Mini 637: Xyl's Smalltown Plus - Game Over

[charter]

ZS, my post was a list of SUGGESTING multiple kills. Not supporting them. The reason why is...

Unvote Empking, Vote Armlx

I support the idea that we should kill the person who suggested the mass killings.

I guess I misread about your 90% rule. You do say you like to be that sure, but don't have to. Up until that last post, you didn't clarify that armlx's aggressiveness equaled scummy to you, so it seemed like an arbitrary reason for voting him. I personally don't think he's being overaggressive, but that might be because it isn't aimed at me either.

[hasdgfas]

Zombie, aggressiveness isn't a scumtell. You have to be aggressive to find scum.

[Xylthixlm]

Vote Count

ZombieSlayer54 -

3

(hasdgfas, armlx, charter)
armlx -

2

(nhat, ZombieSlayer54)
wolframnhart -

1

(Empking)
charter -

1

(pwnz)
pwnz -

1

(wolframnhart)

Not voting:

With 8 alive, it will take 5 to lynch. The deadline for day 1 is Saturday, August 15 at 7:00 PM Pacific.

[armlx]

There is a healthy level of aggressiveness. However, Armlx has gone far past that level.

What does this even mean, why is it scummy, and is this the only behavioral evidence you are going off on your case?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Charter, I highly doubt there is any real difference between suggesting an idea and supporting it.

Cow, I already said there is a difference between healthy aggressiveness and just being plain over-aggressive. Armlx is showcasing the latter.

By "overly-aggressive", Armlx, I mean the point when you will attack almost every post, finding every single last thing wrong with that post, and then drilling the person who made the post for as long as humanly possible.

I mean, it is fine to interrogate someone over something obviously scummy.

But when you start to nitpick, finding the smallest things to interrogate about, sometimes not even things, just shadows of things, and then drilling like no tomorrow based on them, that is just overly-aggressive, and reeks of scum.

I think I already said that I never liked the "mass kill" idea in the first place, so your supporting of that is also behavioral evidence for my case.

[Styro]

armlx must die today, leaving him alive will fuck town over eventually because of WIFOM.

[hasdgfas]

I still like my vote on ZS.

[armlx]

By "overly-aggressive", Armlx, I mean the point when you will attack almost every post, finding every single last thing wrong with that post, and then drilling the person who made the post for as long as humanly possible.

I mean, it is fine to interrogate someone over something obviously scummy.

But when you start to nitpick, finding the smallest things to interrogate about, sometimes not even things, just shadows of things, and then drilling like no tomorrow based on them, that is just overly-aggressive, and reeks of scum.

Quotes of these "nitpicks" plz, and WHY is doing that scummy?

I think I already said that I never liked the "mass kill" idea in the first place, so your supporting of that is also behavioral evidence for my case.

Why do you not like maximizing the number of town directed deaths again?

armlx must die today, leaving him alive will fuck town over eventually because of WIFOM.

What WIFOM? The one you are creating by trying to attack me on the basis of "Too Townie"?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Put that all together and we are left with one Mafia vote on charter at the very beginning of the game, which could honestly mean anything.

Mafia will sometimes vote for other members of the mafia early in the game in order to remove suspicion.

Your case on charter self contradicts within 1 paragraph. Nice.

Pretty nitpicky here. Taking an unfortunate juxtaposition of words and then going as deep and hard as humanly possible in order to make it seem scummy.

And it is scummy because it is being overly aggressive. Being overly aggressive is scummy.

I did not like maximizing the number of town directed deaths because, as Crazy's alignment proves, not all of them are necessarily town directed.

[armlx]

Pretty nitpicky here. Taking an unfortunate juxtaposition of words and then going as deep and hard as humanly possible in order to make it seem scummy.

So, his post is not self contradictory? I feel he was stretching for reasons and just made that logic up in order to make his vote look good, which is evidenced by his earlier statement that shows he would not believe that to be true.

And is that all? 1 incidence that occurred after you voted me?

And it is scummy because it is being overly aggressive. Being overly aggressive is scummy.

Again, why? You can't just say something is scummy because it is. You need logic.

I did not like maximizing the number of town directed deaths because, as Crazy's alignment proves, not all of them are necessarily town directed.

So you don't like it because we forced a mafia to 1 for 1 himself, aka we got a correct lynch for free?

[ZombieSlayer54]

Pretty nitpicky here. Taking an unfortunate juxtaposition of words and then going as deep and hard as humanly possible in order to make it seem scummy.

So, his post is not self contradictory? I feel he was stretching for reasons and just made that logic up in order to make his vote look good, which is evidenced by his earlier statement that shows he would not believe that to be true.

And is that all? 1 incidence that occurred after you voted me?

And it is scummy because it is being overly aggressive. Being overly aggressive is scummy.

Again, why? You can't just say something is scummy because it is. You need logic.

I did not like maximizing the number of town directed deaths because, as Crazy's alignment proves, not all of them are necessarily town directed.

So you don't like it because we forced a mafia to 1 for 1 himself, aka we got a correct lynch for free?

Not really. You just took a few words, put them out of context, and made it look like he contradicted himself.

And you will notice that I voted you at first in order to go through with the "Kill the suggester" plan. Not because you were nitpicky. That just solidifies my vote.

Is it really that hard to realize how being overly-aggressive is scummy?

If you actually want me to explain, I will.

And, once again, I stress that there is a healthy level of aggressiveness, and an over level of aggressiveness, and there IS a difference between the two.

What? I never said I did not like the results. What I did say is that I did not like the plan.

For example: What would happen if Wolf actually ends up being scum? Then we, the town, are, essentially, giving Wolf our permission to kill a random townie once a day, essentially giving the Mafia an additional kill.

Not to mention that you employed it on Day 1, a day lacking enough information to make any really concrete assumptions.

[armlx]

Not really. You just took a few words, put them out of context, and made it look like he contradicted himself.

Except he did. How were they "out of context"?

If you actually want me to explain, I will.

Please do.

For example: What would happen if Wolf actually ends up being scum? Then we, the town, are, essentially, giving Wolf our permission to kill a random townie once a day, essentially giving the Mafia an additional kill.

A random "townie" of our choosing is killed. Sounds good. Is that any worse then what happens without the plan?

Not to mention that you employed it on Day 1, a day lacking enough information to make any really concrete assumptions.

This is untrue and you know it. Just because its day 1 doesn't mean there is no info.

And you will notice that I voted you at first in order to go through with the "Kill the suggester" plan.

That plan is based on bullshit and logical fallacies, as has been pointed out several times.

Also of note: EmpKing shutting up despite being alive makes me pretty sure he was scum. See me in House Mafia. We have to watch out for putting someone at L-1 as he is almost assure to hammer if they aren't his buddy.

[Empking]

I really dislike the arguments against armix especially the "kill the suggestor" plan which is going to a very paranoid place. Plus their is no such such thing as being overagressive.

[armlx]

I want pwnz and Wolf to take an official side in the me vs. ZS thing. Who, if either, do they think is right in the over aggressive and "kill the suggestor" issues and which, if either, do they think is scum? (I know Wolf has answered the latter, but I don't think I've seen an answer to the first part from him)

[wolframnhart]

@armlx

With the "over aggressive" part I can see ZS's side or it, however, I don't believe it to be a true scum tell. I have an agressive person i play with in another game and he does/did it to really see how people respond, and it worked on day one we got a scum right off the bat. It's just one of many play styles you can do as townie or scum and if you can do it properly it can help the town greatly, so with this one I will side with armlx only because I truely do think he is trying hard to find the scum and he thinks he has, not everyone will agree with him or his tactic but it's his choice to use it.

Also really not sure about the kill the suggester plan, after all, we went along with it to the point of there is already going to be 6 kills today, if we end up getting another scum from it great, but I wonder if we had gotten 2 scum so far, and possibly a third here once a lynch occurs, would people still be wanting to kill the suggester?

[wolframnhart]

EBWOP: I guess if in my "what if" scenario where we might get a third scum today it would be game over so there wouldn't be anybody wanting to kill the suggester, but you get what i am asking.

[armlx]

And what if we don't hit scum? What would your thoughts be then?

Also

Mod, Styro has been banned as an alt of a banned member (Gimbo). Double check the Bans thread in Site Ideas if you want, but a replacement is needed

.

[wolframnhart]

i would still be against voting the suggester without new evidence because we went along with it when we didnt have to.

[armlx]

i would still be against voting the suggester without new evidence because we went along with it when we didnt have to.

This is good posting.

[ZombieSlayer54]

Not really. You just took a few words, put them out of context, and made it look like he contradicted himself.

Except he did. How were they "out of context"?

If you actually want me to explain, I will.

Please do.

For example: What would happen if Wolf actually ends up being scum? Then we, the town, are, essentially, giving Wolf our permission to kill a random townie once a day, essentially giving the Mafia an additional kill.

A random "townie" of our choosing is killed. Sounds good. Is that any worse then what happens without the plan?

Not to mention that you employed it on Day 1, a day lacking enough information to make any really concrete assumptions.

This is untrue and you know it. Just because its day 1 doesn't mean there is no info.

And you will notice that I voted you at first in order to go through with the "Kill the suggester" plan.

That plan is based on bullshit and logical fallacies, as has been pointed out several times.

Also of note: EmpKing shutting up despite being alive makes me pretty sure he was scum. See me in House Mafia. We have to watch out for putting someone at L-1 as he is almost assure to hammer if they aren't his buddy.

By "out of context" I mean you took things which were not actually self-contradictory (If you actually look at it, you can see that it really, really is NOT self-contradictory), and then construed those words for your own purposes.

Is it really that hard to see how you can be overly aggressive?

Ok, look: When you are overly aggressive, it is as if you are seeking any and all reasons for someone to be lynched, even if that reason is completely and utterly insignificant. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get someone lynched, without actually having any actual major scum tells. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get people to say something which is said in complete innocence as a townie, but which can be misconstrued as a scum tell.

All in all, it really just seems like you want someone lynched for no good reason at all, or a reason which you yourself managed to develop.

Any worse than what happens without the plan... Wait, what?

I never said there was no info. I said there was not enough info.

Well, frankly, I like the plan. It is a very, very nice insurance policy.

[armlx]

By "out of context" I mean you took things which were not actually self-contradictory (If you actually look at it, you can see that it really, really is NOT self-contradictory), and then construed those words for your own purposes.

How is it not self contradictory?

Ok, look: When you are overly aggressive, it is as if you are seeking any and all reasons for someone to be lynched, even if that reason is completely and utterly insignificant. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get someone lynched, without actually having any actual major scum tells. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get people to say something which is said in complete innocence as a townie, but which can be misconstrued as a scum tell

So you are going back to your minutia point which you have yet to back with more than one point.

Can you point where I have said anything leading?

All in all, it really just seems like you want someone lynched for no good reason at all, or a reason which you yourself managed to develop.

So, I'm building a case?

[hasdgfas]

ZS: Could you explain what you see as insignificant and how you can claim anything is insignificant in a mafia game?

[ZombieSlayer54]

By "out of context" I mean you took things which were not actually self-contradictory (If you actually look at it, you can see that it really, really is NOT self-contradictory), and then construed those words for your own purposes.

How is it not self contradictory?

Ok, look: When you are overly aggressive, it is as if you are seeking any and all reasons for someone to be lynched, even if that reason is completely and utterly insignificant. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get someone lynched, without actually having any actual major scum tells. When you are being overly aggressive, it is as if you are just trying to get people to say something which is said in complete innocence as a townie, but which can be misconstrued as a scum tell

So you are going back to your minutia point which you have yet to back with more than one point.

Can you point where I have said anything leading?

All in all, it really just seems like you want someone lynched for no good reason at all, or a reason which you yourself managed to develop.

So, I'm building a case?

Considerably, I think burden of proof lies on you to explain how it is self-contradictory. I mean, all you said was "It is self-contradictory", without explaining how.

There is a difference between building a case off of good evidence, and building a case off of no evidence at all. You, from what I can tell, are doing the latter.

[armlx]

Considerably, I think burden of proof lies on you to explain how it is self-contradictory. I mean, all you said was "It is self-contradictory", without explaining how.

I have already proven how it was. The first sentence is him saying the voting "Could mean anything", the second is him ascribing a specific meaning to it.

[ZombieSlayer54]

ZS: Could you explain what you see as insignificant and how you can claim anything is insignificant in a mafia game?

By "insignificant" I mean the way Armlx goes after posts where the words are not completely clear, because of unfortunate positioning, or some other reason, and then acts like it is the most massive scumtell in the entire game.

Something can be insignificant when it has no real bearing on the game, but people make it out to be overly important.