BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Making a certain tell invalid for everyone is a bad play since there are huge differences in degrees of lurking (a few days versus the whole game... this is the analogy I was making -- that you ignore and just attack the nuances of the word "guilty"), and since lurking at different times from different players can give very different tells.
I'd like to remind you that the original question was something along the lines of `do you consider lurking a scum tell?' My point is that I can make a case against anyone based on lurking, it won't help us to sort out scum. Therefore, I consider it a null-tell.
Also, I need to quote post #335 here:
td wrote:
You're mixing two things here. On one hand, you accuse me because backinblack167 was lurking. On the other hand, when I point out that every player in this game has been at some time, you claim that the argument is not valid. How is backinblack167's lurking any different from ZaneWasHere's lurking? Granted, the former one's lurking was more extreme, but neither you nor I have been lurking.
Also, how can anybody be more guilty of something than somebody else?
I deem it strange that you addressed the first paragraph in post #338 (you actually appear to never have answered my reply to that post in #346), but ignored the second paragraph until eight pages (over three weeks) later.
--
BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Just disregarding ALL LURKING is bad. THat's like me saying since everyone here has voted for someone who has been voted for already (not true I think), then bandwagonning isn't a scum-tell for this game. Obviously there's a logical fallacy there, and the same fallacy applies when you consider all lurking as "not a tell"
Aside from the fact that bandwagoning isn't even necessarly a scum tell at all, I still don't see where the fallacy is supposed to be.
Scum tells are means by which we can differentiate between town and scum. If every single player commits the same tell, there is obviously no longer any differentiation possible. Thus, the tell is ineffective, it becomes a null-tell. The actual fallacy would be to use that tell as major evidence (as a minor point, it might be fine, but then again, it's redundant, because the point applies to
every single player
).
--
BridgesAndBaloons wrote:EEBWOP In my big post when I said post 142 (this is the one that Td was grilling me about) I meant 141. It was a typo. I was not making up evidence. I typed a 2 instead of a 1. Sorry.
Td, you obviously checked JS's posts to see the mistake. Am I supposed to believe you didn't check the one post before 142? Something is odd about this. It would seem that if you were so eager to correct me, that you would see this. Interesting.
I know that you meant #141. It wasn't that hard to tell, since you actually quoted the contents. Also, I did point out that you must have meant that post when I first mentioned that mistake. I actually don't see what you consider scummy in that post, he
does
take a side (your's) but doesn't want to defend you (which is perfectly reasonable, since that is your job).
--
JimSauce wrote:Td, I don't think the errors Bridges made in #427 implicate him much further. I noticed many of them (and pointed some out in my immediate response), but didn't call him out on the others because they seemed like genuine mistakes. Specifically, the mistakes I ignored didn't seem like mistakes mafia would deliberately make because it doesn't much further their cause.
I think that `mistakes' is the wrong word here. The #126/#141/#142/#156 confusion is a good example here, even correcting the typo BridgesAndBaloons claimed to have made (writing #142 instead of #156)
does not actually fix the argument
. Actually, I think what BridgesAndBaloons
meant to correct, but didn't
was that he miswrote #156 as #126 and #141 as #142. However, even that leaves a statement that is just wrong.
--
JimSauce wrote:I think you've been tunelling Bridges this entire game. From your initial game-read, you only commented on his actions. In your following posts you didn't argue with or say anything about anyone but Bridges (excluding the few side questions at others and the small suspicion on cerebus). Then you bring up your attack against (guess who!) Bridges' #427. Who are your top three suspicions and why? Additionally, I'd like you to recap why Bridges should be hung.
Actually, I think you're misrepresenting me here. After my first read, I directed several
questions
at BridgesAndBaloons that I felt had been left open. From these, a discussion evolved and that discussion has lead me to believe that BridgesAndBaloons is one of our scum.
Also, I say something when I actually have something to say, not just because I can; I don't like talking about players just for the sake of talking about them. Just because I don't comment on something doesn't mean I ignore it, it just means that I have nothing to add to that discussion (which could be, for example, because I feel that the argument has actually been resolved).
As for my top three, I'd be happy to share my top two with you (and that only because it should already have been pretty obvious; I like linear approaches better).
My top suspect is actually BridgesAndBaloons, for reasons that I summarized in post #353:
td wrote:Thus, for backing off, self-contradicting, making `spinning' and `weak argument' accusations without providing any evidence and then ignoring questions regarding why the argument was `weak' or `spinning,' building a case on curiouskarmadog that is based entirely on a statement that he misinterprets as `contradictory' (and even if it were, he still fails to explain how that would have been scummy) and continously ignoring requests to provide evidence and/or reasoning
Another point that needs to be added to the list is lying.
My second suspect right now is pinkkitten90, mainly for the fact that she replaced cerebus3 (who did a great effort to distract from BridgesAndBaloons) and lied (or at least overexaggerated greatly) about `being almost lynched as cop because of being female.'
--
JimSauce wrote:td wrote:Having two votes during the random stage in a nine-player game where two other players also have two votes on them is hardly `nearly lynched.' Also there was actually no mention of you being female as the `reason' for those random votes.
Eh? I didn't think Kitty was referring to this game.
I wasn't either, I actually looked up the games she has played so far and the only game she was cop in and actually got voted during the game was Newbie 581, where she got two votes on page one and lost them by page four. Afterwards, she didn't get a single vote and was nightkilled day 2.
--
BridgesAndBaloons post #545. Just skimming over it, because I have to go in a few minutes. However, I'll definitely check those references when I get time.
--
BridgesAndBaloons wrote:I think you're exaggerating when you say I have suspected every single person in this game, because, if you look at the thread only looking at MY posts, you'll see that I haven't really attacked anyone (with backed evidence) until now.
The point was not that you attacked people backed with evidence, but that you attacked people. Nothing more, nothing less. And you
did
attack nearly every player in this game.
--
BridgesAndBaloons wrote:Td has been taking parts of my arguments (for example my misquote of JS) and ignoring the fact that the rest of the post had no mistakes. Maybe I'm mis-using the term, but it seems like he is taking this one weak part (a mistake) and blowing it out of proportion compared to the rest of a really big post. I was bound to make a least a couple typos when I wrote it, and I did.
As I have pointed out above, the actual point is that even with the typos corrected, the more serious mistakes remain behind. Actually, you reducing my argument to critizing your typos is what you are accusing me of.
--
Radio_Interference wrote:-Muerrto, please clarify how Bab should take console in him dieing giving oodles of information to the town due to how much he posts, and yet be pretty much useless due to him freaking out on everyone.
I think the point is that BridgesAndBaloons
feels
he is being useful and, having that feeling, should be `okay with dying and giving us an insane amount of info for day 2,' but isn't, whereas Muerrto
feels
that BridgesAndBaloons' information aren't really that useful. It's not necessarily a contradiction, just two (contradictory) points of view.
