Mini #582: Meta Mafia Mini! GAME OVER!

[Johoohno]

---

Johoohno:
In [311], why did you ask for only DotS to be prodded, and not Primate also?

Since I had a question waiting to be answered by DotS.

Johoohno:
I wanted you to elaborate on Primate’s alignment.

Also, which other players specifically do you see “as more scummy”?

I am suspicious of Primate, but he isn't my top scum candidate right now. Two other players I see as suspicious are (not in any specific order right now): DestroyeroftheSky (for a long time now) and mneme (recent addition due to last page actions).
<snip>

Why are you suspicious of DotS?

Due to a lot of small things (some scum tells, some differences in opinion only):
* Post seems to search a scapegoat
* I disagree with him that kinppin overreacted (post 33)
* Seems a bit nervous about mathcam's vote on him, and it was only one vote (post 101)
* The fishing for roles through looking at the dead corpse (post 153 & post 161)
* in the beginning he was farily active, but has kept a low profile after the above mentioned incident.

<snip>
I'd say that we try lynching the player found most scummy this day (I am not ready to lynch yet - Heck, I'm not even voting now).

Am I missing/missunderstanding something according to the mass claim thought?
<snip>

Here’s the problem: The town votes up the most suspicious player. When that player is 1 or 2 away from lynch, they claim. How does the town evaluate the claim? Without a massclaim, how will you evaluated role information in this setup? And while the town could ignore the claim- by your own admission, your suspicion of Primate dropped after his claim.

As for the rest, I’m not going to repeat myself. Read through the rest of my posts.

I'm kind of negativ on D1 claims in general. Furthermore, the reason that my suspicion dropped somewhat on him is that he chose to make a claim that needed someone backing it up. It would be a bold play by scum to do that.

However, I'm not negative of a Primate lynch, but wanted more info on the claim issue (and I've gotten some). Would be nice to hear something more from Primate and DotS both now.

[KingPin]

Came across some things on reread:
KingPin [10] wrote:

<snip>
Meta to me seems to imply that there are some roles that can have a dramatic influence behind the scenes.

Just basic obvious points from the above. Carry on.

It seems that your opposition to the massclaim is based on your belief that this isn’t true. What changed?

Nothing has changed.

I still believe that there are some roles that can have a dramatic influence behind the scenes. This is bolstered by the claims that have been made so far. However, we do not have enough information to conclude that scum have any night actions other than killing. By giving scum any more information than they have currently, I believe we are putting the town in danger.

I also would not assume that scum do not have night abilities other than a kill. This, in my opinion would unnecessarily put the town into a false sense of security.

The logic of [165] and [178] is all kinds of convoluted.

In an attempt to answer a request that every player post thoughts on other players, I posted that. Just to be clear, you believe that I am suspicious because I put my thoughts down in writing.

Moreover, your reasoning concerning other players doesn’t match.

Yes it does. Please read it again.
*Fonz and Primate. Fonz gets town points because he pointed out that Stoof had brought Primate to L-1 there is no relationship with Primate other than this in the post.
*Massive and Stoofer. Massive was asking questions and Stoofer was ignoring those questions. The questions, IMO, were designed to alleviate suspicious actions from Stoofer. However, Stoofer ignored these questions and instead acted more suspicious.
*EmpTyger and Stoofer. My post relating to you contained a statement at the very bottom. Did you read that disclaimer? I acknowledged that there were holes in my theory. However, you have conveniently forgotten to put that in your post.

I didn’t like it at the time, and in retrospect- it reads like an attempt to go on record as being nominally against Stoofer, while not voting him, not attacking him, and trying to keep an alternate bandwagon.

Really, I have both Stoof and Primate being scummy. Please read all my posts again. I have stated that I was suspicious of Stoof long ago. I have stated that I was suspicious of Primate for quite a while now.

Your point here is misleading to the town, and scummy in my opinion. I did not vote, at all, until I placed my vote on the player I thought was most suspicious, Primate. I have put my suspicions regarding both Primate and Stoofer in writing for everyone to see. Just because I am not voting for the player you find most suspicious does not mean that I do not find him scummy. And I suppose you could make the exact same argument if I had placed my vote on Stoofer rather than Primate. Oh no, I said more than one person was scummy, but only voted for the one I thought was most scummy.

Let me make this clear right now, I think Primate is scum. I have voted for him. I also think Mr. Stoofer is scummy. Had Primate not been as scummy as he has been, I may be voting for Mr. Stoofer. I cannot honestly say that I would be voting for Mr. Stoofer, if not for Primate, because I would need to re-evaluate the game sans Primate-scum.

[EmpTyger]

<snip>
massive - On more than one occasion he has questions designed to elicit information from Stoofer that would clear up some scum feelings (for me at least) and give Stoof a more townie feel. Town
<snip>
Mr Stoofer - Sloppy, liar, and anti-town actions have him defending every action. His defenses seem to be reduced to slight personal attacks and jumping on another bandwagon to shift the attention from him to Primate. Scum

Primate - Gives vote to someone he thinks is scum. Reason enough to vote IMHO. Defends his actions with very personal attacks and claiming that it would be more beneficial if Emp had a vote. Of course this is true, except that Emp does not have a vote. Primate has two. Scum

The fonz - Unvote Primate and pointed out that he was at L-1 with Stoof's vote, then voted for Stoof for bringing Primate to L-1 without a notice to the town. Town
<snip>

So, you think Primate is guilty…
… but Fonz is innocent because he stopped the bandwagon on Primate?

And you think that Stoofer is guilty…
…but massive is innocent because he tried to give Stoofer a “more townie feel”?

That’s much more than “a hole” in your logic. If you really thought that Primate and Stoofer were guilty- how could you think that about massive and Fonz? Reread exactly what you wrote. Your description of massive presumes that Stoofer is innocent. Your description of Fonz presumes that Primate is innocent. But you are simultaneously saying that Stoofer and Primate are guilty!

---

massive:

<snip>Do you think that if you snip out only the bit of my comments that you want, that everyone will think that I haven't been active in this game and you can accuse me, realistically, of "deliberately lurking"?

Lurking doesn't have to be on a Primate-scale. It can be posting just enough to not draw attention, going with the low, keeping a low profile, not committing to stances, and waiting for the opportune moment. So, yes, I think I can realistically accuse you. You had an opinion in the massclaim discussion, and you stayed quiet. You weren’t just doing this to give others a chance, because I had to drag it out of you after others had spoken. Instead, you stayed quiet while something you allegedly agree with- the massclaim proposal- is all but defeated.

[massive]

So, you believe I can be vocal about Stoofer, vocal about my beliefs on the Primate/TSN front, but suspiciously lurking on the massclaim topic? If you don't think I'm putting myself out there, well, that's your prerogative, I reckon.

[Johoohno]

Time to vote (and by that bump this thread to life again):

Vote: Mneme

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Why are you voting for mneme?

[Johoohno]

He brings Primate to L-1 in post 300 without any mentioning of it. When the L-1 is questioned (post 302) he tries to shift focus (post 304) and finally shifts vote as well to TSN (post 306).

And all this from a person who has been very single-minded on stoofer all the way up to post 300, now he is voting wildly all over the place. And since May 19 he has been silent. Could be a way to avoid notion and keeping his head low.

[KingPin]

Emp,
What is your point? If you would like me to work-up another evaluation post on every player and a relationship between each and every player I will not. Not right now. Especially when no other player has done so. Add to that, that even when someone has asked that each player post such a view of players thus far, not every player did.

I have, as far as play goes right now, Primate and Stoofer being scum. Your play is becoming more and more scummy with every nonsense post. If you have something that you believe to be scummy about my play, simply state it. If you have an accusation, simply state it.

Primate is scummy because he gave a vote to a person he thinks is scummy, you.
Stoofer is scummy because he is sloppy and wants to explain away his sloppiness with a meta defense, I simply will not buy a meta defense, at all ever.
I think Fonz gets innocent points for his game actions. This does not assume that Stoofer is guilty, only that Fonz has acted more town.
I do not think that Massive is scum because he was trying to question Stoofer about points that would make him seem more town, instead I see massive as being town because he was acting like a townsperson by asking relevant information regarding Stoofer's play. I interperted his questions as developed to elicit information that would show Stoofer as just being careless and less anti-town.

Is that difficult for you to understand? Is that straight forward enough?

[EmpTyger]

3 reasons why I think KingPin has been lying about his suspicions:

1) Making a suspicious player seem innocent is a sign of innocence.

Mr Stoofer - Sloppy, liar, and anti-town actions have him defending every action. His defenses seem to be reduced to slight personal attacks and jumping on another bandwagon to shift the attention from him to Primate. Scum

massive - On more than one occasion he has questions designed to elicit information from Stoofer that would clear up some scum feelings (for me at least) and give Stoof a more townie feel. Town

So according to KingPin:
Stoofer is suspicious.
massive was trying to explain away suspicious actions, and give a suspicious player a more townie feel.
Therefore, massive is innocent.

But that’s not a sign of innocence. That’s a sign of *guilt*. *Maybe* if Stoofer were innocent, it could be argued. But massive has been voting Stoofer, so he didn’t think so. And KingPin just afterwards in [165] said that Stoofer was guilty, so that’s not it either.

2) Saving a suspicious player from a lynch is a sign of innocence.

Primate - Gives vote to someone he thinks is scum. Reason enough to vote IMHO. Defends his actions with very personal attacks and claiming that it would be more beneficial if Emp had a vote. Of course this is true, except that Emp does not have a vote. Primate has two. Scum

The fonz - Unvote Primate and pointed out that he was at L-1 with Stoof's vote, then voted for Stoof for bringing Primate to L-1 without a notice to the town. Town

So according to KingPin:
Primate is suspicious.
Fonz stopped the wagon on a suspicious player, and attacked the player who tried to lynch a suspicious player.
Therefore, Fonz is innocent.

But if Primate is so suspicious, that KingPin thinks him guilty- and has thought him pretty consistently guilty all day- then why would Fonz be innocent? Now, if Primate is innocent, I agree that Fonz would get heavy “protown points”. But KingPin didn’t think this at the time, and moreover he hasn’t ever thought this.

3) Attacking a suspicious player is a sign of guilt.

Mr Stoofer - Sloppy, liar, and anti-town actions have him defending every action. His defenses seem to be reduced to slight personal attacks and jumping on another bandwagon to shift the attention from him to Primate. Scum

Emp’s forcefulness strikes me as being over the top. I realize that I find Stoofer to be more scum than town myself. However, Emp’s play to me seems a little more than distancing himself from Stoof-scum. Perhaps this is because he lacks an actual vote today (I dislike lending votes).

He is blatantly sticking his neck out on day one where the actions at this point from Stoofer are Sloppy, Lie, L-1 w/o comment, deflection ect. What benefit would a Townie have for these actions? Potentially lynching someone whom is acting scummy.

What benefit for scum?

Note that Emp sees that Stoof just made a mistake on D1 page 2. Emp attacks Stoof.

Then another player points out the obvious flaw in Stoof’s reasoning. Emp now has a choice, either go full force against Stoof or find another bandwagon or tree to bark up.

Which option would benefit scum in this scenario? IMO Option 1, attack relentlessly and keep attacking knowing that if Stoof is scum and is lynched then he would have huge townie points for himself if he lynches a scum buddy.

If Emp lynches a townie then he can say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus the reason for my super-attack on Stoof. It was the rest of the town that is to blame.”

If Emp does not effectuate a lynch at all, then he could say “I did not have a vote, I needed to work doubly hard at a lynch, thus my super-attack on Stoof.”

So according to KingPin:
Stoofer had been acting suspiciously.
EmpTyger attacked a suspicious player.
It is implausible that an innocent player wants to lynch a suspicious player.
Therefore, EmpTyger is guilty.

I commented about the illogic of this at the time. His argument is that, since I do not have a vote, attacking Stoofer forcefully is suspicious. I asked at the time and I will ask again now for KingPin or someone to tell me whether there was anything I could have done that would have been less suspicious. Until then, I submit that this logic makes no sense.

So, in conclusion, I really like a Stoofer-massive-KingPin mafia. Then all of KingPin’s inconsistencies make sense.

---

KingPin:
I am not interested in your feelings about the rest of the town. I am interested in *you*. I want you to explain how you concluded that
1) Making a suspicious player seem innocent is a sign of innocence.
2) Saving a suspicious player from a lynch is a sign of innocence.
3) Attacking a suspicious player is a sign of guilt.
because the only explanation I see is that you were lying about who was and wasn’t suspicious to you.

I gave you a chance to actually defend yourself, but instead you tried to brush it away as “nonsense” and itched towards OMGUS. If you feel more inclined to defend yourself now, go for it, but the rest of this post was intended mostly for the town- to make sure they have their eyes wide open.

[mneme]

He brings Primate to L-1 in post 300 without any mentioning of it. When the L-1 is questioned (post 302) he tries to shift focus (post 304) and finally shifts vote as well to TSN (post 306).

A fascinating interpretation.

And all this from a person who has been very single-minded on stoofer all the way up to post 300, now he is voting wildly all over the place. And since May 19 he has been silent. Could be a way to avoid notion and keeping his head low.

Or, you know, there could have been more or less nothing to say last week when nearly nobody was posting, and I could have a largely-kept rule of never posting on weekends.

How can I have "my head down" when nothing is happening?

Anyway, I still think Stoofer is likely scum -- but TSN has gone to the top of my list right now for the craplogic/creative reinterpretation in our massclaim discussion.

[KingPin]

Thank you for stating your suspicions susinctly so that I have something to 'defend' myself against. I have identified several people whom I believe to be scum and town. I do not believe that the list is definitive. Merely my view of the town as it existed at that time.

My "defense" starts with this. I am voting for the player that I think is most scummy. Having more than one person identified as scum is pretty universal. I cannot defend myself against a possibility of lying, because I have not lied. I will stand by my posts as they all reflect suspicions and my interpretations of actions. However, I will not allow for someone to take my statements and then twist them into something they are not.


1. No, trying to determine if a player is innocent, by the questions that they ask, has a townish feel. Did you read the types of information that Massive was asking? Did you think massive was scum because of this? Do you now think massive is scum because of this? Did you see the way that Stoofer responded? I did and still do find Stoofer's actions scummy. I think and still think that Massive's actions have a town feel.

I do not think that Massive is scum because he was trying to question Stoofer about points that would make him seem more town, instead I see massive as being town because he was acting like a townsperson by asking relevant information regarding Stoofer's play. I interperted his questions as developed to elicit information that would show Stoofer as just being careless and less anti-town.

My interpretation of Massive's actions, not Massive's statements adopted.

2. No. Fonz unvoted, to save him from a quick lynch. (sarcasm/Though now, because of his abandonment of this game, it may have been wiser to just lynch him.) What Stoof did at that point was scummy. I could absolutely understand why Fonz would see that action as scummy and switching his vote to a player he thought most scummy. Taking that information at face value, I would give Fonz townie points for not wanting a quick lynch. I believe that had he or anyone else, viewed the page, posted, and not unvoted and then Primate was quicklynched, should be viewed as scummy. However, that is not what happened and Fonz's actions say town to me. This is independent of Primate's guilt or innocence. Fonz was doing the "town" thing.

3. "Attacking a suspicious player is a sign of guilt." It is a gambit. Of course if you know who is scum, it would make it easier for you to attack a guilty player and score HUGE town points if you get him lynched. I have seen this happen in other games, where one player makes a mistake and his scum buddy uses that to score big town points in his favor by lynching him. This is entirely plausible. Let me put in my disclaimer that you keep forgetting to quote in your many, many quotes. This is an assumption, which I can only make since very little is known at this time.

[massive]

I wasn't trying to "explain away" Stoofer's suspicious activities, and for you to categorize it as such indicates that you are only responding to KingPin's post and not going back to read them for yourself. Which is odd, when you seemed to understand where my train of thought was in [188].

[EmpTyger]

I know it’s just off a 3-day weekend, but based on precedent I’m still skeptical of DotS and Primate reappearing now. mathcam has also been active elsewhere but not here. Fonz had indicated V/LA until today, so, hopefully.

---

mneme:
Talk about “craplogic/creative reinterpretation”. Like with the lynch-1 issue, you have a badly hypocritical way about you. I have no idea where you’d fit into mafia pairings speculation. But you’re making me have to consider it.
I said in [310] why your attack on TSN is wrong. You responded by attacking me in [318].
I showed you in [324] why your attack on me is factually wrong, and why your attack on TSN is now suspicious. You responded by ignoring it, and you’re still maintaining your accusation against TSN.

---

KingPin:
1)

<snip>
No, trying to determine if a player is innocent, by the questions that they ask, has a townish feel. Did you read the types of information that Massive was asking? Did you think massive was scum because of this? Do you now think massive is scum because of this? Did you see the way that Stoofer responded? I did and still do find Stoofer's actions scummy. I think and still think that Massive's actions have a town feel.
<snip>

My point was about *your* assessment of massive. Why would you think that massive has a “townish feel” when he was voting Stoofer while at the same time trying to portray Stoofer “as just being careless and less anti-town”? Especially when you at that point agreed that Stoofer was guilty. And especially considering the imaginative gambit you ran with in my case. You think I was guilty and massive was innocent, because I forcefully attacked a player that we both thought guilty, and massive mildly attacked them and tried to give them an out?

2)

<snip>
This is independent of Primate's guilt or innocence. Fonz was doing the "town" thing.

No, it’s not independent of Primate’s alignment. If Primate is innocent, I do strongly agree with you. But if he’s guilty- which you thought at the time, think now, and have thought all day- then it’s a point *against* Fonz.

3)

3. "Attacking a suspicious player is a sign of guilt." It is a gambit. Of course if you know who is scum, it would make it easier for you to attack a guilty player and score HUGE town points if you get him lynched. I have seen this happen in other games, where one player makes a mistake and his scum buddy uses that to score big town points in his favor by lynching him. This is entirely plausible. Let me put in my disclaimer that you keep forgetting to quote in your many, many quotes. This is an assumption, which I can only make since very little is known at this time.

I understand gambits, and I will acknowledge that what you say theoretically be true. But if you can’t provide any action I could have taken which would be less suspicious, what’s your point?

Tell me whether there was anything I could have done that would have been less suspicious to you.

Because here’re the alternatives that I see: Defend someone who is suspicious, or ignore someone who is suspicious. (And you were at that point agreeing that Stoofer was suspicious.) Or are you saying that *those* would have been less suspicious actions for me? (And again, how is what I did more likely to be a gambit than what massive did?)

You had the air of accepting that Stoofer was likely going to die, if not then then soon, and you seemed to be hoping to preemptively launch a discrediting strike against me.

---

mathcam:

<snip>
That said, I think we're currently past the "if nothing else" phase. I'd probably still use it as a tie-breaker.

I have some problems with it, but I agree that there are enough other suspicions that I don’t think it’ll at this point in the game, despite your attempts to weasel it in as a “tiebreaker”.

---

massive:

I wasn't trying to "explain away" Stoofer's suspicious activities, and for you to categorize it as such indicates that you are only responding to KingPin's post and not going back to read them for yourself. Which is odd, when you seemed to understand where my train of thought was in [188].

I’m using KingPin’s categorization because I’m trying to show that I think he was lying about who he thought suspicious. I don’t actually don’t agree with it. (Although on reread I find it odd how Stoofer ignored you in favor of me/mneme in his “guaranteed mafia” counterattack, as well as KingPin’s treatment of you, those are stronger points against Stoofer/KingPin than you.)

If you don’t like that portrayal, why don’t you ask KingPin about it, instead of me?

[KingPin]

Emp,

You are the one that keeps saying that I said "Massive was trying to give Stoofer a way out." I will state it again, PLEASE READ THE FREAKING POST.

I do not think that Massive is scum because he was trying to question Stoofer about points that would make him seem more town, instead I see massive as being town because he was acting like a townsperson by asking relevant information regarding Stoofer's play. I interperted his questions as developed to elicit information that would show Stoofer as just being careless and less anti-town.

Especially when you at that point agreed that Stoofer was guilty. And especially considering the imaginative gambit you ran with in my case. You think I was guilty and massive was innocent, because I forcefully attacked a player that we both thought guilty, and massive mildly attacked them and tried to give them an out?

Now we are getting somewhere! This is why you are attacking me? Because I have massive as town and you as guilty when you "were more forcefully" attacking Stoofer. Did you also forget to read my post regarding my interpretations of you and your actions, interactions with Stoofer and my gut reaction to them? Post 184.

No, it’s not independent of Primate’s alignment. If Primate is innocent, I do strongly agree with you. But if he’s guilty- which you thought at the time, think now, and have thought all day- then it’s a point *against* Fonz.

Regardless of Primate's alignment and my views of his actions, if someone brings player, ANY PLAYER, to L-1 without commenting that he is doing so, that person's actions are scummy. If a player tries to avoid a quick-lynch by unvoting, that person gets town points. Why is it a point against Fonz? Are you assuming that Fonz is scummy as well? That is the only way Fonz gets scum points. His action is for the best of the town, avoiding a quick lynch. PERIOD.

If you don’t like that portrayal, why don’t you ask KingPin about it, instead of me?

Wrong, you are the one who is making this out to be more than it is. You should absolutely answer for your portrayal as it being more than what it is. Your actions scream "stretching" for scum.

Are you saying that the persons who I find suspicious are not suspicious?

I am done trying to convince you that my actions were sincere. I have stated why I believed that the actions were either town or scummy. If you do not accept them, then we disagree. Continue your witch hunt.

[mneme]

Talk about “craplogic/creative reinterpretation”. Like with the lynch-1 issue, you have a badly hypocritical way about you.

Repetition doesn't actually make something true, you know.

Re lynch-1 -- I messed up, and voted Primate to -1 without realizing I was doing so. I admitted this, and that it was a screw-up, in 304 -- I then moved on, because while I'd certainly find it suspicious were I not me, I -am- me, and know I'm not scum (and, after all, tells don't always indicate scum). It's not hyprocritical for me to mess up in the same way I've attacked someone else for; it's just a screw-up. (the difference is in reaction and response; Stoof has done a lot of suspicious (IMO) stuff around his screw-up, including claiming it wasn't a mistake at all. So were I a third party, I'd be voting Stoof over "me" -- but other people need to make their own decisions, of course.

I said in [310] why your attack on TSN is wrong. You responded by attacking me in [318].

That's a very creative interpretation of your claiming (falseley) that I'd attacked TSN because of his defense of Primate, and me calling you on it.

As above--just repeating false accusations doesn't actually lend them weight. Could you try, say, quoting or pointing to any point where I attacked TSN for defending Primate? I double-dog dare you.

I showed you in [324] why your attack on me is factually wrong, and why your attack on TSN is now suspicious.

No, you didn't.

Claiming "mneme did X for Y reasons" when all the text of the thread indicates that mneme did X for Z reasons is either a claim of mind-reading or a flat-out lie. Which is it?

Regardless, this is a meta; it has nothing to do with judgement within a game, I just don't like D1 massclaims.

That definitely sounds like saying you oppose massclaim based on reasons beyond the game to me.

unvote
vote: TheSweatpantsNinja

If you're not scum, you're certainly playing like one. Town don't selectively quote only the points that support their argument. Lets go to the video tape, shall we?

Here's what seems to be the sequence:

Emptiger claimed that I attacked TSN for defending Primate.
I responded that I'd not attacked TSN for defending Primate, but that while I'd asked for more info to substantiate his defense, that there wasn't a hint of my attacking TSN until he mis-represented me regarding the massclaim question.
Emptiger then claimed that he'd explained why this was "factually wrong" -- by using a thread pointer (partial quotes or at least url links are better, IMO)...to the above-quoted post where I attacked and voted TSN...over his misrepresentation on the massclaim question.
I ignored this, as it was obviously false.
Emptiger repeated it again, compounding his error.
This post.

Re you having potential information that would negate TSN's info re Primate: Would this info also potentially affect Primate's claimed night action and your still losing your vote?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

I don't really see the case on kingpin. I may say "player x is scummy" day 1, and I may also say, "if I am wrong about player x being scum, then player y's interactions with player x are scummy." Particularly on day 1, when I think you have to be kidding yourself a little to be certain, I don't have a problem with that.

Anyway, mneme: You're not interested in dropping the misinterpretation thing.

Let me define the word regardless for you:

1. having or showing no regard; heedless; unmindful (often fol. by of).
–adverb
2. without concern as to advice, warning, hardship, etc.; anyway: I must make the decision regardless.
—Idiom
3. regardless of, in spite of; without regard for: They'll do it regardless of the cost.

So, when you say, "Regardless, this is a meta; it has nothing to do with judgement within a game, I just don't like D1 massclaims. "

That means, "(without regard for) for my in-game reasons,

it has nothing to do with judgement within a game

, I just don't like D1 massclaims."

How can I have thought your primary reason for not supporting the massclaim had nothing to do with in-game reasons when that's exactly what you said?

[mneme]

TSN: Because your argument was ad homenim. The fact that I don't like day 1 massclaims doesn't invalidate my non-"I don't like day 1 massclaims" argument. Claiming that my argument -can- be dismissed for that reason is both a logical falacy (ie, craplogic), and when done in a way that makes it seem like I made no other argument, misenterpretation.

FWIW, Emptiger, by his defense of you, is somewhat rising in my thoughts as scum -- I think his arguments and selective-interpretation may be even worse than yours (in that situation).

Re my bouncing between Stoof, Primate, TSN, and Emptiger...I'm happy to vote people for throwing off scumtells like they're in sheding season, and it's a bit of a target rich environment. Would that it weren't, I'd rather have a thread bereft of craplogic, and misrep, thank you.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

No, it wasn't ad hominem. Did I say, "mneme is stupid for opposing day massclaims?" No, I said, "mneme opposes massclaims for meta reasons," which was, in light of what you said, pretty accurate.

[mneme]

TSN: you don't actually know what an ad homeneim argument is, do you?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

And, for that matter, even if it was, that wasn't what you've been saying. You've been screaming "misinterpreted! misinterpreted!" for all to hear.

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Attacking the person, not the argument. I wasn't making any kind of a personal attack.

I was

interpreting

your statement, y'know, when you said "it has nothing to do with in-game reasons," as saying your argument

has nothing to do with in-game reasons.

[EmpTyger]

mneme:

<snip>
Claiming "mneme did X for Y reasons" when all the text of the thread indicates that mneme did X for Z reasons is either a claim of mind-reading or a flat-out lie. Which is it?
<snip>

Well, let’s clear this up right now then. As exactly as you can, what is “Z”? I want to be certain we’re talking about the same things.

Re you having potential information that would negate TSN's info re Primate: Would this info also potentially affect Primate's claimed night action and your still losing your vote?

Not directly. Potentially through interactions compounded interactions. I have no way of knowing with the information I currently have.

[mneme]

You weren't making a personal attack, but you were claiming that my admission that I didn't like (day 1) massclaims invalidated my argument against it...and you still haven't actually responded to that argument directly, though you've made some good points about it indirectly.

I was interpreting your statement, y'know, when you said "it has nothing to do with in-game reasons," as saying your argument has nothing to do with in-game reasons.

Except that I didn't. I said, parahprasing, that "regardless (of this logical, in game reason I just made), I don't personally like day-1 massclaims". "regardless" means the two things aren't related to one another; it doesn't mean they -are-, as you seem to think. Consider: "regardless of what color the sky is, I'm agoraphobic."

Anyway, what do you think of Emptyger claiming I attacked you for backing up Primate's claim?

[TheSweatpantsNinja]

Consider, hypothetically, if I were voting for stoofer: "regardless, it has nothing to do with in-game reasons, I don't like stoofer." I have to think someone would say something about that.

I'll concede that you might have meant something different than what I thought you meant if you'll concede that I wasn't somehow intentionally trying to twist your words.

Emptyger's claim made sense when I first read it, but I'm sort of souring on it. Or, at least, I'm souring on it making you scummy. You're still wrong about it me being scum, and you aren't going to convince me that any additional claim would be at all beneficial, except, of course, in the context of a massclaim, which would be a good idea.

Now, anyway, to respond to whatever direct arguments you made against massclaim back in the day:

A well designed game doesn't favor town in a too-early massclaim, because the scum, with extra info, can pick out info they find useful and ignore the rest, whereas the town cannot pick out mafia claims from town claims.

I don't think its going to break the game, and I don't think (although I'd be pleasantly surprised) if it reveals scum. The problem is, judging by the set-up, its going to be impossible to determine whether claims are true or not, because clearly just about anything is going to be feasible. Having all the role information out in the open, with a lot of roles that are likely to be confirmable, while it might benefit scum in deciding who to kill, is likely to benefit us in being able to confirm night activities. (do you really think it likely that we have more valuable town roles like a cop?) Let mafia decide between killing a role switcher or a, um, whatever primate is (a reverse bus driver?).

[EmpTyger]

mneme:
...Do you have any interest in clearing this up? Or, now that your attack on TSN has failed, are you trying to salvage something of it with an attack on me? I’d rather not put words in your mouth, but you’re not leaving me with much choice.

<snip>
Claiming "mneme did X for Y reasons" when all the text of the thread indicates that mneme did X for Z reasons is either a claim of mind-reading or a flat-out lie. Which is it?
<snip>

You keep restating my "X for Y" parts, which I perfectly understand, and ignoring what I'm actually asking you about, "Z".
We agree that:
X = you attacked TSN
Y = TSN defending Primate

You won’t clarify what Z equals. So if this is wrong, blame yourself. I gave you plenty of chances.
Here are the reasons you gave earlier:

<snip>
1. Backed off on his defense of Primate and refused to make it useful, as well as refusing to tie his alignment to Primate's in any even vague fashion.

2. Deliberately misrepresented my position (re massclaims) for rhetorical purposes. Including, at several points, lying. "In other news, we can ignore mneme's objections since he concedes it has nothing to do with whether it would be useful in the game." er, what?

3. Asked his ridiculous leading question which seemed intended to elicit a half-claim for no reason.
<snip>

Z better not be (3). TSN had a reason for his leading question, and if you were telling the truth in [318] you should have realized it immediately. (And for the record, if there is a massclaim, this is a strong reason why you should go towards the beginning.)

Z can’t be (2), because in [308] you said that TSN had committed OMGUS. Which means that, according to you, TSN’s attack on you came after you attacked him.

So that leaves (1). And your defense has been to ignore it or to grandstand with unsupported denunciations and double-dog dares or to call me and anyone who disagrees with you “lying scum”. TSN, me, mathcam, Johoohno (presumably, by his vote), and Stoofer all have disagreed with you, and you can’t dismiss all of us by calling us “lying scum”. (KingPin and massive seemed to share some suspicious of TSN earlier, but they’ve been quiet regarding your attack.) No one has outright (except maybe passively massive, by virtue of him leaving his vote on TSN) agreed with your points.


…But, here’s the silly thing. I actually am less suspicious of you than others on my list, despite this. Rather, I think that you are stubbornly incapable of admitting you could be wrong, and I believe you would immaturely rather call out anyone who has a legitimate disagreements with you as “lying scum”, rather than admit that you have the wrong definition of ad hominem and hypocrisy and meta. I’m leaning towards your innocence not because it’s a decent excuse for your recent behavior, but only because I’m having a really hard time despite my frequent attempts to plausibly connect you to others I am finding most suspicious. (Which, actually, is similar to what I’m thinking about Primate’s lurking.)

But it’s D1. I could be wrong about Stoofer and massive and KingPin, or TSN and DotS, or anyone. If you’re going to be as unhelpful as possible, then maybe I’m just overthinking this.