Open 54 - Basic 12 Player (over) before 529

[Thestatusquo]

Torn.

[Thestatusquo]

The fact that I did not immediately vote IH should signify that I am not the cop.

[Thestatusquo]

BTW, if someone IS the real cop, and this IS a fake, then I IMPLORE you to come out. There are some situations where it is right to remain hidden, but now is not that time.

[Thestatusquo]

Woo! (Doc: PROTECT IH TONIGHT, NO WIFOM ABOUT IT. SERIOUSLY.)


I'm still putting my money on Shanba/Patrick at this point. Andy seems like a reasonable third.

Like...Why would you say that? The only reason there WOULD be wifom is if there were discussion about it...If you weren't cleared, I'd be tempted to vote you for that, but as is I'm just annoyed because you should know better.

[Thestatusquo]

Well, I'd have to read the thread to know that, now would I. Now that you're cleared, I figure I'll just Barn you.

[Thestatusquo]

plz?

[Thestatusquo]

Awww glork, I really am not intimidated by you.

[Thestatusquo]

P.S. I said that just because I knew it would make glork blow up. I'll reread eventually.

[Thestatusquo]

TSQ, do you know offhand how many other people in this game know your opinion on that thing that happened in a ScumChat game last week or whatever?

I am trying to decide if it's significant that you haven't done that thing that you claim you think should be done in that one specific situation.




And I

REALLY

hope you understand what I'm talking about, because I probably look like a complete idiot to everyone else. Obviously, the crypticness is necessary, though.

Glork, I would generally not do that at lylo, or in an open game, both scenarios exist here.

[Thestatusquo]

Sikario/TSQ: Sikario played very little as well, and I didn't like his playstyle, but that's only gut. I hope to hear more from TSQ yet.

NO U.

[Thestatusquo]

By following you, obviously.

[Thestatusquo]

IH, this bothers me:

Oh shiz Crub posts a bandwagon vote for Rip "in the name of progress", and nothing else. I'm kind of certain this guys scum.

I could cite at least half a dozen times where I (as a protown player) wagon somebody just to move along with the day. Is there something specific that makes you think Crub is scum in doing this, or do you just not like the wagoning?

I think it's more that IH has become convinced that Crub is scum, and is looking for things to confirm that, rather than reading the game objectively. Thats a rut I get caught in sometimes.

[Thestatusquo]

Thought I'd let you guys in on a little secret. As chamber would say: Fuck.

[Thestatusquo]

Glork, you know damn well why I am not checking the thread.

[Thestatusquo]

Um, that was a whole lot of talk saying "Tsq is scum" without actually saying why TSQ is scum. In fact, most of your reasoning assumed TSQ as scum, and then argued that the others fit with him.

It would seem to be odd reasoning, then, to say that I am your favored lynch target without actually saying what i have done that is so scummy. That would seem pretty important at LAL. perhaps you could go do it now.

[Thestatusquo]

Glork, read my post referencing chamber, and also my post about the positions discussed in scumchat. It's not as if I've added no content to this game.

[Thestatusquo]

Right, and I am saying that I disagree with some of your premises. Specifically, I don't know how you can fiat that the rest of the town should just believe you're not scum. In addition, I haven't read the thread yet, but I think your analysis is lacking in one key area, and that is that it assumes that since players don't look like scum together, then they can't be scum together. This is part of why I think looking scum partners can be good if a link exists, but is complete bunk when you're looking for an absense of a link. This is because it ignores skill. Shanba and Patrick are both fantastic experienced players. They are good at playing the game of mafia, and I think for you to assume that they'd leave direct ties to their scum partners is foolish. If you were analyzing the play of two wet behind the ears noobies, then perhaps I could see the point, but that is not how good players act.

I have seen scum come right and vote their scum buddy and press them hard at LAL. This is actually a good stategy, because it ensures survival if one or the other scum player is lynched.

Going to do reread tomorrow, btw. I'm off work.

[Thestatusquo]

You just ignored what you requested, kitty mah dear. You asked me to address your premises, and you just fell for what we in the biz like to call a "Deliberately weak argument." It's a pretty strong tell.

This is the logic from which is flows: There are two ways to argue in a game of mafia. There is one which attempts to use logic, and understanding to find scum. This kind of argumentation takes reason, and uses the assumption that the other sides alignment is not determined. This is used by town players, and good scum players who are attempting to look townie. Then there is the other kind of argumentation. This is the style where the person is trying to "win the argument" To score points. This is a strategy generally used by scum because they already know alignment, and are not interested in discovering the truth, but rather in making their opponent look stupid, or bad, and making themselves look right.

DWA seeks to emphasize this fact. Look at my post. I made three different arguments there. Well, really 2. I made two arguments which were subsets of the same argument. Here they are, labeled for your convienience, with warrants.

1) You can't assume you're town: None.
2) Scumpartner links are only valid for determining links, not lack of links.
a) This is because you ignore the skill of the players involved: Patrick and Shanba are skilled, experienced players who would not be likely to draw you a map right back to their scumbuddies.
b) Your point is contingent on wifom: because sometimes it is a better strategy for scum to attack a partner pretty hard at lylo in order to "clear" themselves for the next day if one of them dies.

Now, The first one is obviously bunk, its a stupid point, with little content, and it takes up one sentance in a pretty decent sized post, whereas the 2 a and b are reasonable, (probably) correct, and well warranted. This is done deliberately, in order to emphasize which style of argumentation a player is using. If you were really interested in the flaws in your logic, if you were really trying to discover my alignment in general, you would be addressing the most salient, relevant parts of the post, because discussing them can lead to the correct lynch. You didn't do this, in fact, you completely ignored them and went after the one part of the post which looked like a slam dunk can't lose make me look stupid argument for you. This reflects very poorly on what you are trying to do in this game, and I am pretty sure I will be voting you, but I want to reread before I do that.

In the mean time,

MAJOR FOS: BOOKITTY

[Thestatusquo]

1) Just because possible answers exist to the points I raised, it doesn't mean that the DWA doesn't apply, in fact it even weakens your position, because it proves there were decent answers that you straight out ignored to attack the DWA.

2) The point is not that you pointed out that it was a weak argument. Any player should, and would do that. The point is that you attacked ONLY that point, ignoring the rest of the post which raised significant questions with your advocacy. Its not what you attacked, but what you did not attack that triggers the DWA.

3) It wasn't a lie, it was simply a weak argument without a warrant. Noting your attempt to misscharacterize me here.

4) Shanba hasnt attacked patrick in LYLO? Now you are the one that is lying. A quick glance over shanbas posts for the day shows that he in his opening post said he thought patrick was scum. He then lists Patrick as his #1 scum suspect. Patrick hasn't attacked SHanba?

I'm having trouble seperating Crub and Shanba as my first and second suspect, though I think there's a good chance that's a false dilemna and that they're both scum. Andy is a close third, TSQ is fourth but really needs to say something, Bookitty is fifth. If I had one chance to call out the scumgroup now, it would be Crub/Shanba/Andy.

That would be another lie, and seeing as those are both from today, and today is LYLO, I would say that what you just said is a big load of crap.

5) Actually, you can extend what I said about Patrick and Shanba to andy and Crub, potentially. The reason I did not is because I have never played with either of them, and thus have no idea how skilled they are, the argument was not shanba and patrick specific, but rather a general argument that your position ignores the skill of the players involved, with Patrick and Shanba as example.

6) Yes, even the best players can slip up in a game of mafia, but the point is that to assume they will is poor strategy. You should be looking for which players are scummy in their own right, and if you can connect two players together because of that, then all is well and good, but I don't think you can ever make the positive claim X is not Ys scumbuddy in a game of mafia barring extroadinary circumstances such as a player being cleared. (for instance, you could unequivocally claim that glork is not my scumbuddy, but then, what would be the point?)

7) First of all, that's wifom, as there are clearly balancing factors as to why it would be a bad idea to just lurk. It's also wifom, because your question answers itself. "Why would I do X in a game of mafia" Well, precisely because you can then point to X as a reason why you are townie. Second, the fact that you make "content heavy posts asking for others to pick your logic appart" doesnt mean anything because when I DID that, you ignored it, and looked to make me look wrong, rather than determine whether I was right or not. Thats a direct link into a DWA, which I have found an extremely accurate scum tell. (Not to name drop, but I learned it from reading seol.)

8) I don't like the conciliatory nature of your posts. They seem to be asking the towns permission before you go on, which to me is a hallmark sign of scum testing the waters. But that's very small compared to DWA.

[Thestatusquo]

OMGUS is a stupid argument, usually. The natural reaction of any player being attacked is to look at the person attacking her. This leads to it being more likely that a player would attack that player. That being said, I don't think OMGUS (as shitty a tell as it is) is even valid in this case because you were attacking me before hand.

The DWA is not merely a difference of assumptions. Stop trying to brush it aside, as if the logic doesnt apply. it wont work. The logic is very specific. Stop trying to say you "attacked the lie" because that's not at all what happened. You neglected the relevant part of the post in order to attempt to shift the debate to ground where you could win. Thats not a difference of assumptions, that's a methodology of how you're posting.


Thats another thing, too. You continue to call what I said a "lie" and that subtle attempt to poison my well is a pretty good tell as well, but tell me how "the rest of the town can't assume you're not scum" is a lie? If you can, I will give you a million dollars. This is mainly because you can't. It's weak, it was borderline irrelevant, but it certainly was not a lie. Stop calling it one, now, lest you look foolish.

You keep saying you "don't hold my arguments with as much weight as glorks" Thats fine, but you're sounding like a broken record by this point. The way you keep repeating it like a mantra makes the following line "I look forward to any/all imput/compaints/suggestions etc. etc. etc." ring very hollow. It's like you're trying to remind the rest of the town to not take my arguments seriously because I'm not cleared, which is once again subtly poisoning my well.

The links, or lack there of, between shanba and patrick was not the point. It was an illustration of concept that YOU can't make the assumption that they are not. Since you're now conceding it as a possibilty, you've lost your whole "mathmatical" case against me, and are now stuck with a couple of weak statements from a player who's playstyle is best described as "OMGUS with a hint of Panic." you're going to have to do much better if you expect to misslynch me, I pride myself on being hard to lynch.

Lastly, stop trying to downplay what I'm saying by telling me "You look forward to my case." A VERY significant portion of that case (aka a tell I consider to be able 75-80% accurate) has already been concretely demonstrated, and the way you've responded to the attacks has not been very good at all.

[Thestatusquo]

Missed something:

Simply saying that "they're too good" seems a defeatist attitude, and one that isn't helpful, especially in LYLO. I presented my argument (something that, at that point, you had yet to do despite ample time before your computer problems), and I provided the reasoning that I used to derive my conclusions, so that others could objectively assess the merits of my case. I think that's the right thing to do. You didn't provide any content at all until you felt attacked. So the argument about "content-heavy posts" falls down, because you only did that under pressure.

Wait what?

1)I said that good players do not lead you to their scumbuddies, and that instead you should look at their motives in their actions from the whole game. How is that a defeatist attitude? The point is it's poor strategy to expect a good player to slip up, and instead you must play like they haven't, or try to force them to slip up, as I have forced you to slip up.

2) WHAT? my argument about content heavy posts was that it was wifom for you to say that you were town because you amde content heavy posts, and I also said that it didn't matter, because you still didn;t respond, and still fell for the DWA. How does me "Being under pressure" cause that logic to :Fall" It's possible that Im not understanding you perfectly here, but if you're saying what I think you are, then you make no sense.

[Thestatusquo]

1) The point is, regardless of what you're asking the town to do, you're asking the town to believe you are town in order for them to lynch me. In fact, you have made no arguments as to why YOU are not scum, simply that everyone is mathmatically eliminated save me. (you neglect to mention that you yourself fall into the exact same slot as I do, and therefore in order for your "mathmatical" proof of me being scum to work, anyone would have to assume that you are not scum, otherwise they are faced with a choice of you or me. )Really not a lie at all.

2) Why is your behavior now any less likely to be indicative of alignment than say, your behavior yesterday? Have you magically lost your win condition, and are thus excused from doing scummy things? This time frame argument makes no sense, as since I've obviously read what you've been posting, and found several VERY scummy things in it, its perfectly capable of being a "case"

3) It is pretty obvious what I am basing my arguments on. Your behavior. Go back and read my arguments again. I have explained all my logic very thoroughly.

4) STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I have not made any counter arguments about Shanba and Patrick. I am not making any positive claim as to whether or not they are scum buddies. I DO NOT HAVE TO. SINCE your argument is contingent on the fact that they "mathmatically" cannot be, the mere chance that they are disproves the whole thing. I have given 3 reasons why you cannot be sure that they cannot be scum buddies, and you have responded to exactly none of them, and are now attempting to attack the time at which I make my arguments, rather than the arguments themselves, since you know you can't beat them.

I was actually unaware that the deadline was that fast approaching. I'm going to update my FOS to a

VOTE: Bookitty

[Thestatusquo]

Once again, no matter how many times you tell me I haven't read the whole thread, it doesn't defeat what I'm saying.

[Thestatusquo]

Eh.

Vote: Crub

FoS: Patrick, Shanba

GG Scum.

Appeal to emotion?

Fos: Crub

[Thestatusquo]

Also, Bookitty, I don't feel either of us has anything more relevant to say on the subject, so if it's all the same to you, lets stop posting novels, and wait for the rest of the other players to chime in, so the thread doesn't get too bogged down with our bickering. We can attack each other anew when the rest of the town has had a chance to talk about this, I promise.

Mod edit: protecting my font.

[Thestatusquo]

Kitty, my last post, if you will.

[Thestatusquo]

Also, I'd like you to know I quite like you personally, so no hard feelings, eh? Just a game.

[Thestatusquo]

What specifically made you think Bookitty was town?

[Thestatusquo]

Glork...That wasn't the point. The "lie" as it were was largely immaterial, it was the DWA which was important.

[Thestatusquo]

Glork...I dont think you actually read my explanation of the DWA, and how she "fell" into it.

[Thestatusquo]

662 is where I make the DWA, 663 is where she falls into the DWA, and 664 is where I explain it. Reading all three of those posts in detail is VITAL to understanding the rest of the exchange, which from your comments, I don't think you did.

[Thestatusquo]

Actually, the claim wasnt that you could be certain, it was that I don't think you can ever make the claim that X is NOT Y's scum partner. And since you take Shanba not being Patricks scumbuddy and Andy not being crubs as a premise, your whole case is flawed from the start.

[Thestatusquo]

Actually, the claim wasnt that you could be certain, it was that I don't think you can ever make the claim that X is NOT Y's scum partner. And since you take Shanba not being Patricks scumbuddy and Andy not being crubs as a premise, your whole case is flawed from the start.

I don't think you can ever be absolutely certain of that unless you're scum yourself, but I think there are definitely cases where it's far less likely for two people to be scum together. And it's part of the process of measuring probabilities, is it not? It is equally true that you cannot say that two people are scumbuddies for certain unless you are scum yourself, but you did not object to that in the same way.

To me it seems as though you are attacking the entire notion of connections as a useful tool in finding scum. Is that your intent?

No, there is an inherent difference between proving a connection, and proving a lack of connection. It is logically coherant to say that the actions of X make me think that he is scum with Y. I don't think you can do the same thing in reverse, because of the reasons I enumerated earlier. In general though, yes, I think "analyzing connections" is a less useful technique than others in finding scum.

[Thestatusquo]

662 is where I make the DWA, 663 is where she falls into the DWA, and 664 is where I explain it. Reading all three of those posts in detail is VITAL to understanding the rest of the exchange, which from your comments, I don't think you did.

No, I read it all and I understand perfectly.


My point is that, as I read your posts, I though virtually

the exact same thing that BooKie immediately replied to

. I don't think your DWA works at all or proves anything here, especially given this fact.

Can you give me five past examples where use of DWA has busted scum?

You would have responded to just the top sentance of the post, and ignored most of the content? Glork, I don't believe that at all. I am not going to go searching through tons of games to find you that, and I think the logic stands on its own. Though, I will admit that the time I saw Seol use it (In wifom league game two) it was a false positive, as Yosarian2 was a cop with a guilty result on the player they were arguing about, which in my opinion proves the logic of the thing, because the cop is attacking the thread with the same mindset as the scum: They know a players logic, and are therefore not interested in substantively discussing whether X is scum, but rather about winning the argument and getting that player lynched. We don't have to worry about that scenario in this game, for obvious reasons.

But even if you don't buy the DWA argument, what about the several instances of poisoning the well, etc, that I bring up?

[Thestatusquo]

Erm, should read players alignement, and not players logic.

[Thestatusquo]

*sigh* Ok. Some day I will get people to believe this tell...I've gotten it in another ongoing game, and no one wants to lynch because of there either. I wonder why.

[Thestatusquo]

Well, I think you're giving your self too little credit glork, as I've seen you admit to being wrong many times in mafia games, when the arguments bear out that you're wrong. The point is would you really go for a throw away argument that was meaningless over two on point arguments if you were town? I don;t think so. I know I wouldn't, because if they were serious objections to my position, I would look at them, and try to analyze whether or not they should change my mind, and if I decided they didn't, I would post that.

[Thestatusquo]

Hi. We all saw that coming.

[Thestatusquo]

If we're not going to get Bookitty, we can at least get her scumbuddy shanba.

VOTE: SHANBA

[Thestatusquo]

Iunno.