Mini 876 - Tree Stump II [Day None] (Abandoned)

[Sanjay]

/confirm

I'm going to be V/LA most of the weekend.

Is everyone familiar with the strategy employed in the original Tree Stump Mafia? Where instead of lynching people you insist they stump? And you only use a lynch to eliminate players that refuse?

It's a pretty solid strategy and I see no reason to stray from it.

In the meantime,

Vote: Cobalt

.

I wanted to vote for him in /b/ mafia and I never took the chance.

[Sanjay]

vote: sensfan

good ol' mod BW

Are you usually such a jokester, saberwolf?

[Sanjay]

Working on it.

[Sanjay]

You have fun fake-claiming scum?

[Sanjay]

Chinaman for this:

I'm a lumberjack and I'm O.K., I sleep all night and I work all day....

Obviously, it's not a relatively unserious scumclaim. But it is a scumclaim. Chinaman is saying he was just having fun with the random voting stage, and that seems a little fishy to me. It is a little hard to believe that Chinaman didn't realize that saying he was a lumberjack was a little fishy, Monty Python song or no.

Could I see him believing that? Yes. But I still don't like it.

The scumclaim itself is kind of a null tell to me. But playing it off as just having fun is what I really have a problem with.

[Sanjay]

Typo there: It IS a relatively unserious scumclaim.

[Sanjay]

Vote: Chinaman

[Sanjay]

Oooh! Did you think that when there were three?

[Sanjay]

Why is it so surprising to you that people are taking issue to you saying you are a lumberjack, Chinaman?

[Sanjay]

There are four people on your wagon. Given there only being three mafia, that's one confirmed retarded person.

[Sanjay]

Unvote

Vote: Mr.Jester

Is the case unreasonable or is inconclusive? Surely those aren't the same thing to you.

[Sanjay]

Unvote

Vote: Mr.Jester

Is the case unreasonable or is inconclusive? Surely those aren't the same thing to you.

Of course they are not the same thing. Just to be clear let me define what I mean by what I mean by both.

Unreasonable: is an evaluation of the cogency of an argument. i.e given (A,B,C) => D. The argument (A,B,C)=> D is not cogent or reasonable, in other words poor. We can do this on several reasons, ie rejection of premises, relevance and grounds.

Conclusive: Given a set of arguments (A,B,C). The truth of all the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion, in other words, that the argument is "valid". An argument being inconclusive is the negation of this. it, the truth of all the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.


As for your vote, you have given no justification or reasoning. That's twice you've done this already in a game that's 3 pages long.

Twice? What was the first time? My vote for Cobalt? Because surely you don't mean my vote for Chinaman. Did you miss post 45? I would expect someone weighing in and commenting on the oddness of the Chinaman wagon to pay more attention to me than that.

As for my case against you that caused my vote:

If you think the argument that Chinaman's scumclaim makes him scummy is unreasonable, why in the world would you say this:

However, based on his future actions, this act could serve to support his lynch later on. As for now it isn't conclusive.

What future actions did you have in mind? You were practically arguing that it was a town tell (which I have no problem with, by the way), and here you are saying "hey, maybe if Chinaman gets into trouble we can remember this and lynch him".

What?

There's no conflict between an argument being unreasonable and inconclusive, but it seems off to say an argument is inconclusive when you are also saying it is unreasonable, because the second one is much stronger.

[Sanjay]

If you don't understand someone's reasoning is it your policy to assume there is none?

[Sanjay]

"No justification or reasoning" is a bogus way to describe an argument just because you don't agree with it.

[Sanjay]

You are skirting the issue.

Even if I were to concede that the Chinaman case was poor, no reasoning does not equal bad reasoning. You are saying that they do.

[Sanjay]

For what it is worth, I don't think I clearly articulated why I thought Chinaman is scummy.

I think taking issue with Chinaman's scumclaim is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. It seems gambit-y and deserving of attention. When Chinaman said don't worry about it, it was just a Monty Python quote, The Fonz asked him why he made an irrelevant post. Chinaman's response in post 42 was this:

The Fonz p31: Really? You are pointing at me for irrelevant posts in RVS? Are you serious? If so, why did you decide to pick up on my irrelevant post vs. anyone else's? To answer your question, it's RVS and I was having fun with it.

That Chinaman said he was having fun with it I am fine with. Town or scum, Chinaman could be telling the truth here. But he is also pretty critical of The Fonz for criticizing his post. I don't think this reaction is justified.

Even if Chinaman is joking, I didn't see why he thought The Fonz's comments were so unreasonable. I don't like that he played it off as just having fun when he should realize that no matter what the intention, it is more serious than that.

[Sanjay]

Are you being funny, Quag? What happened to this:

Can people please stop using 'there's nothing better to go on right now' as an excuse to vote someone? It's not legitimate, and it's not an excuse. Don't pretend like it is.

[Sanjay]

I feel the same way about Mr.Jester.

Tell me more about estranged voting. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it and why it is a scumtell.

[Sanjay]

I think Quagmire is intentionally trying to start an argument with Fonz; I can only assume he's targetting Fonz for being the most active player so far.

Did you get this same feeling when he started the same argument with you and Shanba over the same kind of thing? Is there a difference between the two situations?

[Sanjay]

So why the thing about "I can only assume he's targetting Fonz for being the most active player so far."

If he's doing it with everyone, why a special reason for targeting The Fonz?

[Sanjay]

only Quagmire can answr that.

Nope. Only Sudo_Nym can.

[Sanjay]

Wow, don't help him any, Fonzie.

[Sanjay]

Hi!

[Sanjay]

You sure you want to abandon your previous suspect, saberwolf?

[Sanjay]

I haven't the foggiest.

[Sanjay]

saberwolf must be pretty pissed that despite all the effort he is putting into being the most anti-town player, half the town is outdoing him.

[Sanjay]

I'm glad I'm already voting for this guy.

[Sanjay]

So all Quag needed to say was "nuh uh" and you dropped the case?

[Sanjay]

Why aren't there more votes on Kirbyoshi?

[Sanjay]

Read Mr.Jester though.

Pretty sure that dude flat out lied.

[Sanjay]

You definitely think something needs to be explained away there though, right? ME TOO.

Everyone else is acting like it was no big deal, so I'm plenty glad to finally have someone who agrees with me.

[Sanjay]

I said "Wow, don't help him any, Fonzie." because he asked kind of a leading question.

His question "Are you saying that by admitting that he doesn't think the behaviour is scummy, he renders his own vote useless?" was leading because, while it is a great point, there was really no evidence of that kind of thinking in Quagmire's post.

Theoretically, The Fonz could be Quag's scumbuddy trying to lead him to a more defensible position. Is that super-likely? Probably not. It's not like Quag was getting that much heat for his position.

But I definitely didn't see the harm in throwing that accusation at The Fonz and seeing what happens.

But with Mr.Jester, I think I have good reason to be voting for him:

Here's what I saw:

First, I vote Mr.Jester in Post 63

In post 74, he says this:

As for your vote, you have given no justification or reasoning. That's twice you've done this already in a game that's 3 pages long.

Previously, I had voted for Chinaman in post 48, but my reasons for doing so were in a previous post, post 45. I presume he overlooked that, saw the post with nothing but "Vote: Chinaman" in it and figured he had me on something.

I post this in post 78:

Twice? What was the first time? My vote for Cobalt? Because surely you don't mean my vote for Chinaman. Did you miss post 45? I would expect someone weighing in and commenting on the oddness of the Chinaman wagon to pay more attention to me than that.

Now here's where the scumminess really kicks in:

Rather than just saying "Oh yeah, I missed your explanation", he sets up this truly bizarre argument where because he doesn't think my explanation for why Chinaman was scum is poor it makes sense for him to say I had no justification or reasoning.

I think I nail him with post 83, and he is never heard from again.

Reread this exchange.

It is more than just semantics.

[Sanjay]

EDIT:

Rather than just saying "Oh yeah, I missed your explanation", he sets up this truly bizarre argument where because he

doesn't

thinks my explanation for why Chinaman was scum is poor it makes sense for him to say I had no justification or reasoning.

[Sanjay]

I thought Mr.Jester's silly opinions were too ridiculous to be believed. So in saying he believes them he's lying.

[Sanjay]

I don't see this case you two are talking about.

Enlighten me?

Also: Hi, Haylen!

[Sanjay]

Thanks a lot, SensFan!

Could you edit the first post so we can remember who is who?

[Sanjay]

Kirbyoshi, what happened to your case on Quagmire? Did it all go away once Quagmire explained estranged voting?

[Sanjay]

Where is Sudo_Nym exactly? Did he forget about the game again? Is Mish Mash that enticing?

[Sanjay]

Also, where the heck is Haylen?

[Sanjay]

Haven't you posted a little bit too much NO CONTENT AT ALL to be criticizing people for not posting, Haylen?

[Sanjay]

Seriously, Haylen?

[Sanjay]

Have a good time.

Here's some questions when you get back:

1) What's with the ridiculous reaction in post 322?
2) Who are your prime suspects?
3) What do you think of Kirbyoshi?
4) If you had to pick one lurker to lynch, who would you choose?

[Sanjay]

Make a case against me, Kirbyoshi.

[Sanjay]

Well, I guess if you aren't obligated to you better not do it.

[Sanjay]

The reason I asked Kirbyoshi to expand on his suspicions just now is that the phrase "China misunderstanding" just seems really off to me.

I guess I'm kind of tunneling the guy so I could be wrong, but I really don't see how Kirbyoshi is so sure it is a misunderstanding, and besides that I don't see what is so special about me in this regard when there was a four person wagon.

scotmany12 seems pretty townish so probably it was, but come on. Even if the case was wrong, I fail to see how the case against Chinaman was so obviously wrong at the time that being wrong about it is scummy.

---

Sudo, what is the hold up? I don't really see what you are trying to catch up with.

[Sanjay]

Mod: When is the deadline exactly?

[Sanjay]

Vote: Sudo_Nym

Though at this point I'm more inclined to Vote: Call the game on account of almost everyone flaking.

[Sanjay]

Yeah, I didn't want to mention this in thread in case we actually kept going since it would be a downer to town morale, but I agree with The Fonz.

I really love this setup, and the players that actually played were fun to play with, but I don't really want to play this game.

[Sanjay]

I'd rather have a restart.