At the very least, he wasn't looking at me in a detached manner. In both the examples I give above, my actions were such as to place myself at risk and, in that sense, were anti-town. But it all comes back to risk v reward - I expected good odds of a return for taking a risk so I was willing to gamble a bit.
I will say this one more time for your benefit. "Validity" is not a concept in inductive logic. Thus you are not refuting inductive arguments by saying they are "invalid", in fact you are saying nothing at all. You have to argue why they are not reasonable or why the weight of evidence they summon is not adequate. I don't like you arrogantly assuming my point had no basis when in fact you're still entirely wrong about your usage of the term "validity" in the context of inductive logic.Orto's argument was that SL's logic was valid inductive reasoning, and that I was over-prioritising deductive reasoning. I thought this distinction was irrelevant because of the point I made about needing to disprove the validity of counter-hypotheses.
I asked Orto to explain himself to see how he could manage to argue for the validity of SL's reasoning despite her arguments being conspiracy. I was reasonable certain the distinction was irrelevant, but I needed to see his argument to make sure.
And I agree entirely entirely about your usage of the word "conspiracy"- I haven't studied law (where I assume it comes from) and it's not a term used in philosophy, which I have studied/study so have no knowledge of what it really means (and I remember googling it a while ago and still not finding a satisfactory explanation). Firstly I am skeptical of you importing this term without an explanation and I am doubly skeptical that you would attempt to dismiss sl's arguments simply be describing them as "conspiracy", assuming that it's magically obvious to everyone else how they fit this archetype of being "conspiracy". I can only assume SpyreX has studied law and instantly understands your vague usage of obscure terminology, hence continuing to lap up your posts like nectar.
I did say I was going to get off your case, more for pragmatic reasons than anything else, so please try to do some actual scum-hunting in your next post.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Thank you for again explaining the success of traps in your other game. Unfortunately it is not analogous to this game because your "trap" in this game is one only in the sense that it should be encased in inverted commas and dismissed as laughable. For something to be a "trap" you need to bait someone into doing something and then show them why it was wrong. You have not convinced me in the slightest that your expressing of a bad "gut" feeling on mrfixij was consistent with your earlier disavowing of gut play, and thus you haven't "trapped" me at all. In fact even if you had it would be a ridiculously minor point- "You 'trapped' me and proved I'm 'prejudiced' because I pulled you up on something that you are subjectively arguing isn't scummy". It doesn't wash, and it's not worthy of bringing up your entire playing history on this site to give support to.
And your point about conspiracy- concerning potentialities, and "what ifs", brings me back to the original argument concerning your hypocrisy in allowing sl's interpretation of my "dangling" point whereas not allowing sl's interpretation of your misplaced post, where the explanation for the former does not seem more plausible than the latter.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
No it isn't, you haven't been able to prove that your intention in making the comment about mrfixij was to "trap" me, you have merely made the post-hoc justification of "oh yes, haha, it was a trap!" It's exactly the same as if I said I had baited you into attacking me as a mason and then revealed myself as a mason to show you must be scummy. Actually that's not true, the latter case of a mason is actually verifiable (as was the case where you were a town-vig) whereas all we have to go on is your crappy smart-arse, after-the-event suggestion that your comment was a "trap". Furthermore even if you intended it as a "trap", it proved nothing. So I really suggest you stop going on about it, it only makes you look as though you're defending a baseless position for the sake of it2) The trap here is essentially the same as the Mini 495 trap - I say something, albeit genuinely here, for the purposes of eliciting reaction. You mightn't like my argument for you being prejudiced, but that's a completely separate consideration as to whether I laid a proper trap in the first place
This argument is extremely crappy. There is much variety in mafia, I'm sure there are extremely well-respected players who rely on gut, make impulsive moves and often appear scummy as town even in the process of turning over countless scum (in my experience already the "best players" are a totally separate category from "least likely to be wrongly lynched". I'm sure there are much more skilled players than you, who, in some instances you would be capable of portraying as scum when they were in fact town. The whole notion of a "reasonable townie", especially in the way you've applied it, is really so loaded as to be useless.3) I repeat myself: "The assumption underpinning my argument is that a reasonable townie would not have found fault in what I said. If you want to deride me as weak and subjective, critique that assumption."
Apparently all this amounts to is us disagreeing over the interpretation of "subjective". I meant subjective in that she was privileging her interpretation of my dangling "point" over any alternative perspectives, without any justification (which would be a scumtell, contrary to what you say, because it implies I deliberately misrepresented her, which is rather scummy in and of itself). You have a semantic disagreement that her interpretation was "objective", but no more likely than any other. You implied her privileging this interpretation was justified, but not her privileging of her interpretation of your misplaced post, which you applied stunningly different criterion to- she suddenly had to prove that her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid than any other. I don't see why this point is so hard for you to concede.vollkan wrote:
And I did later refer to this in justification of my vote for her:vollkan wrote: @Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?SL wrote: Orto's rebuttal was wrong - her points here were not purely subjective. That said, she never did explain at all why the "dangling question" was a scumtell (Why is X scummy for Y?). Same goes for the second point; she draws an inference of shirking responsibility. That said, however, neither of these is a compelling argument at all; they both make large assumptions which, whilst objectively explained, aren't supported enough by evidence to carry a vote.
The reason I went back to this vote is that I think we can see a rather clear tendency here. Coming to my point about assumptions underpinning arguments. What we see is that even where SL's logic is impeccable (Objectively speaking, I could very well have quoted "the post" for the reasons she supposes), her assumptions are not (ie. mistake is a more reasonable explanation in the case of a mispost). Her arguments on "genuineness", however, fall into a different category, since they don't construct an argument stemming from anything specific in my play. They fail for being unfalsifiable gut assertions.
Unvote (if I am), Vote: SL-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
That means it's a crap trap, was pointless and it's suspicious you even brought up. See for example the comparison case of a mason who baits votes onto himself then _can_ prove his alignment to attempt to find scum who voted for him. Contrast this with a vanilla townie who can't spring the trap by claiming mason- they have to get lynched. Contrast this further with you who can never prove your trap worked regardless of whether you flip town or scum, because you can never prove what your intentions were in leaving that inconsistency (re: mrfixij) in your post.I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?
Yes, proof of your intention is impossible, that's why it was stupid to ever claim it was a trap. Contrast with the above case of for example the mason or even the vanilla townie who ultimately does have something that can prove their intention.Proof of intention is impossible. You're setting up an impossible onus upon me if that's what you seek.
It goes to my argument of you clutching at straws and being opportunistic which makes you more likely to be scum in my eyes.I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?
Well your initial arguments clearly did not take account of, or deliberately ignored, these subtleties. You stated that my crappy vote on Ecto *must* be due to either me being scum or me being new, and left no potential for me to lie in-between. You argued I was unlikely to be new because some of my posts seemed intelligent, and concluded from this that I was scum. Yet now you acknowledge that what a "reasonable townie" is and what "aberrant play" is are indeed extremely subjective, which leads me to wonder why you felt you had such a concrete basis for your vote on me in the first place.Just because there is diversity in playstyles doesn't make the concept useless. The lynch of townies is unavoidable because townie can, and do, act unreasonably - even the best. The notion of a "reasonable townie" shouldn't be understood as a concrete concept. It's content can and should be debated. My argument is that there was no contradiction in my post, and that a contradiction would most likely only have been found by somebody that was uncritically reading me and leaped on the mere fact that I mentioned my gut.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
Oh yer Hehe I forgot I got caught in his trap. Noted that you buy the crap argument wholesale solely because it come from vollkan.The trap would most likely catch orto because orto, in fact, is approaching said issue from a point of prejudice. Thats the point.
AgreedThis is a whole mess of words upon words that really, aren't getting the job done.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008
I agree, all these posts and we get little read of the motivation behind them. He could have contributed as much to scum-hunting this game had he merely been lurking.in having read six pages of posts i have probably the most quotes and notes on volkan. almost every single one gives me a neutral read.Currently modding Mole Mafia: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=20529
Feel free to PM me to be ready in case I need a replacement.-
-
ortolan Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: October 27, 2008