Invitational 10: 2005-2006. Game over! before 624

[MrBuddyLee]

And I'm not trying to clear myself, I'm trying to find scum.

VOTE COUNT NUMBER FIVE

MBL: 3

(Sarc, EK, bluesoul)

Bluesoul: 2

(MBL, DGB)

DGB: 1

(PJ)

Elvis_Knits 2

(patrick, Ether)

sarc: 1

(OGML)

not voting: 2

(Elias, IH)

[chamber]

IH, you igmeoy'ed me and FOSed bluesoul and that's about it. You found #28 and #29 weird, but totally missed my point in 29. The point was: "If bluesoul thinks I am scum, he would not think there are three MORE scum who have been alerted--it would only be two." (There is a differing opinion about what bluesoul intended, and there's a 90% chance he meant something other than what I interpreted, but you should still understand MY post in order to better assess the situation.)

I'm tempted to put him at five but not until we've had more discussion to help us nail his buddies.

Nice reference to nailing MBL's scumbuddies, I'm sure that helped us fight the good fight since we've got three players that get to stare that right in the face as they think about their posts.

Honestly, bluesoul's "concern" there is a little weird, which slightly lowers the chance he's being sincere about who the "three players" he was worried about are. I do find it odd that he'd be worried about all three of {IH, chamber, elias}--especially if he really thinks MBL is scum.

=========================================

There is weak hay being made about my "30%" remark:

I'm not intentionally misconstruing your words. There's a 30% chance that you're scum, and a 20% chance that you're scum telling the truth about your intentions there, and a 10% chance that you're scum who I caught in a slip-up and now you're lying about it to cover your ass.

I am dealing with generalities here. Obviously I can't peg the exact likelihood that someone is making an honest mistake or lying. I am estimating, which is something I do all the time to try and figure out how aggressively to attack something. There's no sense in pushing something repeatedly if there's only a 5% chance it's a reality. I did the rough math, figured there's a 10% chance bluesoul is lying scum on this topic, and decided it wasn't worth pressing beyond what we've already covered.

If you intend to use math at least support it, pulling numbers out of your ass that you have no way of supporting isn't cool.

Speaking of ignoring, explain your "30% scum" line from post 101.

A 30% chance I'm scum, eh? So you know there's a 30/70 ratio? How would you know that if you were not part of the informed minority? Either explain yourself, right now, or stand similarly exposed as scum.

If there are 3 scum, that's 27% of you. 4 scum = 37% of you. I don't really see any other number of scum as likely in an invitational, which will likely be a pretty standard/bland setup. Do you really think my assumption is most likely explained by inside information on the setup, bluesoul? Or are you just making hay? I think we're past the point where statements like Sarc's and DGB's early "we've caught scum" are amusing.

Bluesouls problem may have been with the 30%, but thats easily explained. My problem was with the 1/3 2/3 division you gave him for being scum that slipped up vs scum that you misinterpreted. Not only do your numbers not increase the chance hes scum. (and thus make the attack effectively random) not only do these numbers suggest that he has a significantly higher chance of you having misinterpreted him then anything else, but they are also completely pulled out of nowhere. Please try to explain to me your estimation process. By putting things down as numbers it looks like you are trying to make something appear to be more concrete then it is, as scum or over zealous town.

unvote

[IH]

Post from last night
VV

A pitcher doesn't just throw fastballs. Gotta mix it up.

Henry did and he did just fine until he slipped on that baseball!

I'm also kind of unsure about Ether's case on EK. I can see the logic, but post 15 just looks too much like a joke to me, especially so early in the game.

^^
Post from last night

I badly want to vote Elias_the_thief and have a wagon waiting for him upon his return. His effort this weekend is utter fail, particularly considering he's only posting on weekends.

However, there's nothing to gain between now and Friday by voting him, so let's ignore him for a few days and THEN pounce.

To be fair this is quite a meaty thread for only five pages.

IH, you igmeoy'ed me and FOSed bluesoul and that's about it. You found #28 and #29 weird, but totally missed my point in 29. The point was: "If bluesoul thinks I am scum, he would not think there are three MORE scum who have been alerted--it would only be two." (There is a differing opinion about what bluesoul intended, and there's a 90% chance he meant something other than what I interpreted, but you should still understand MY post in order to better assess the situation.)

.....I'm misunderstanding the big deal here, other than I find it more scummy that you're implying he was accusing all three instead of a possible person out of all three. If anything was scummy, it was trying to solidify the idea that you were scummy by having people want to avoid making connections with you.

MBL, didn't your numbers come from your on thoughts of Bluesoul and not how many scum are in this game? it's like you used easy math that could be used on ANYONE, and then seemed to try use that as a convincing argument that Bluesoul was scum. Chamber is right.

I'm not intentionally misconstruing your words. There's a 30% chance that you're scum, and a

20% chance that you're scum telling the truth about your intentions there, and a 10% chance that you're scum who I caught in a slip-up and now you're lying about it to cover your ass.

So no, I'm not "intentionally misconstruing". I'm covering all the possibilities from my perspective.

So, where did this bolded part come from? Your wording is also extremely.... misleading.

[IH]

[/post again]

[bluesoul]

That was the point of my post, bluesoul.. I thought I noticed a subtlety in your wording that indicated you might be scum:

* You know I'm not scum
* You are pretending not to be scum
* You slip and say there are three other players besides me that are scum, when if I'm actually scum, you should have only been worried about

two

others, not three
* Therefore, your "pretending" got you in trouble

Again, I'm not saying this is actually what happened. I'm saying it's a possibility. And it's weird that you're putting all your eggs in this counterattack when it's such a weak one. Are you really, really sold on the idea that I'm scum at this point?

Let me try this one more time. Your failure to correctly read my statement does not make you town. Have you noticed yet that you're the

only

person that believes the above bullet points? Everyone else read it properly and didn't have a problem with me naming three players and then, immediately after, in the sentence which you omitted, stating the words "three players"; they may have had a problem with me stating that DBG's post was anti-town (though I believe it was careless instead of deliberate). Which is fine, they don't have to think it did. Hell,

I

don't even think it caused enough damage to merit the amount of BS that's piled up since.

This is not an attack, it's a more aggressive defense of myself because you are being a little too smug. You say I'm pressing the issue while you won't shut up about it. You've said I'm caught, you've said I'm stretching, you've said I'm in trouble, you've called me lying scum (by a 10% chance this time, ignoring the fact that that holds true for, uh, everyone else playing), all within the past 25 posts.

Did I mention I was speaking in hypothetical terms? Yes, I did. Several times. Whether you believe otherwise is your problem.

And I'm not trying to clear myself, I'm trying to find scum.

Doesn't sound like it, see below.

And I didn't say you had inside information that there were exactly three scum players--I said that if anything, you have inside information that

I'm not scum

and therefore there are threeish non-MBL players who are scum.

Actually, let's go over this one more time and maybe you'll see the inherent absurdity of the logic of your bullet points.

I'd rather see posts from those that haven't made it into the game yet, elias, IH, and chamber. Nice reference to nailing MBL's scumbuddies, I'm sure that helped us fight the good fight since we've got three players that get to stare that right in the face as they think about their posts.

facepalm: DGB

Okay, so let's count scum.

1.) You. Your first point is absolutely incorrect. By your logic I would know you

were

scum. Actually this is eye-catching as I re-read it.

* You know I'm not scum
*

You slip and say there are three other players besides me that are scum,

when if I'm actually scum, you should have only been worried about

two

others, not three

The bolded part is necessarily true in your hypothesis, I did say "MBL's scumbuddies" did I not? Or are you planning on omitting that as well? If you

were

town, why would I tell my scumbuddies to avoid connection with you? The unbolded part is simply illogical, again without knowing inside information as to the game setup.

2.) Me (by necessity of your 2nd bullet point)
3.) Non-MBL Player 1
4.) Non-MBL Player 2
5.) Non-MBL Player 3

Five aligned scum in a twelve player game? We're at lynch or lose on Day 1 then. Yes, five and not four. Why would I warn myself? IH made this same point in 110. If your little fantasy scenario was true or even something close to it, wouldn't it say something like "two people" or "two other people"? Hell, even if you don't buy that, four aligned scum is pretty damn high for what would be a fairly bland setup (especially considering we're both scum!). Why wouldn't it be three and one, the logical assumption for a 12-man game? Even if, for the sake of going completely off-base, you

were

the one (the SK), why would I warn my scumbuddies to avoid making connections with the Serial Killer? They wouldn't be any worse for the wear, but it wouldn't matter because to all intents and purposes we would have to think you're town, even better.

Oh, and neither one of us would have any reason to bus the other so hard on Day 1.

The above "five aligned scum" paragraph is speaking in hypothetical terms. Try not to omit this sentence, if you can, please.

I still think bluesoul's comment is being overanalysed, and I find his assertion that he was being hypothetical to be believable.

This.

[bluesoul]

I've had time to cool down a bit, I apologize for the harsh tone but I'm getting tired of arguing about this.

[petroleumjelly]

1.)

DGB, could we have a clear example of Bluesoul alternating between "helpfulness and kraplogick", then? Your use of the word "historical" in your vote (for reference, that was in Post 98) led me to think you were basing your vote on past games, and not this one. I was not "misrepresenting" you so much as you were not "representing" yourself clearly.

2.)

Re: The 30% discussion. Assuming 3 to 4 scum in a mini game is pretty standard, and I've no problems with that.

However, I generally don't like percentages being thrown around like they actually mean something when in fact they are the same when applied to any random player in the game. It's a fairly cheap rhetorical trick to make your statement sound as if it holds more weight than it does. [Note: This is pretty much in agreement with chamber's Post 126].

3.)

I don't much like Post 109 from Bluesoul. Here's a rundown of what I'm reading there:

Bluesoul

: DGB, why did you wait so long to explain your post?

DGB:

I didn't wait that long. Check Post 76.

Bluesoul:

But after Post 76, you got two votes. Why, then, would you use that post as a defense?

That just seems really backwards. DGB wasn't "defending", she was simply pointing out that she had, in fact, already explained her post. If I'm not characterizing this correctly, please correct me.

[Sarcastro]

You guys talk too much.

I'm not liking how OGML keeps talking about this supposed connection I have with Bluesoul without actually making any statements as to whether or not it seems scummy. Seems like it could be scum trying to pick on something in order to contribute without actually having to, you know, contribute. If you'd like to explain how anything I said was scummy, OGML, go ahead and do so.

DGB, since when am I "astute"? Are you saying you've seen through my shroud of obfuscating stupidity?

Oh, and for the record, I don't have any connection with Bluesoul. All I did was make make one common-sense explanation of Bluesoul's post. I'm not sure I even knew what PJ's post was about when I said he was trying to blind us with logic. It was a joke.

Since Ether asked, my top three suspects are MBL, OGML, and DGB. Acronyms are scummy. Except for PJ, who's obviously town, because even if he's scum, I'm never going to figure it out, so I might as well just skip right to assuming he's town.

[bluesoul]

3.)

I don't much like Post 109 from Bluesoul. Here's a rundown of what I'm reading there:

Bluesoul

: DGB, why did you wait so long to explain your post?

DGB:

I didn't wait that long. Check Post 76.

Bluesoul:

But after Post 76, you got two votes. Why, then, would you use that post as a defense?

That just seems really backwards. DGB wasn't "defending", she was simply pointing out that she had, in fact, already explained her post. If I'm not characterizing this correctly, please correct me.

The two statements were separate, upon re-reading it I'll agree it doesn't read very clearly. The first part, "Yes, I read that, and I didn't like it then either," was in regards to the post in general, and you agreed with me on that (or, at least, used it as a basis for a vote). I will concede that calling it a "defense" was unfair on my part as she wouldn't really have anything else to point to. However, that statement aside, what do you think of the rest of 106? DGB states in 97 that the purpose of 27 was to give players a vote count on MBL, and I feel that there has to be something more behind it, or she wouldn't have worded it the way she did.

DGB's playstyle thus far has just really thrown me off. Post 1 was random, 2 was the one that started all this mess. Again, I don't see it as inherently scummy, I thought it was simply careless. Her posts 3, 4, and 5 all have this ingratiating vibe that's coming across as mildly scummy, then 6 through 9 contain attacks on me with no explanation behind them.

To work, then.

Unvote, vote DGB

Right now I see MBL as more likely town that believes he's found scum, than scum trying to run a player up; I don't think scum would push so hard so early over such a small point of contention, however his reputation proceeds him so I'm not discounting the possibility altogether. I don't like his use of numbers on me when they could be applied to anyone else playing, though they somehow are used to make me look scummier. Not cool.

Oh, and for the record, I don't have any connection with Bluesoul. All I did was make make one common-sense explanation of Bluesoul's post. I'm not sure I even knew what PJ's post was about when I said he was trying to blind us with logic. It was a joke.

I accept this, I read his post to PJ as a joke prior to people pointing it out as "connection fodder".

"Stop blinding us with logic" sounds like "Please stop being so awesome".

Ew, except that wasn't how he worded it. He said "PJ, please stop trying to blind us with logic." which is a little more aggressive. Sarc, if you would, explain why you chose to say that if it was a joke. I guess I'm saying just explain it a little more fully so I see where you're coming from. It was in regards to 58, which sounded like a typical PJ post to me.

Pre-post edit: One more point of clarification. I believe the "MBL's scumbuddies" bit in 27 was simply careless. I think her argument in 97 that she said she was "considering putting a fifth vote on him" simply as a way to let people know the vote count on MBL doesn't stand up to scrutiny, since there are plenty of other ways to let people know the vote count without adding that you're considering adding to the wagon. So 27 was fine, but her support of it in 97 was less so.

[MrBuddyLee]

I'm intrigued by the amount of attention given my mathematical exercise. It's quoted below as a refresher:

I'm not intentionally misconstruing your words. There's a 30% chance that you're scum, and a 20% chance that you're scum telling the truth about your intentions there, and a 10% chance that you're scum who I caught in a slip-up and now you're lying about it to cover your ass.

So no, I'm not "intentionally misconstruing". I'm covering all the possibilities from my perspective.

There's no sense in pushing something repeatedly if there's only a 5% chance it's a reality. I did the rough math, figured there's a 10% chance bluesoul is lying scum on this topic, and decided it wasn't worth pressing beyond what we've already covered.

Note that I am using the math to "clear" bluesoul on the issue, or at least to explain why I am putting an end to this line of discussion. Now look at the hay being made about me using math to take heat off bluesoul:

MBL, didn't your numbers come from your on thoughts of Bluesoul and not how many scum are in this game? it's like you used easy math that could be used on ANYONE, and then seemed to try use that as a convincing argument that Bluesoul was scum. Chamber is right.

IH totally misses the point of my numbers exercise. I said there was a 10% chance bluesoul was lying scum, which is hardly an attempt to nail down a "convincing" argument using numbers. Was IH really reading it carefully to determine my alignment, or is he parrotting/dogpiling?

Bluesouls problem may have been with the 30%, but thats easily explained. My problem was with the 1/3 2/3 division you gave him for being scum that slipped up vs scum that you misinterpreted. Not only do your numbers not increase the chance hes scum. (and thus make the attack effectively random) not only do these numbers suggest that he has a significantly higher chance of you having misinterpreted him then anything else, but they are also completely pulled out of nowhere. Please try to explain to me your estimation process. By putting things down as numbers it looks like you are trying to make something appear to be more concrete then it is, as scum or over zealous town.

chamber got the gist of my math and took issue with something entirely different: why did I assume there was a 2/3 chance bluesoul's telling the truth about his intentions about "three players" even if he is scum? First, answering chamber: I spot these "slip-ups" all the time and quite often they're meaningless, regardless of the slipping player's alignment. Even town says things in error or which I misinterpret, so obviously scum can too at a similar frequency. In this particular case, I can envision scum-bluesoul making that statement to cast aspersions on and sow paranoia about the three players who hadn't posted yet. And I'd say that possibility is somewhat more likely than the possibility that he truly slipped as scum and accidentally posted that there are three scum in addition to MBL who he knows is not scum but is pretending is scum. 66%-33% is approximately the right ratio here in my mind.

But back on point. chamber actually read this right and didn't blow things out of proportion, and was curious about something appropriate.

However, I generally don't like percentages being thrown around like they actually mean something when in fact they are the same when applied to any random player in the game. It's a fairly cheap rhetorical trick to make your statement sound as if it holds more weight than it does.

PJ also missed the point of my post entirely. Sure, the "27%-37% of you are scum" part could apply to anyone in the game, but it was obvious that the point of my post was to get into the details of whether bluesoul's "slip" was worth hammering on. And the rest of the numbers, which narrow down to a 10% chance bluesoul was slipping scum, only apply to bluesoul and not to "any random player in the game". So I'm not thrilled with PJ's flippant insinuation that anything about my post was a "cheap rhetorical trick". Why would PJ make such a careless, offhand remark that doesn't really accurately describe the situation?

Speaking of ignoring, explain your "30% scum" line from post 101.

This part from bluesoul was somewhat silly, but sure, going a brief ways down this line of questioning is appropriate.

Now, I have no choice but to believe that you came up with 30% due to inside information

This part from bluesoul is really, really reaching. I'm not scum, and I see no way that the fallout from the "30%" issue could even remotely convince someone otherwise beyond a shadow of a doubt. Bizarre.

I want to see how your concrete 10% gets support from concrete facts. You're appealing to logic where none exists. Why is it 10 percent? Why not 5 percent? Or 20? You call it a generality or an estimation now but that's not the tone you gave originally. Shall I read it back to you?

Here, bluesoul expresses the same question chamber did, but it's weird because he's attacking me for my post which said there was only a 10% chance he was lying scum in this scenario. Is the use of estimation as a tool to determine what to press and what to abandon really that alarming?

You say I'm pressing the issue while you won't shut up about it.

Actually, I tried to put the issue to bed. You necroed it, but it's fine if you're town and don't think you came off as clean as you should have. Again:

There's no sense in pushing something repeatedly if there's only a 5% chance it's a reality. I did the rough math, figured there's a 10% chance bluesoul is lying scum on this topic, and decided it wasn't worth pressing beyond what we've already covered.

I tried to move on, and...

Really? Let's see the math then. I want to see how your concrete 10% gets support from concrete facts. You're appealing to logic where none exists. Why is it 10 percent? Why not 5 percent? Or 20? You call it a generality or an estimation now but that's not the tone you gave originally. Shall I read it back to you?

Now, I have no choice but to believe that you came up with 30% due to inside information while you maintain that I, through inside information, came up with three scum players and not the three players I mentioned in the previous sentence you conveniently omitted in your attack.

Unvote, vote MBL

...you reframed the issue as the middle prong of an attack on me. That's why we're still discussing it.

[bluesoul]

Actually, I tried to put the issue to bed. You necroed it, but it's fine if you're town and don't think you came off as clean as you should have.

The latter is why I'm still discussing it. If you're agreed, by all means let's stop talking about it. I'm bored with it.

[MrBuddyLee]

Ok, done. So what do you think of Patrick's, PJ's, IH's, and chamber's contributions to the discussion?

[bluesoul]

Let me try and do those in order.

Patrick's effort so far has been mediocre going on decent. He

did

open a line of discussion with e_k that would've otherwise gone more-or-less unnoticed. Other than that there hasn't been a tremendous amount of substance to his posts. It's mostly questions without contributions. There's been a fair amount of that on MS lately so maybe he doesn't realize he's doing it, but I'd like to see him be a little bit more open in discussion, as it helps the town get information about you as well as the person you're questioning.

PJ has been the PJ I'm used to, I think I've played with him more than anyone out of this playgroup. He's made good points, with good support, and hasn't backed down from asking more direct questions. Of course none of those make him town, but his contributions so far have been good, in my opinion.

IH has only had one real post of substance, which is fine since he was on vacation. However in that post he made good points on both sides of the previous argument. So, I'd like to see more posts from him as that one was a post of quality.

Chamber and I know each other pretty well. He was a little late getting here but with the delay it was understandable. Chamber makes contributions a little differently than most players in that he rarely makes walls of text like our 129 and 134. Where 129 and 134 would maybe be analogous to a right cross, going for the knockout, chamber is content with sitting back and jabbing. They both do the job, he'll make small statements and ask an occasional question. It's his playstyle so his contributions are about what I've expected so far.

[MrBuddyLee]

You haven't done much scumhunting. At the time, you'd made no comments about anyone's alignment

, and your question to me seemed to ignore the meat of the game in favour of something irrelevant, which you twice said was irrelevant before.

I'll try to comment more though, if it will make you feel better about me.

Beginning at the beginning!

e_k, why do you want Patrick to feel better about you? Couldn't he be scum?

e_k's primary line of attack has been against MBL. She pressed MBL because his first post criticized Patrick's first post:

But MBL was asking Patrick for his voting motivations on a vote he made in the first post of the game. It doesn't seem like a big explanation is really possible there.

A little odd considering you cut Patrick slack for his first post and not me. But it was early, so haymaking is more acceptable on page one.

Next, e_k had a problem with my first-post vote for Elias, suggesting I should have voted for someone I'm suspicious of instead of for a lurker. Fair enough, I suppose, except that she hits me for "throwing around as much suspicion as possible", but doesn't pinpoint which of MBL's observations, if any, strike her as inappropriate to raise in a first post. Perhaps they were all reasonable, e_k? If so, why criticize me for making them in post #1?

More recently, e_k didn't like the way I "misunderstood" bluesoul and seems to think I didn't really misunderstand him. She hits me for quote-snipping. e_k, do you understand why I didn't think the snipped sentence referred to the quoted sentence? I've made reference to my thought process on that a couple times.

On quote-snipping in general: it cleans up threads. At the top of this post you can see how I've snipped to add clarity and punctuate. I did the same in my post about bluesoul's "three players" because I honestly read the first sentence as unrelated to the one I quoted. I still don't think they necessarily read as related, other than the happenstance that both contain the word three.

[Patrick]

Patrick's effort so far has been mediocre going on decent. He did open a line of discussion with e_k that would've otherwise gone more-or-less unnoticed. Other than that there hasn't been a tremendous amount of substance to his posts. It's mostly questions without contributions. There's been a fair amount of that on MS lately so maybe he doesn't realize he's doing it, but I'd like to see him be a little bit more open in discussion, as it helps the town get information about you as well as the person you're questioning.

"Mediocre going on decent" made me laugh, if only because those two assessments aren't particularly close to each other. And I disagree with your assessment of my posts, I think I'm contributing just fine. Is there something specifically you want my opinion on? Also, don't presume to know my level of effort; I've thought alot about this game. For the record, my question to DGB in my last post was to open up another potential line of discussion; I think her vote for you looks overhyped/fake, especially considering the delay I pointed out.

Anyway, this percentages argument has been kind of making my eyes glaze over. MBL's 30% with the 20/10% split thing looks kind of arbitrary to me, but I don't see it as particularly scummy because I know some players like using percentages. I've certainly seen MBL do it, and IH's and PJ's comments on this look sketchy to me too. Bluesoul doesn't come off as scummy to me, my only real issue with him was that he wasn't scumhunting earlier, but that seems to have changed. I'm a bit suspicious of PJ because he doesn't remind me of the usual protown PJ that I've always played with, but that's mostly gut right now.

[Sarcastro]

I accept this, I read his post to PJ as a joke prior to people pointing it out as "connection fodder".

"Stop blinding us with logic" sounds like "Please stop being so awesome".

Ew, except that wasn't how he worded it. He said "PJ, please stop trying to blind us with logic." which is a little more aggressive. Sarc, if you would, explain why you chose to say that if it was a joke. I guess I'm saying just explain it a little more fully so I see where you're coming from. It was in regards to 58, which sounded like a typical PJ post to me.

It was a joke. I'm really not sure what more I can say. I didn't intend for it to be aggressive, I meant for it to be silly. I frequently don't think too hard about how people will interpret what I'm saying, because I figure it's their own fault if they read too much into it. I don't think I'm going to comment on this anymore, because it is entirely meaningless and it's honestly not even worth the effort to defend it. Go ahead and read whatever you like into it.

I'm skimming over practically everything MBL is saying. Why are people still discussing this? The meaning of Bluesoul's post was fairly obvious, MBL misinterpreted it, and now it's spiralled off into some bizarre discussion about percentages I'm not sure I even want to understand.

[IH]

IH totally misses the point of my numbers exercise. I said there was a 10% chance bluesoul was lying scum, which is hardly an attempt to nail down a "convincing" argument using numbers. Was IH really reading it carefully to determine my alignment, or is he parrotting/dogpiling?

Left out the most important part of that quote, and the actual question you were answering which is

So, where did this bolded part come from? Your wording is also extremely.... misleading.

I read your wording as if you were doing a volkan type thing, and that you had a serious grip on Bluesoul with the thiry percent chance of scum, until you explained. I was also confused at first if you thought there was 30 or 60 percent chance.

Until it was explained, I probably wouldn't have drawn the connection to 30% of the players are probably scum, but meh.

I'm personally making a big deal about it because of what it simply LOOKS/LOOKED like.

[chamber]

mbl, can you please state your case against bs for me? It would seem to me that if your interpretation was only yielding a 10% scum result you'd have dropped your vote. You having not done so certainly made me believe you were using those numbers to push for a bluesoul lynch, which is a clear contradiction and was my main problem with them (the fact that you used %'s at all aside). I am left to believe that those numbers where to be taken in a hypothetical vacuum of "if he had only done such and such", which in its self seems unbelievable.

[petroleumjelly]

2.)

MBL, my point apparently is not being gotten across other. Pretty much the only thing I got from your percentage post was that you think there's a 30% chance Bluesoul is scum. And my reaction to that is

whoop-de-do

; that same number can be applied to

everybody

. Here's why your post is a rhetorical a rhetorical trick:

You are not even making the minimal assertion that "this post makes Bluesoul more likely to be scum", or else you would have started off with a percentage

higher

than 30%.

And if you aren't even bothering to make that assertion, then I don't understand why you would screw around with percentages unless you wanted your post to look scientific / mathematic, and therefore more weighty.

2.)

<snip>... what do you think of the rest of 106?

I have no problems with Post 106.

3.)

Bluesoul, how many games have we played together? Are you counting scumchat games for this?

[MrBuddyLee]

I'm actually in the process of reevaluating. I'm thinking his gyrations almost look a little townish to me, which offsets some of the scummy looking things. My leading candidates are e_k, PJ, DGB, IH. There's actually a specific post that makes that first trio look unlikely, raising the possibility that elias is involved somehow. Ether and possibly Patrick are looking slightly decent. And before anyone else gives me shit for finding people "slightly decent", zip it already. I don't trust anyone in this game--this is for the sake of discussion.

[MrBuddyLee]

2.)

MBL, my point apparently is not being gotten across other. Pretty much the only thing I got from your percentage post was that you think there's a 30% chance Bluesoul is scum. And my reaction to that is

whoop-de-do

; that same number can be applied to

everybody

. Here's why your post is a rhetorical a rhetorical trick:

You are not even making the minimal assertion that "this post makes Bluesoul more likely to be scum", or else you would have started off with a percentage

higher

than 30%.

And if you aren't even bothering to make that assertion, then I don't understand why you would screw around with percentages unless you wanted your post to look scientific / mathematic, and therefore more weighty.

It's clear you didn't read my last few posts carefully. And I don't need to gussy up my posts to make them seem weighty, you should know that. You smell

off

this game.

unvote, vote: PJ

[petroleumjelly]

You aren't addressing

my

problem, this is so stupid.

Here is what I see in your posts:

Before Bluesoul's post, he had a 30% chance of being scum.
After Bluesoul's post, he had a 30% chance of being scum.

In case you haven't noticed:

If you think the percentage is the same both times, I'm not getting why you bothered to use percentages at all. If you think it has even the

slightest chance

of being a scumtell (5% or 10%, or whatever the hell you thought it was), then that will

increase

the 30% to something else.

You are basically "taking a stand" without actually calling Bluesoul's post a "scumtell" which makes him any more likely to be scum than he was before. By definition, that is not a scumtell.

[MrBuddyLee]

The percentages were used to make the point than only about 10% of the time, bluesoul is lying scum in that situation, and therefore I wanted to drop the issue so as not to bore the shit out of everyone over something 90% likely to be irrelevant. At no point did I use the 30% to make it seem more or less likely that bluesoul was scum. That's why this entire discussion is so bizarre, kapiche?

[petroleumjelly]

That's it? I wish you had explained it that way the first time.

[MrBuddyLee]

*huggles*

<.<

*bites*