Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[vollkan]

/confirm

[vollkan]

Vote: Vollkan

Vollkan, why on earth would you self-vote?

Vote: Vollkan

[vollkan]

I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?

Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't stated prior to your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?

5 people cast votes before I did. Like my vote, not one of those votes was backed up with any reasoning or justification.

In other words, you found something distinct about my vote. Obviously, it was the fact it was a self-vote that set it apart, as you yourself identified.

But...let's stop and think for a second - YOU are the one who is positing that there is something so unique about my vote that it, and it alone, requires an actual justification.

Thus, I'd like to hear from you as to why you think that self-voting is so special that it requires justification?

As for my reasons: I have learned over my time here that self-voting is one of the best ways to stir the pot. People have a tendency to leap onto it with presumptions and prejudices (ain't that so, Ecto ), which means it provides a lovely springboard for discussion//

[vollkan]

Cross-posted.

Can someone explain to me why a random jokevote on oneself is any different to a random jokevote on somebody else? I'm curious.

You, sir, are exactly on the money! (and, judging by your previous post, you are also from Aus - so that's doubly good)

The only time it is in your faction's best interests to self-vote is when playing as scum. Usually it's done when the scum is at L-1 and discussion is continuing. The scum will vote himself to cut off discussion, allow his team to get in a night kill and then disrupt town's momentum.

As a joke vote though, it's hardly different. The idea behind a random vote is to have a chance at landing on scum. If you vote for yourself, you're either not contributing to that chance or saying that you are, in fact, scum.

I don't like it, but I'm already voting for him, so there's not much more I can do.

I completely disagree.

Yes, scum often do it at end of day to guillotine discussion. That's irrelevant here.

As for joke votes, things are a little different. Take a utilitarian analysis:
- My self-voting has negligible risk of causing a quick-lynch (since it was only the second vote for myself) (in fact, in this game it was no risk at all but that isn't relevant, I know)
- My self-voting has a very good chance of causing some rats to come out of the woodwork to attack me. Being a player who hunts scum through argument, that's highly desirable from my perspective.
- In other words, minimal potential cost and a high likelihood of benefit. Thus, it is a good action for town (and especially town-vollkan)

The one objection I anticipate is "But, vollkan, what about the fact that people, including scum, might claim suspect you for self-voting and attach you on that basis?"
My answer: I accept that's possible. But that simply means the aforementioned argument will ensue. I am very confident in my ability to defend myself and, thus, my expectation would be that only scum or idiots would remain opposed to me at the end. Idiots usually show their idiocy in other ways. Meaning it will have a good chance of finding scum who play an obstinate and unreasonable argument.

[vollkan]

Can someone explain to me why a random jokevote on oneself is any different to a random jokevote on somebody else? I'm curious.

The only time it is in your faction's best interests to self-vote is when playing as scum. Usually it's done when the scum is at L-1 and discussion is continuing. The scum will vote himself to cut off discussion, allow his team to get in a night kill and then disrupt town's momentum.

As a joke vote though, it's hardly different. The idea behind a random vote is to have a chance at landing on scum. If you vote for yourself, you're either not contributing to that chance or saying that you are, in fact, scum.

I don't like it, but I'm already voting for him, so there's not much more I can do.

I've seen town self-vote just as much as scum, if not more. A lot of people vote for themselves, to put it simply.

You also win townie brownies for being reasonable. Tempered by the fact that you potentially just read what I had said

I realize how my application of degree can be misinterpreted. I don't like the play in any situation. As it is, if I had to place suspicion on edgeworth vollkan, it would be extremely minor at this point. Were it later in the game, I'd consider a self-vote damning. As it is, with this game being rather light-hearted so far, I'm just expressing my distaste for the move in general, not necessarily voll's application of it. The part about having my vote on him already was tongue-in-cheek when I wrote it. As an afterthought, it appears significantly less so.

I don't care how "minor" a suspicion is. If you suspect me for something, you have to prove that it is scummy.

And,"I don't like it"/"distaste" is NOT an acceptable justification for suspecting something!

Also, how on earth can you justifying treating something as generally scummy without regard for the particular circumstances?

[vollkan]

As far as I can tell, a self-vote is not pro-town behavior. Perhaps I am looking at objective results that would be seen in a page 1 summary rather than the contribution that it would have to discussion. As it is, if the goal behind a self vote was to generate discussion, it's working. But by the inherent value of a vote, a self-vote serves to generate confusion. At later times in the game it can guillotine discussion as I've said.

Like I say, from my view of the game, a self-vote has no place. It fails to apply pressure on anyone, and the only chance it has of landing on scum is if you yourself are scum. By the inherent value of a vote (+1 to lynch), it is not pro-town behavior. I understand the application which you are using it for, but i consider it largely poor form.

What it can do later, in totally different circumstances, is irrelevant to the immediate matter.

There is no such thing as "inherent value" independent of its likely effects. And, as I have said without being rebutted, game-relevant discussion is one such effect.

Your point about it being +1 to lynch is overly-simplistic. Yes, it is +1 to lynch, but that is irrelevant unless it actually translates to an unacceptable increase in the risk of a lynch. As I have submitted previously, that simply is not the case. It might very well mean that town-vollkan has +1 to lynch, but that is not "inherently" anti-town if it doesn't really alter my odds of survival.

[vollkan]

It should also be noted, as I carelessly failed to mention in my prior post, that a vote can be used to apply pressure during the limbo in which the prudence of a lynch is uncertain. Said pressure can force a town to defend himself or a scum to slip up. Again, when self-voting, you cannot pressure yourself, and it's against your faction's play to lead towards your own lynch.

Disagree.

Votes for "pressure" without any argument behind them are purely meaningless. Town cannot defend themselves because, by definition, there is nothing to defend against.

The only effect of a "pressure" vote is to, potentially, cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town. It ultimately just reflects the ability of the players and says squat about their alignment.

I'll prove it:

Unvote, Vote: mrfixij

Feeling pressured?
...
Not even a little bit?

[vollkan]

Disagree.

Votes for "pressure" without any argument behind them are purely meaningless. Town cannot defend themselves because, by definition, there is nothing to defend against.

The only effect of a "pressure" vote is to, potentially, cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town. It ultimately just reflects the ability of the players and says squat about their alignment.

I'll prove it:

Unvote, Vote: mrfixij

Feeling pressured?
...
Not even a little bit?

With this I disagree. In the absence of power roles (which is the effective situation that exists on day 1), no CERTAINTY of scum can be established. From a strictly numerical and probability standpoint, each vote exponentially increases your chance of being lynched. While a drastic oversimplification of the voting process, mathematically it remains true.

Being that we have 10 players, assume 10 unloaded 10-sided dice. It would take 6 dice landing on the same number to lynch. If votes were

truly

random, if each vote is taken sequentially, two consecutive rolls landing on the same number drastically increases the chance of said number reaching the quota of 6. It means that rather than 3/5 of the total pool, it requires 1/2 of the remaining pool to lynch, 10% less than required previously. If a player has more votes on him, a significantly lesser percentage of the remaining player pool needs to vote for him to lynch him. Granted, there is a significant subjective degree, but as stated above, this is a dramatic oversimplification, much like a spherical cow in physics.

As arguments get tossed around, posts are torn apart and logic becomes shaky, the dice begin to get loaded, or as we call it in mafia, a player looks "scummy". This means that a player is more likely to receive a vote from any given player. If you pack this on top of the reduced portion of the player pool required to lynch, you begin to see the numeric effect of pressure votes. It is a general fallacy to consider objectively that where a vote is cast is a scumtell. The first vote is just as damning as the last mathematically, instead we use a psychological tendency of where a vote is, in turn playing a WIFOM game.

Again, I believe we view the game from different eyes. I see a vote as a primary indication of probability adjustment and the reasoning as a secondary adjustment on top of said vote. I believe I understand the general priority of your logic, but have a hard time verbalizing it.

What's your point? I said as much just before (only with less verbosity):

- My self-voting has negligible risk of causing a quick-lynch (since it was only the second vote for myself) (in fact, in this game it was no risk at all but that isn't relevant, I know)
- My self-voting has a very good chance of causing some rats to come out of the woodwork to attack me. Being a player who hunts scum through argument, that's highly desirable from my perspective.
- In other words, minimal potential cost and a high likelihood of benefit. Thus, it is a good action for town (and especially town-vollkan)

Sure, it makes it minutely more likely that I may be lynched, but I doubt you could tell me with a straight face that it carried an unacceptable level of risk - especially relative to the information potential.

I can't see how it is defensible to approach things in terms of "probability adjustment" when the "probability" you rely upon is but a minute part of the overall effect of somebody self-voting (or doing anything, as the case may be).

Policy.

Wonderful.

In which case, you cannot justify saying my action gives you a "minor" suspicion.

All you've shown is that from one (fundamentally-flawed and narrow) policy perspective my actions were anti-town.

First off, whether those other votes had reasoning has little bearing on a self-vote being an anti-town move (notice I did not say scummy).
2nd, you invalidated your point that there was nothing different between their vote and your vote by the manner in which you did it.

I dispute the label "anti-town" as much as I do the label "scummy" - either constitutes an attack against me. I've shown above why self-voting was justified.

You didn't give a reason, yet ask the rhetorical question of why you would vote for yourself. I've yet to hear a pro-town reason for it in any discussion I've read and participated in.
You here imply and leave it hanging that you have some special reason. Hence, you've been asked to explain yourself, which you are welcome to do without answering with a question in return yourself. No dodging the question Ehh? Good.

I gave my pro-town reason for it (and I shall respond to your attacks on said reason shortly). And, also, it's an argument from ignorance to say that my action is anti-town or scummy because you haven't heard a pro-town reason for it. The onus is on you to prove that

my

action (not the action of fixij's spherical cow) was objectively-speaking scummy and/or anti-town.

3rd - Do you really think you are the first player with the wonderful idea of voting themselves to spur discussion? Here's a good paraphrase of why its crap move from your own mouth.

The only effect of a "pressure" vote is to, potentially, cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town. It ultimately just reflects the ability of the players and says squat about their alignment.

The only effect of a "self" vote is to, potentially cause someone to react badly - but that is not any more or less likely to come from scum or town because self-voting is inherently a bad play. Any reaction from a player says squat about their alignment
That means, despite your smarmy last comment, I ask of you the same question you asked yourself. You said it to stand out, now you've been called out on it. Dont tell me you didnt have an answer prepared. Or did you expect to be able to say "AHAH! Someone asked me about my self-vote, gotcha scum!!"

No. I actually learned the discussion-seeking self-vote from Adel and I know for a fact that it is hardly unheard of.

The analogy you draw between pressure voting and self-voting is weak.

See, both town and scum can (and do) flip under pressure, especially newbies. Experienced players will tend to regard pressure votes as meaningless - after all, they aren't based on anything. Ultimately, then, all pressure voting does is just contrive a reaction which is alignment-independent. Town have good reason to freak under pressure, and so do scum. (And there is absolutely no evidence for the argument that, since scum have higher stakes, they will freak out more.)

Self-voting is very different. People who attack self-voting can be challenged to provide reasons for said attack. In turn, argument begins. Argument in and of itself good for finding scum because of the fact that scum, basicaly, have slippery logic in their arguments - to allow them to fulfill their objectives. But, beyond that, it provides a test of how far people are willing to take a losing case against the self-voter (and I say "losing case" because the absolutist anti-self-voting case is dismally weak).

In other words, pressure votes rely on drawing inferences based on alignment-independent reactions. Self-voting relies on drawing players into rational debate and seeing the logic behind people's attacks.

Notice - I have never once said that those who attacked me are scummy for doing so simpliciter. I am paying close attention to the arguments being made, and scrutinising them, but my strategy (or is that "tactic" ) doesn't rely simply on saying "GOTCHA SCUM".

I asked you about what distinguished my self-vote to see whether you could actually articulate a coherent, contextual explanation of why my self-vote was anti-town and/or scummy.

I don't care how "minor" a suspicion is. If you suspect me for something, you have to prove that it is scummy.

And,"I don't like it"/"distaste" is NOT an acceptable justification for suspecting something!

Wrong. While it would be nice for us to understand why he has a suspicion, he doesnt have to "prove" it is scummy. (By the way that's a scummy attitude in games I've played Vollkan. Scum gets into a "You got no case on me Copper, you cant prove nuttin" frame of mind)

First off, I can prove that, in my case, a loathing of "distate" and "I don't like it" is entirely consistent.

This is a policy list I have posted a few times in the past. See here for the one that sprang to mind. You also only have to have a glance through my history to see the number of times where I have ranted at people who make subjective, feeling-based arguments ("gut" suspicion being the worst)

Pay particular attention to rule number 3.

Vollkan's Ground Rules
1) I use a % system to rank people.

a: 0% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed town. 100% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed scum.
b: The rankings refer to behaviour unless otherwise stated. Someone that has claimed cop may still get a rating of 60% if their play has been worth 60%. I may also give them a probability ranking that factors in their claim.
c: Everybody starts at 50%.
d: Someone who has neither a preponderance of scumtells or towntells will receive 50%.
e: Any unreadable lurker will receive 50%
f: It is rare for me to give people a ranking below 50% (see section 2) below)

2) I am exceptionally skeptical of "town tells" and am reluctant to positively identify people as being "likely town". I have no issue with identifying the "less scummy" but I do not like identifying the "more towny".

3) Any player who justifies a vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. on one of the following:

a) 'Hunch';
b) 'Gut';
c) 'Feeling';
d) 'Belief'; or
e) Anything that has a meaning similar to those of the above

will receive a stern demand from me that they give objective reasons for their vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. Should they fail to do so, my expectation is that the vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. will be dropped. If not, then they can expect their % ranking to increase.

4) If you want to play in a chaotic fashion, that's fine. However, if I can't understand what you are doing I will demand an explanation and justification. If you don't provide me with one, your % ranking will increase.

5) Any person who accuses another person of being scum for one of the following:

a) Over-reaction;
b) Lurking;
c) Aggression;
d) Bandwagoning (see section 6) below);

Can expect their % ranking to increase.

6) Bandwagoning is not a scumtell. Voting with crap reasons is a scumtell. I don't give a toss how many times you vote, but I care very deeply about your reasons for doing so.

7) I hate lurkers. If you do not post decently within a reasonable timeframe, I will bombard you with questions and, very likely, demand you provide a full scumdar with at least 2 sentences per person. If you choose not to do so, I will expect that you desist from posting and allow yourself to be replaced.

8) Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.

9) If I make a mistake somewhere I will point out that I have made tremendous cock-ups as town in a number of games. If you choose to entirely ignore these meta-references, your % ranking will rise.

10) If you are finding the game too 'difficult' or 'complex' either read up or replace out.

11) Don't complain about my posts being too long.

In short, I refuse to accept the legitimacy of any argument unless it has objective backing.

That is to say, you can give me an answer which, at some level, is not reducible to "I don't like it"

And the onus in this game is most definitely on the accuser. The best way to catch scum is on the basis of poor reasoning for attacks. As such, mandating rigorous levels of justification forces scum into a corner. Every time we legitimise somebody to rely on feeling, the town's grave is dug a little deeper.

Players are allowed to play by gut, and I've seen some that are very good at it. It is optimum for them to be able to convince town of why their gut is pointing at a player, but we dont have "game lawyers" who will come busting into the thread to force him to "prove it".

1) Name me just one good gut player
2) Even if you can satisfy 1), that doesn't justify giving every person who plays by gut the benefit of the doubt
3) See my point above - there is an inherent advantage for town in forcing objective reasons.
4) We don't game lawyers because there are players who are able to impose onus of proof rules themselves.

I can see we are going to enjoy this game, Ecto :p

Now back to your own question, and no dodging this. Answer it. The cop out answer of "it spurred discussion" wont cut it.

But I have answered it Why is discussion unacceptable to you? (and note, my reason was not "it spurred discussion" (empirical) but that it could spur discussion (theoretical)). That was the point of my utility analysis. Vollkan self-voting had more benefit than vollkan not doing so.

Oh my, we wouldn't want to appear to be idiots casting shadows from your amazing brilliance. Only idiots would disagree with you? You might find yourself in a crowd of them. Mtfixij already has the right of things. You are so bent upon the thought that your logic is infallable that you dont seem to care to listen though.

I'm perfectly cognisant of my own fallibility. It's just that this is an issue I have given a lot of thought to over my time here, and I don't believe that anti-self-voting case is defensible. And fixij is certainly NOT on the right track.

P.S. - a self-vote may be anti-town, but is not inherently scummy. I DO find Vollkan's maneuvering and justification for his anti-town move to be scummy. Calling the town idiots or scum unless they agree with him is a perfect example of lower level psychological manipulation.

Maneuvering? What maneuvering? I've given a clear, objective explanation for my actions. I haven't resorted to abstract theory and I haven't resorted to feelings.

And I intended my "scum or idiots" entirely, and stand by it.

[vollkan]

By the way guys - awesome start to the game. I don't think I've seen a game that has gotten this much relevant argument so early on!

[vollkan]

Now, normally I'd love to continue this discussion - I'm a fan of words as much as the next fella. However, this particular discussion which is only a kissing-cousin of what should be going on I feel needs to be nipped in the bud - before it blossoms into a large tree that keeps dropping apples on our head.

1) How about giving us your thoughts on the discussion

2) This is as relevant and real as any other sort of discussion. The fact I deliberately engineered a controversy doesn't change the seriousness of the attacks or anything.

[vollkan]

My thoughts? That its devolved into a theory discussion about self voting and the day 1 reaction versus suspicion debates. Which are good stuff.

Yet, I dont think they're relevant to finding scum in this game.

Let me try questioning more directly:

1) What is your opinion of my self-vote: pro-town, anti-town, scummy, neutral?
2) Why?
3) Are the arguments people are making not relevant for determining alignment?

Hi guys,

vote: springlullaby

Hi springlullaby,

Unvote, Vote: vollkan

[vollkan]

2.) A self-vote in the joke phase of the game has no real relevance unless one is assuming that the joke votes themselves are going to lead to a lynch. Once the game starts moving and the joke phase is eliminated then, yes, a vote for yourself (especially if you are a lynch candidate) becomes an anti-town maneuver.

Not necessarily. I can quite easily envisage myself throwing a curve ball and self-voting whilst a game is under way and I am under suspicion just to guage reactions.

3.) The discussion is moving from this specific instance to a larger discussion of mafia theory. This is good, however it does not lead us to the promised land - also, from games I've read this is the type of discussion that comes back periodically throughout the game to cloud issues as they come up and that is the reason why I wanted it nipped in the bud now.

Not necessarily.

It's bad when things change from a discussion about whether X action was bad to whether an action like X is generally good or bad. The two, of course, have a large degree of overlap as well.

I don't think the debate here has strayed at all (though, if we had gone down ixfij's road too far, then it may well have) because it has been focussed on what I did and my defence of it.

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

Why does aggression send up "warning flares"?

First off, conversation in general is pro-town, but useless flummery is not. Having a major role in the conversation generated by your self-vote, I'd rather not consider it to be flummery. In doing so, I have to concede that in this case your self vote was not an anti-town move. There are many ways to generate a conversation, and this is as valid as any. Makes it a neutral tell.

Glad to see you understand that.

Giving the "generating discussion" reason after your coy question to yourself was lame. LAME! But again, it did what you purport to be after, and so is also an acceptable response. Neutral tell.

Hmm...

I don't see what is "LAME" about the reason. Generating discussion is a valid justification for action in many circumstances. Now, of course, you have to judge people's motives and look at the context.

If Player X casts a truly horrendous L-1 vote for somebody and says, after being attacked, "Haha, just for discussion", then Player X should be hung promptly. Clearly, "discussion" is totally inappropriate as a justification in those circumstances and would only be counter-productive.

In the circumstances here, however, I saw little of adverse consequences and I knew that my actions were justifiable.

(also, let me say that, despite my steadfast defence of my actions as "not anti-town", I certainly have never meant to suggest that they should be seen as pro-town. Objectively speaking, I entirely agree with your conclusion of "neutral tell")

Anyone can play the game the way they want. Your like or dislike of the words 'distate' or 'I dont like it' is irrelevant.

Strawman.

As I made clear, my rejection of "gut" and so on, as I have explained already, is not based on my own "dislike" of those words - BUT RATHER is based on my reasoned argument (which nobody has rebutted) that permitting such arguments is manifestly damaging to the town (by allowing people to post unjustified positions with impunity).

People can play by gut, they can give exactly those reasons and nothing more. They have the right to play their own game and your Vollkans ground rules dont extend beyond your own keyboard.

Now, you can build cases on people based upon their actions, you can threaten to vote them, try to build a coalition to dump them for their lack of reasoning. But, in the end, the can still behave as they want (within the mods rules).

This is also a strawman.

I never once said that people don't have the "right" to post stupidly. They can post in Gaelic for all I care. As you yourself say in the second paragraph, I can try and attack them based on their actions. That's precisely what I said in my rules - I will do everything in my power to either force them to give reasons or, otherwise, I will seek to make them hang (subject, obviously, to their relative suspicion level)

I honestly cannot see what you are attacking here. It's impossible for any player to lay down a code of conduct for another player, and my own rules (if you bothered to read them) make it clear that the only "penalty" I impose is my own suspicion.

You are a perfect example of this fact. You self-voted even though I dislike it, even as one of many valid ways to spur page 1 discussion.

Hang on...
You acknowledged from the get-go that my self-vote was not scummy
More recently, you've accepted that it was not anti-town.

What, then, don't you like about it? It seems like you are simply proceeding from the fact that self-voting can be bad in some cases to a general rule that self-voting is generally something you don't "like" - in which case your dislike is basically irrelevant in respect of any particular case of self-voting

You are also free to use scum and idiots if you wish. But I am also free to point out that labeling people who do a certain thing an 'idiot' is a low grade psychological tool. It is resorting to feelings. People certainly don't want to be called idiots. On a subconscious level, if they are sheep (and we know there are alot of them), they will tend to follow as you lead with your negative reinforcement. Still, wanting to be able to sway the town where you want them to go is also a neutral tell. Why scum wants to manipulate the town is obvious. But if your ego tells you that you are a better town player than the rest of the group, then you still want to be able to manipulate the town into voting your target when you believe you've found scum.

It is not a "low grade psychological tool" or a resort to feelings.

I see no intellectually defensible basis for attacking self-voting based on some general sense of dislike that has no link to context or considerations of utility. If, after hearing what I have to say, they cannot rebut it but persist in their convictions, then I feel quite justified in labeling people that adhere to that position as "idiots" - they are simply sheepishly following a bit of received wisdom. The label is justified.

My purpose in using the label "idiot" is negative reinforcement, to an extent. If those who would oppose my positions are left with emotion as their only crutch, then I am justified in using an emotional counter-punch. I'd never use the label against somebody with. an objectively defensibly position.

We've got some very verbose players and I think thats going to make a difference.

In my experience, verbosity tends to make for a more active game - there is less chance of the game reaching a dead-end

[vollkan]

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum.

This isn't true. The point of the random stage is to allow a game to begin in some way. One of the most fascinating parts of this game for me is the phenomenon of how games actually begin because, when you think about, people come to the table with absolutely nothing to say to each other. It needn't be a random vote (including a random self-vote). People might suggest no lynch, might suggest mass claim, etc. etc. "joke-ness" is not the point of random voting.

And the notion of it having the purpose of "signifying a willingness to catch scum" is absolute twaddle. What the heck is the point of signifying said willingness through random voting? No player in their right mind would think "Oh, look, vollkan cast a random vote. He must be willing to catch scum. +10 townie points for vollkan." I am using hyperbole there, of course, but I think you can see my point - signification is absolutely meaningless (especially where the signification occurs by convention, as is usually the case with random voting)

Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote.

"nothing about myself". Not true. At all. In fact, I'd say this is completely the wrong way round. Imagine if I had opened with:

Vote: springlullaby

Your avatar looks like a criminal

Would you learn anything about me? Would you gain any insight into my thought processes? Would it spring any discussion which could do either of those things? No. No. And No. It would undoubtedly be followed by something equally vapid, say:

Vote: orangepenguin

because normal penguins aren't orange. Thus, you must be unusual and are therefore likely scum

Instead, I pull a move which I know will create a controversy, which I know will give me a chance to show a bit about myself, and to learn a bit about others - by self-voting.

2) "Doesn't show who I am willing to vote". True to an extent. If you are one of those types who rely on WIFOM ideas about scum random voting patterns
then self-voting will never satisfy you. Frankly, though, I think that self-voting will be overwhelmingly more likely to benefit town than by voting someone else, on the off-chance that a scum is caught by some tawdry random-vote based argument.

However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

The "you have no proof" is a staple of my play philosophy as town and scum (Just see my policy list). For me, the crucial element in this game is forcing people to give reasons to justify suspicions (I feel I have ranted on that point enough, so I won't elaborate on reasons which I have already given). Thus, I always place the onus squarely on the accuser.

And yeah, self-voting is a total null-tell for somebody like me.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

How prescient of you!

I've shown why my actions were defensible, and nobody has rebutted me on that yet (The closest was pseudo-postmodernist gibes about reason not being the be-all-and-end-all in this game, and I have shown that that notion disadvantages town enormously). You yourself have even said that self-voting is just as likely to come from "scum as town" (and, conversely, from "town as scum"...interesting the way that reversing those two words can change the tone of the sentence, hey?)

In such circumstances, I cannot see how a vote on me is defensible (and yes, I am being defensive )

You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?

Yeah, actually. My hopes have been met.

Juls - Basically, she first responded jokingly ("I <3 Recursion "). It's an interesting response, especially from a newbie, that she would essentially not react to a self-vote either way. Inexperienced players are typically the most prone to wild ideas. She also asked ixfij if he was basing his argument on policy. Good question (very good in fact). But also very non-controversial (asking a question innocently, which may lead to a prejudicial answer that other people will follow through on)

orangepenguin - "I've seen town self-vote just as much as scum, if not more. A lot of people vote for themselves, to put it simply." As I indicated, I liked this response. Doesn't suck up to me, doesn't dodge the issue, and doesn't lick his finger and wait to see which way the wind blows (and his answer is the correct one, but that's not so important )

ortolan - Also a very good response: "Can someone explain to me why a random jokevote on oneself is any different to a random jokevote on somebody else? I'm curious." He's a new player. He sees me being put on the spot for my self-vote and asks a sensible, probative question of the accusers.

RealityFan - Obviously loves reality so much that he has yet to post in game.

springlullaby - Mercurial to say the least. She opens with a self-vote and now harangues me for self-voting. I think she is smart enough that I am not going to put this down to a contradiction. I've rebutted her above and am eagerly awaiting her reply.

Ectomancer - Hehehe. Well, he begins by asking me to justify my vote. As I said in my response, it's interesting that he flowed along with received wisdom on self-voting without explaining what he objected to from the get-go. He then tries weakly to suggest I contradicted myself

(with this:

First off, whether those other votes had reasoning has little bearing on a self-vote being an anti-town move (notice I did not say scummy).
2nd, you invalidated your point that there was nothing different between their vote and your vote by the manner in which you did it.

)

Again, reiterates his question (onus of proof lies on prosecution!)

Then weakly compares self-voting to pressure voting (the latter of which I consider stupid).

Also says self-voting is "inherently bad" (which turns out to be as complex as "I don't like it")

Then makes this weird argument that people don't have to prove their case, comparing it to "You got no case on me Copper, you cant prove nuttin". Needless to say, in a game where anybody is a potential crim, if there is no requirement to prove suspicion then, logically, it's perfectly alright to just lynch whoever we like. No, just by the fact that we don't all lynch on the first page it is clear that there is a presumption of innocence and, as I have said before, there are good town-favouring policy reasons for this.

Then accuses me of psychological manipulation ("these are not the droids you're looking for")

The shambolic case continues on this page with a concession that what I did was not anti-town. (it goes from "inherently bad" -> anti-town -> not anti-town)

Then makes this weird rights-based strawman that had nothing to do with what I said - that my whole point was that forcing reasons is good for the town.

SpyreX - Subdued reaction to the discussion, but he justified it well.

mrfixij - begins by saying that it is only in scum's interests to self-vote (Big claim). Then says he is only expressing distate in general and his suspicion of me for it was only extremely minor - this is a major backpedal from what he just said, and he doesn't acknowledge that fact. If something is only ever proscum, it cannot ever be only minorly suspicious. Then we start going into spherical cows

TDC - only one post, but I like his response (for similar reasons to Ortolan's)

[vollkan]

But Vollkan, why the second selfvote?

Mainly to see if anybody would try a "But you already self-voted! Doing it again would have no effect!" (to no avail )

It's still essentially random stage, so I figure utility is on my side.

[vollkan]

We see things quite differently Vollkan, and I see you trying to use a time loop to use my later judgement of your defense to criticize my early statements. You see a problem with me being convinced by your arguements? Why do you argue if you dont expect to be able to sway players to your line of reasoning.

I don't have a problem with a person changing their mind (in fact, I consider it a

mild

towntell).

My problem here is essentially that you opened with an absolutist attack on my self-vote. The fact that I rebutted it very easily and you didn't mount any defence of it being "inherently bad" suggests you were going for big, strong words without any reasoning behind them. In turn, that suggests you were largely going for an appeal to emotion or, alternatively, were simply parroting an attack on self-voting that you heard elsewhere.

Asking you to justify your vote is based upon exactly the same reasoning as your self-vote in the first place. Generating discussion. You dont own a monopoly on that tactic you know.

The "discussion" justification isn't a universal cop-out.

When you specifically targeted me, it showed you were drawing a distinction on me specifically, because you didn't ask a general question for people to justify themselves (this was affirmed in your subsequent attacks on the self-vote)

By rhetorically asking yourself why you placed that vote, you did differentiate yourself from the other random votes. It's not a 'weak' statement. I'm right, your wrong.

My asking myself that is a form of baiting - to see who jumps on the self-vote (as in, it's to make things as tempting as possible for a potential parrot). Don't tell me that my own rhetorical question warrants you drawing a distinction.

Whether you think pressure voting is stupid is as irrelevant as my opinion that self-voting is stupid. K?

You're taking things out of context here. You made an analogy between the two which I refuted. Thus, it was relevant because it was another example of a weak attack by you.

There is no strawman. I've found that scum tend to fall into that "you cant prove your case, so you cant vote me attitude'. That's called experience. You can argue with the position if you like, but my experience tells me Im right.

Duh, of course scum will pull on the "you can't prove it" attitude - a presumption of innocence can form a protective shield for them. Smart town will do that too, however. As I have already said, there are strong pro-town reasons for such a presumption and the mere fact that scum can benefit doesn't refute it (after all, if an uninformed town is permitted to lynch without good reasons then mislynches are more likely to occur than scum lynches, just on probability alone)

Players can play by gut. They dont have to follow your "prove it!" gameplay if they dont wish to. You can vote them if you like, but you cant make them do anything. This is also not a strawman, as it directly contradicts your 'groundrules' that you posted.

I've already addressed this. I KNOW that I cannot force people. That's not what the rules do. The rules make my positions clear up front. The plays I identify I consider anti-town and, so, by proscribing them immediately I can deter certain sorts of behaviour.

Another counter opinion to yours Vollkan. The onus is on the prosecutor to present a case, the onus is on the defender to point out the flaws in the case.
By repeatedly saying that the onus is on the prosecutor, what you seem to be purporting is that you dont have to defend yourself, because the prosecutor has to prove 'he got you'. Accusations are as much about generating discussion, or getting specific people to talk, as they are about lynching people.

Strawman.

I never said that there is no responsibility to rebut (that responsibility doesn't just lie on the defence though - every pro-town player should shoot down crappy arguments). My onus point was simply saying that the prosecution has to present a case.

(Proof here:

The "you have no proof" is a staple of my play philosophy as town and scum (Just see my policy list). For me, the crucial element in this game is forcing people to give reasons to justify suspicions (I feel I have ranted on that point enough, so I won't elaborate on reasons which I have already given). Thus, I always place the onus squarely on the accuser.

)

Thus, I never said that the prosecutor has to prove somebody is scum before making accusations. But they have to give objective reasons for their accusations (unless they are simply stirring the pot, but that's different since there is no "suspicion" as such in those cases)

You didn't like that I was swayed by your arguments regarding your self-vote. So tell me what conclusion you had come to if I had dug my feet in and refused to budge? Stubborn townie or scum?

The premise of your question is wrong (see above)

But, had you been stubbornly adherent to a crap argument I would have probably voted you. Stubborn adherence to the indefensible suggests the player is not prepared to give any ground on a point, which town has absolutely no rational basis for doing.

Because you realize that if you say scum, then you simply setup a catch 22 situation in which either way a person responded, they would be scum, and this situation was derived from a self-vote on page 1, to which either town or scum might equally react towards.

Not true. See above.

Vollkan, before I answer you, please clarify something for me: do you seriously believe that acumen in theoretical standing is in anyway indicative of alignment?

I may not understand your question properly, but I will try and answer based on what I think you mean.

I certainly do not think that theoretical accuracy has any link to alignment. Townies can be, and very often are, wrong on theory.

I do, however, think that the way somebody argues a theory point in a game can be relevant to their alignment. In terms of general use of craplogic and stubborness and so on.

In other words, the debate is substantively irrelevant (or tangentially relevant) but procedurally is directly relevant.

[vollkan]

Vollkan: How would a game look like where everyone was you? How would the first case develop if nobody started pushing weak cases to see where they'll go?
I can certainly envision 12 vollkans arguing about theory, but how would you ever move away from it?
I agree that it's in the best interest of the town to only follow good cases, but they don't just drop from the sky, do they?

No, a good case doesn't just drop from the sky - and I think the very play I have adopted in this game affirms that that is not my own view. By self-voting to create a controversy I am creating a basis for suspicions and so on to arise out of.

Why is Springlullaby following Spyrex (she says Ecto is scummy), but votes Vollkan?

QFT. Do you have some reason that we do not to decide that Vollkan and I are diametrically opposed in alignment? I see no reason that Vollkan and I could both be town, nor do I see a reason why it could not be proposed that we are both scum putting on an elaborate staged swordfight for town's benefit to distance ourselves from one another.

I agree with you here. Myk's point is illogical.

---I dont see the 'jumping on' event here. So what's next?

Here is where you jumped on:

I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?

Ecto, as I have stated repeatedly now, your initial question betrays that you assumed that the self-vote was somehow uniquely warranting of further justification (and your subsequent "case" against it shows just baseless that assumption was). It's "jumping on" because you were basically going against something based on nothing more than preconceptions, at best.

Now this is a jumping on post. Vollkan was waiting to pounce, probably on anyone who bothered asking him about his self-vote.

This would be, what, the fifth time you've said something like this?

Again, I have been clear that questioning the self-vote # scum. But, my expectation would be that anybody who questions the self-vote has some explanation as to why self-votes are so special as to warrant specific inquiry.

Read my first two statements again. I see no presumptions or prejudices evident at this point, yet Vollkan is giving the old as though I had?? This statement here was the first 'jumping on' and it certainly wasn't by Ectomancer.

Again, let's review:

I don't believe that I've self-voted, though I have asked the town to kill me in a very specific way before (worked out as I had asked and I won with the town)
So to repeat your question to yourself, why would you self-vote Vollkan?

You had no basis for thinking a self-vote to be special (as became manifest subsequently). You saw my question, carrying whatever prior ideas you had about the general perception of self-voting, and then tried to seek an explanation from me. I don't think that you actually took the time to consider my action and possible reasons for it (because your "inherently bad" remark showed you hadn't given any consideration to the question of utility)

Now that we are aware of this mechanic, can you still justify your self-vote Vollkan? Since this mechanic wasn't stated prior to your self vote, include what you were thinking then, and what your thoughts are about it now. Is the move still valid?

Pretty much the same thing. You're demanding justification of me particularly.

And don't kid that you weren't relying on prejudice. The question "Why would you...." implies that there is something which needs to be justified. It holds that one set of behaviour is the accepted norm and that a deviation must be justified. That's prejudice.

This post was put together to question the motivations of Spyrex, who I believe to both be buddying up, and 'taking sides' in an argument that he believes could result in the lynch of one or both of us. If you need an extrapolation, it is my suspicion that he could be scum that was simply looking for the first crack between two town players (this theory is dependent upon Vollkan being town of course), and then Spyrex is simply making himself the wedge to widen the crack into a lynch.

...

...

So, basically, you have contrived one particular little narrative for Spyrex's behaviour which is entirely dependent upon me being protown. Assuming his motives without any basis is bad enough (why is it not equally valid to think he is just agreeing with me? Your assumption that he is buddying up is just a form of pseudo-OMGUS), but to basis that assumption on a further assumption as to MY alignment is simply absurd. This is simply just assertion and innuendo without any basis in evidence.

Unvote, Vote: Ectomancer

[vollkan]

After such a big discussion, where he keeps disagreeing with Ecto, his only option was to vote Ecto.

Not true. At all. I can disagree with somebody and not vote them. I have not voted Ecto for disagreement; I have voted him particularly for his attack on Spyrex and for aspects of the way he has been arguing.

Vollkan, you disagree with that one sentence, and I know I should have posted it some other way. But do you also disagree with the explanation of that sentence?

No. She could plausibly find us both scummy.

[vollkan]

You're the type that just has to be right aren't you? In this instance, you are not. At this point in time, you have no idea whether I have preconceptions or not from the way this question is phrased. I, in fact, went out of my way and stated a situation where I did something odd, that was still pro-town. If anything, Im giving you the benefit of the doubt to present a pro-town reason for your self vote, not 'jumping on you'. It was only later that I revealed that I dislike it.
This just reinforces my statement that you were waiting for someone, anyone, to mention your self-vote so that you could say "Ahah!"

If you didn't think that there was anything special about a self-vote, you would not have singled me out. You also used the "Why would you..." language. Those two combined give a fair inference of prejudice. We then only need look at your subssequent posts to augment this "inherently bad", "only the enemy likes confusion", etc.

And yes, I was waiting for somebody to do exactly what you did. So I could then have the discussion and judge their processes (and those of anybody else). It's wrong of you to say I was waiting to say "Ahah!". I didn't once accuse you of being scum simply for inquiring about the self-vote. I waited and looked at what you had to justify that sort of response. And even then, the straw that broke the camel's back was an atrocious vote by yourself for Spyrex.

On to disliking it, it's because we are the two primary participants in the discussion, yet there is no indication of alignment based upon which side of the debate we are on.

That's because the sides of the debate have nothing to do with alignment. As I have already said, sparking the controversy is an instrument used by me to see people's processes in argument in this game.

2: Despite revealing little in the way of alignment of the baiter and the enabler, you can still gain insight into other players by the way they react to the situation.

It's as revealing about the baiter and enabler as it is the reacters. How people relate to each other in response to the controversy is entirely game-relevant.

My statements against Spyrex are valid ones, and enough for me to place for my vote, and I'd like him to answer to them himself and not by you.

Why should I not shoot down craplogic when I think I see craplogic? I am not going to let a dodgy attack stand uncontested.

You see, this is where that 'gut' thing comes in. Your gut doesn't like the way I've addressed your self-vote. My gut doesn't like what I'm seeing from Spyrex

Close, but no cigar. I've given reasons in my criticisms of you. Your gut-based assumptions on Spyrex's motives cannot be compared to that.

As for your alignment? I've already stated where I stand on your alignment.

Uh yeah. Now, explain how that justifies making a case on Spyrex that assumes I am protown?

What I dont know is whether Spyrex does know your alignment or not, and how he might react to being called out on something he very well may be doing. A vote reinforces it, adding pressure (dont care that you dont like pressure votes).

Oh right You weren't really making a crap case but it was all an elaborate ruse to place pressure on him. That claim warrants serious skepticism, because, at this stage of the day, we cannot afford to just let people rely on the "for pressure" excuse.

This establishes a position, but also seems to be an appeal to emotion

Which is the appeal to emotion?

Meanwhile, ecto, who takes up a similar position to mine, but strays from the theoretical aspect and goes straight to attacking Vollkan, is thrown to the wayside as dangerously aggressive, sending up "warning flares."

You have my agreement on the warning flares point. He was distinguishing ecto for aggression, which is not scummy.

This brings up an interesting point. First off, Spyre makes a slight ad hominem/degradation of the validity of Ecto's point, but after doing so says that a lynch which is fundamentally based on a difference in viewpoint of policy would be a nail in the coffin for town. Which is funny because Spyre places no suspicion on me when I say that my vote on Voll is because of policy.

Valid point.

[vollkan]

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

However, as I already said, I do acknowledge that, given the current meta self-voting is not indicative of alignment, or even always an antitown move. But this not because of any 'inherent property' to self-voting, but simply because you can sometimes derive value by going against custom.

You are entirely correct. My very tactic of self-voting relies on the fact that it will be controversial. If self-voting ever became the norm, the tactic (like any sort of ploy) would become entirely invalid.

It's wrong to judge play based on its effects "if everybody did it" because, quite simply, that inquiry doesn't relate to whether or not something is pro-town or anti-town in any given instance (this is analogous to the distinction between deontologism and utilitarianism).

There's no tension between believing that self-voting would be bad if everyone did it, and believing that self-voting can be good in any particular instant (as you say, by going against customary practice)

[vollkan]

Vollkan - I'm not going into another quote pyramid to restate the position we are both taking, which is, "I'm right and you are wrong."

Ecto, I am not simply posting for your benefit. I am not arguing against you to persuade you - I am doing so to show others the faults I see in your arguments against me (and now against Spyrex). I don't expect we will reach any sort of accord.

What I find ironic in this is that I took the early position that 'gut feelings" are a perfectly acceptable manner of playing mafia. Both Vollkan and Spyrex took opposition to that form of play. But when pressed, the actual reasons they give are what boils down to "gut feelings".

"It wasn't what he did, it was how he did it".

Argue otherwise if you would like, but when others do not agree with your assessment there, what it comes down to is that your gut doesn't agree with how I did what I did. I know it galls you to hear it, but your assessment of my alignment comes down to an entirely debatable "gut feeling". As I said, they can be valid, so I dont discount it as a reasoning at all. I just find it funny that you would discount it if it were coming from someone else.

You're completely wrong here. My attack on your "How" was an attack upon the way that you presented your case - strong rhetoric which ends up being just hollow rhetoric. That isn't scummy for "gut" reasons. It's scummy because it reflects a lack of sincere critical analysis on your own part about possible motivations for my actions.

In a game of incomplete information, there is always going to be a need for inferences to be drawn (nobody can ever prove that a certain action is definitely scummy). As I have done in my argument against you. The point is, however, that inferences have to be based on a genuine analysis of various possible explanations and likelihoods and so on. That's in stark contrast to a suspicion based purely on "gut". Maybe the "gut" has gone through the inferring process - and maybe it hasn't. That's the problem with basing a case on "like", "feeling", "gut" etc.

Right here, its all questions on whether he still considers his move a valid one after the mod made a clarification on the mechanics of the game. No 'strongly attacking' at all here. The "Why would you.." came from Vollkans original post on this topic.. Those were the exact words he used. In fact, to flip it around, Vollkan himself is the one that implied that there was a justification there to be had. My parroting his own question to himself in his own words does not then make myself the originator of the question in that manner.. He then attempts to blame the introduction of the "Why would you..." on me in order to attack me, supporting my earlier assertion that he was simply waiting for the first person to respond so that he could go on the attack.

So, basically, you think that you are exculpated because your question was mere parroting? As I said above, the whole point of that question was to set up a pit for the uncritical in order that a debate may begin. You're in control of your own language; you wrote "Why would you...".

[vollkan]

So, basically, you think that you are exculpated because your question was mere parroting? As I said above, the whole point of that question was to set up a pit for the uncritical in order that a debate may begin. You're in control of your own language; you wrote "Why would you...".

Because it was prefaced by, "So to repeat your question to yourself" of COURSE I'm going to use your turn of phrase in asking the question. I left out "on Earth" because it was unnecessary and could be construed as mocking, and not my intention. Once I stated that I was going to ask of you your own question, the language is going to be yours.
So yes, basing your prejudices upon that turn of phrase is mistaken if you think it originated with me. It was an echo of yourself that you heard.

Okay, I'm going to suspend disbelief for a moment.

What was going through your head at the time? You saw my question. Fine. You saw plenty of other people random vote. You could have asked any of them. But no, you single out me.

The fact I asked the question of myself is completely irrelevant to your actions. Two reasons:

Firstly, suppose I had said:

Vote: Ecto

Because random voting is fun.

Why on earth would you end your sentence in a full stop?!

I daresay that you would not have felt the need to pop up with your own inquiry. The point I am making here is simple: you would not have asked unless you saw something that you felt warranted justification.

Now, that leads into the second: Your subsequent posts made it manifestly clear that you were opposed (based on nothing more than your own emotions) to self-voting. That itself rebuts any claim you might have made that you weren't passing an implicit judgment on my actions when you questioned them.

And before we head down the little avenue of "So you were setting up a gotcha" again. NO! If you had questioned me and articulated a decent explanation for your oppositoin to self-voting, and been reasonable in respnse to my arguments - the matter would have ended there. That isn't what happened. Judged in context, your actions showed you biting the bait and leaping to an emotional judgment against me.

You could see the first sentence as playing by "gut". Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with this one, but it isn't like Ecto is completely unreasonable like some people say.

Drawing inferences =/= Gut. It is, of course, entirely true that we all judge scumminess based on our own perceptions of what scum would do. But that is largely a combination of reason ("what would scum be most likely to do here?") and experience ("scum often tend to..."). For some people, they may be able to make those judgments by "gut" (know something is scummy just when they see it). BUT they still have reasons and, if asked, they ought to be able to explain them. If a person cannot explain their suspicion, then it is essentially just emotional or subconcious and, since they have no way of distinguishing, basic pricniples of precuation say that they shouldn't proceed in their suspicion.

I think it is wrong. I have seen points going from shifting the others point, to theory discussion what is gut. Kinda agreeing with each other, but using different words so there is a little difference. To your "tone of the attacks". To me the last was only an the common " scum like confusion" but in other words.

You are going after Ecto, seemingly only because he opposes some of your idea's. I think that is wrong, even if you thought you didn't do it.

In my second completed game, a newby had a big discussion day one with an other player. He countinued to find that player scummy, and as you well know, when you want to find something scummy about a player, you are going to find it. It lost town the game.

It's not about opposition. The tone of the attacks is relevant because, if you missed it, it shows that Ecto was speaking from a prejudiced position. Disagreement is, of course, not scummy. But the fact that Ecto has neither defended his original position on rational, objective grounds nor has he retracted it (we're in this kind of weird void where he says my actions were not anti-town, without actually seeming to accept my arguments - Ecto, if I am wrong here please point out why/how).

Vote: ecto.

He's pushing a pretty weak case against Spyrex, mostly based on craplogic, and I don't like the case at all.

Your (self-admittedly not a) "case" was abysmal. I hold all players to high standards of reasoning and I insist that you actually explain what you find scummy about Ecto. His case is weak, but let's hear you explain that rather than legitmising sheep-like play

Ecto: Do you think he's scummy for that pbpa summary?
I mean it doesn't support his vote reason (you pushing crap logic) at all, and I think if he was going to fudge a pbpa then it would've made sense to fudge it in a way that supports his vote?

It's not scummy because, for one, it makes no attempt to, as you say, "fudge" and even more so because he has admitted it is a load of crap. However, it doesn't do much for the likelihood that he has just latched on to me and/or spyrex and briefly skimmed Ecto's posts to summarise the skeleton of each. That's why he needs to explain himself in full.

I have to agree with this to a large extent.

In this discussion it's hard to distinguish an argumentative nature from excessive aggression (and even excessive aggression isn't a guarantee of scuminness).

Thus far I've entertained many different hypotheses e.g. the self-vote and ensuing discussion was one big gambit by vollkan or he was simply trying to bait people into attacking him irrationally to show up scum. He is/isn't in league with SpyreX. mrfixij is/isn't in league with Ectomancer etc. I don't particularly favour any however I've got a leaning against Ectomancer, especially in light of how orangepenguin and SpyreX represent the progression of his argument.

So I'm going to Vote: Ectomancer which puts him at L-2. I wouldn't suggest anyone else votes for him without providing

(very) strong justification

at this point.

What? Like the incisive reasoning you just gave? All you basically say is "I rattled around a few theories and am mostly undecided. I do lean against Ecto [for undisclosed reasons] especially in light of what others have said.

2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP? Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.

Precisely my point..

I'm confused to all hell as to WHAT exactly ort was saying in his vote post. You're basically saying that you have no read on Voll's affiliation with Spyre, have no read on my affiliation with Ecto, and have no opinion although you entertain the ideas of the starting discussion. While it's great to have you sitting on the sidelines as a spectator, I'd kindly like to ask you to step into the playing field and give a BIT more material than a bunch of non-reads.

And wow - we agree on something.

[quote="Ortoloan"}
What's there not to understand about my vote against Ectomancer? I believe there is a mild case against him, but that this case is stronger than the one against SpyreX. And when you say I agree with SpyreX and OP, yes I think orangepenguin's summary shows Ectomancer's case against vollkan was relatively insubstantial but quite keenly pursued. [/quote]

*yawn* Lots of words. No reasoning.

Saying what I did about my varying hypotheses was meant to relate to what I said about the theory discussion being relatively unhelpful in actually turning up scum. To support, this I started that all it had given me were various hypotheses, none of which have particularly more support than any other (but obviously, I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer). And you can hardly say my post was like that of a mere spectator, obviously it was at least substantive enough to draw a vote from springlullaby.

Except for the fact the "hypotheses" you came up with were not about theory but about players' motivations and alignments. I really don't like the way you keep saying that this is all so tough ("none of which have particularly more support") but, without any explanation, also say that "I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer"). It's completely meaningless, to be blunt.

-------------------------

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 149

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku

Juls

- 0 ()
orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 1 (springlullaby)
RealityFan - 0 ()
springlullaby - 0 ()

Ectomancer - 4 (ortolan, orangepenguin, vollkan, Spyrex)

vollkan - 0 ()
SpyreX - 3 (mykonian, mrfixij, Ectomancer)
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 2 (Mana_Ku

Juls

, TDC)

Ectomancer is 2 votes away from a lynch.

[vollkan]

I have provided reasons for my 'feelings'. Don't forget that suspicions are rooted in feel as there is no concrete evidence in the game of mafia. There are no finger prints, no DNA, no video surveillance. The game is not a simple equation of x + y = z. There is a human element which is constantly changing. I have to decide how I think you would act as mafia based on limited information. Gut and feelings are all a simplistic way of expressing a subconscious understanding of the events going on around you. I am a poker player, so things like 'gut' which is really just a flash recollection of a player (or the collective of all opponents) and how they respond to certain actions is crucial - even though the game has many statistical factors to it. I will admit I am fairly new to playing mafia and I have not translated those instincts to the game yet. With that said, I used the word feel in the instance you quoted in the same manner I would use the word 'believe' or the phrase 'in my opinion'. I just felt like poking at you because you jumped on it with your code of vollkan.

Justifying yourself with the poker analogy isn't going to work.

What we reason to be scummy is a product of reason (what would scum be most likely to do?) and experience (what do scum typically do?). For some people, they may be able to make those judgments by "gut" (know something is scummy just when they see it). BUT they still have reasons and, if asked, they ought to be able to explain them. If a person cannot explain their suspicion, then it is essentially just emotional or subconcious and, since they have no way of distinguishing, basic pricniples of precuation say that they shouldn't proceed in their suspicion.

We don't have fingerprints, but we also have more than just a person's poker faces. We have words and arguments.


As of now, I see that Shez has made a very substantial case. I cannot hope to respond to something that detailed with the reading I have done thus far, so I will from hereon post on my reading instead of current events (since the meta case appears to have floated off into the ether....)

[vollkan]

Well if it's a load of crap, why bring it up in the first place?

Well, that's just it. It's faux activity no matter what - but it isn't a fake PBPA. Again, he's basically just avoiding justifying himself, which is just as bad.

I assume that last post of your's landed in the wrong thread.

Ugh...thanks for pointing that out.

[vollkan]

So it's not just enough for me to cite others arguments, I have to put it in my owns words as well?

Yes. Because if you cannot articulate your reasons, you avoid accountability (because it means that you are protected by the other player's reasons).

I'll be honest. I did read through the theory discussion before. Now I've had to read some of it again in order to express why exactly I'm voting for Ectomancer. Can I firstly take a leaf out of his book and go with "whatever argument you make use of, it's still ultimately coming from your gut instinct".

As much as I have huge problems with this, I glow a little inside because it vindicates my point about legitimising gut.

And, no Ortolan, you cannot simply refer to gut. Some players might find that acceptable, but I don't. Your own subjective feelings have no place in this game. Either find reasons for them, or back down. Because, thus far, your justification firstly on the basis of "what others have said has made me lean to Ecto" (horridly vague) and "gut" (don't even get me started!) is making you look very scummy indeed.

I cite springlullaby's last post (144) as an example of this- her 2 points against me are basically entirely subjective: one is putting an additional question at the end of my post after voting, and the second is deferring to others' reasoning- if no-one agreed with anyone else in this game I don't see it going very far.

Wrong.

Let me quote Spring for you:

Vote: ortolan


Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks.

1. I already answered on the 'contradiction' thing, though it was mistakenly addressed to spyrex. Don't like the way the question addressing me is dangling at the end of that post, looks like scum changing vote but putting something at the end to signify that they aren't dropping former suspicions entirely to appear consistent.

2. Don't understand your vote on Ectomancer, what are you saying exactly? That you agree with spyrex and OP? Do I detect shedding of responsibility in the formulation of that phrase? Don't care for the drama around L-2.

I'm on page 4 of my reread, and have actually only skimmed the last page, will get to it eventually, but I feel pretty good about my current vote.

Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective. You (and Ecto ) need to understand that there is a difference between drawing an inference and gut. Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

As for the second point, you have completely mischaracterised it. She isn't expressing agreement with anybody. She is saying that Ecto just seems to be agreeing with Spyrex and OP. In fact, she is ATTACKING agreement.

And, obviousy, there is room for agreement in this game. The point is, though, every player should still be able to explain things themselves. Otherwise we run the risk of having strong, articulate scum being able to pull the wool over townie's eyes just by posting impressively.

I have a hard time following this guys. Posts are just a little to big.

The tone of the attacks is relevant because, if you missed it, it shows that Ecto was speaking from a prejudiced position.

I missed it, and it is more your perception of Ecto's play (let's call it "gut")

Look, the way that people keep trying to draw an equivalence between inferences and "gut" is incredibly frustrating.

Mykonian, when a person only justifies something by "gut" or "because I think it's scummy" they provide no objective explanation. When I say it shows prejudice I am drawing an inference based on, variously, the words he used, his subsequent remarks, etc etc. I am not saying "My gut tells me Ecto is doing this". I am giving reasons that the rest of you can follow.

Go right back to my policy list. I don't require scientific proof that a person is scum in order to justify an attack, but I do require objective reasons. Inferences are fine, provided bases are given. Simply saying "gut" or "feeling" lacks any objective explanation.

So end the equivalencing, okay?

Hey Vollkan, let me try this analogy, because we are not agreeing on this thing about self-votes and random votes.

We got a pen of sheep. Those sheep are white. They place random votes.
One sheep dyed itself black by placing a self-vote instead of a random vote.
Then the black sheep bleated "why did I dye myself black?"

So there were two things here.

You've said that there is no difference between a random vote and a self-vote. That just is not correct.
You differentiated yourself with a self-vote, and you did it on purpose, right? I mean, a self-vote didnt just randomly come from your keyboard. And you did that because you wanted to spur discussion, right? (If you didn't, refer to the original question of why did you self-vote)

That's where you, the black sheep, differentiated yourself from the other random voting white sheep.

You then made sure that everyone knew you were doing something different by asking yourself why you would do such a thing.

Now, going back to the analogy, you are now saying that you are just like the other white sheep, and the fact that you bleated was irrelevant.

Well, I disagree. You dyed yourself black with that self-vote. You are not like the other white sheep that random voted. You differentiated yourself, and then called attention to the fact that you differentiated yourself with the question to yourself.
Then, when given attention, you protest, "Why pick on me? Im just like all these other white sheep!"
Well no, no you aren't.
You are a sheep that wanted to talk and tried to give a way for a conversation to get started. I dont blame you for that.
But for sheep's sake, I will never buy your point that you did not differentiate yourself from the random voters.

Argumentum ad naturam.

The fact that every sheep is white (votes for other people) doesn't mean that any sheep painting itself black (self-voting) places an onus upon the black sheep to justify a deviation from the status quo. That's simply a sneaky way of shifting the onus of proof.

What I did was say "Hey, look at me. I am being non-conformist". That doesn't in anyway warrant inquiry in and of itself UNLESS there are reasonable grounds for considering that deviation alignment-relevant

Unvote

Ok. I acknowledge the case isn't strong enough to keep a vote on him. Unfortunately this will probably just bring me under further suspicion as past experience has dictated. I blame your gambit, Vollk.

And I thought Ecto suggesting that my questioning myself justified his questioning was bad! Now you are blaming my gambit for your absurdly vague play.

And I don't care that you unvoted - justify your initial vote.

WHY DID YOU VOTE ECTO?

This just looks like "I voted but have been called out and cannot justify myself so I will slink away and hope nobody notices"

Until you give an explanation (or somebody else really screws up),

Unvote, Vote: ortolan

The extremely convoluted debate means it is impossible to construct a good argument for someone being scummy in this particular game, as it is impossible to separate arguments purely about theory from posturing which has a particular purpose in the context of this game. Other people, being obliged to post something of content, are then drawn into trying to launch hard to justify cases in order to actually participate in the game, as there is simply little of use to go off in the discussion so far.

Not true. At all. There have been plenty of attacks thus far that are clearly non-theory. This post just shows you are paying no attention. And, thus, only underscores your lack of reasoning.

I'm not blaming Vollkan, but I am saying the debate he instigated has had little benefit for turning up scummy motives in this game.

Everybody else seems to managing very well (this game is actually VERY good for content).

[vollkan]

I don't think what ortolan did was that scummy. He basically agreed with what you and vollkan said. Instead of introducing new things, which there weren't, he just went along with what you guys said.

Being a newbie is no excuse for "sheepishness". If a townie doesn't understand something, they shouldn't vote. Ortolan has the opportunity to explain himself, and we are right to demand answers.

According to Ecto, my summaries were off. Well, considering they were giant paragraphs, it's not going to be 100% on. But I think ecto's behavior in this game has shown scumminess. ort's show sheepiness.

There's a happy medium between doing a meaningless summary that gives no reasoning of your own, and going into pbp overkill. You fell well short of that medium.

vollk, I don't really believe in your clear delineation of objectivity and subjectivity

I'm not delineating objectivity and subjectivity in any philosophical sense.

What I am saying is that giving an inference with explanation is fundamentally different to saying "my gut says he is scum". Obviously, there is always subjectivity involved (eg. different people will weight things differently). The point is, though, that the reasons for suspicion should be objectively ascertainable, even if there is disagreement.

Going to spring's point as an example (BTW - I notice a typo in post 165. "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective" should read "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is

objective

"). I don't agree with her reason - her subjective weighting of one interpretation is one I don't agree with, but I can see her reasoning process.

"Gut" or "feeling" are wholly subjective. They don't refer to any reasoning process that leads to a conclusion. By definition, I cannot attack somebody's "gut" reasons, because there are no reasons. In the case of spring, however, I can see her process of thinking and, even if I do have a theory disagreement, the important point is that

there are reasons for me to disagree with

.

I suppose the litmus test for "subjective" / "objective" in the sense I am using those terms would be this:

Is the argument capable of being rebutted?

"Gut" cannot be rebutted - other than by pointing out the stupidity of relying on gut in this game from a policy perspective. Spring's style of reasoning can. I'll do it now:
@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

I have acknowledged there was insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I no longer see sufficient reasons for voting for him. Why, then, would I try to convince you of something I don't believe? That itself would be illogical and hardly town-ish. I had insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I have acknowledged this. Also, how can you possibly try to characterise my withdrawn vote as "slinking away and hoping no-one notices"? I openly drew attention to the fact that when I withdrew my vote it would likely simply lead to more suspicion placed on me, as it did in another game.

Ha! Nice try.
Let's have a looksie over what you actually said post-vote:

...
I believe there is a mild case against him, but that this case is stronger than the one against SpyreX
...
To support, this I started that all it had given me were various hypotheses, none of which have particularly more support than any other (but obviously, I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer). ..

From the get-go, you are hedging your arguments.

If my post expressed this (that I had gleaned little), then this was partly the point. It also hardly seems contentless to me- it contains a vote for Ectomancer based on orangepenguin/spyrex's arguments, and it asks springlullaby for an explanation.

You are explicitly acknowledging here that your vote had a basis in their arguments.

I'll be honest. I did read through the theory discussion before. Now I've had to read some of it again in order to express why exactly I'm voting for Ectomancer. Can I firstly take a leaf out of his book and go with "whatever argument you make use of, it's still ultimately coming from your gut instinct". I cite springlullaby's last post (144) as an example of this- her 2 points against me are basically entirely subjective: one is putting an additional question at the end of my post after voting, and the second is deferring to others' reasoning- if no-one agreed with anyone else in this game I don't see it going very far.

I also acknowledge the case against Ectomancer isn't particularly strong. It's possible he is townie and just likes indulging in lengthy theory discussions mid-game. I also see it as quite viable, however, that, as mafia, he tried to jump on you for the self-vote (as can often be done successfully in other games) then realised after your rebuttal that no-one else would support it, was drawn into a deep discussion of why he had reacted against it, and whether that sort of thing is good or bad in general (a discussion which he tried to curtail in post 99).

My other reason is simply I have a slight leaning towards him over SpyreX, again call it gut if you will. Thus I wanted to tip him into the more likely to be lynched category.

It's ironic that, as a side effect of extremely lengthy theory discussions to get "reads" on people, I find the progression of argument too convoluted for it to serve this purpose, and am forced to regress, in a way, to gut instincts.

Again, you hedge things. The bolded is interesting though. I don't see why his position to Spyrex is at all meaningful. The question is whether he is scummy enough to justify a vote - and you seem to think that merely being scummier than Spyrex (relatively, not absolutely) somehow warrants, as you say, tipping him "into the more likely to be lynched category".

Unvote

Ok. I acknowledge the case isn't strong enough to keep a vote on him. Unfortunately this will probably just bring me under further suspicion as past experience has dictated. I blame your gambit, Vollk.

Then, once everything about your vote has collapsed, you drop off.

What's my point - it's slinking away for the simple fact that you never justified yourself in the first place and from the start you were under-cutting yourself (if you don't appear convinced, you don't have to justify yourself? Right? ) It's like - you are going to vote and be unaccountable and then, once you get caught out, you simply dodge accountability by saying that you were all wrong from the start.

On the possibility that you are just a confused newbie - unfortunately, this is a real possibility. What runs against this is the fact that you have articulate and long posts. Your posts show you are clearly a reasonably clever guy, which makes it less likely you are just a dazed newbie. I am watching this closely, though, but you just don't seem to fit the newbie paradigm.

Well actually, I did already back down. Which in fact makes this whole point moot (straw man, etc.)

If you paid any attention to me, you would see I was addressing a post before you did so. It still responded to what you said and, thus, is still relevant. Not a strawman - so don't try and sling mud that way.

That seems a pretty subjective claim to me again. For example, do you mean pro-town content i.e. content that is more likely to help town and turn up scum, or just content. I don't see how we're going to find out whether this discussion was in fact helpful for town until at least the end of this day (when we'll find out whether the lynch that stemmed from this discussion was a townie or scum), and probably not until even later than that, so I'll hold my judgement until then.

It's not a subjective claim. This game has, if you compare it many others, a high level of proper arguments and so on. I don't mean that it all is pro-town - absent prior knowledge, that's impossible to tell.

You seem oblivious to the potential irony of this. You're exactly the sort of person who, as scum, would fill this category.

Yeah, exactly. In all seriousness, it's a very effective scum strategy. Hence, why people should be made to give reasons. It stops scum doing to impressive posting ploy, and it also stops scum doing the "I agree with Jones. Vote: Mr X" move.

Please justify why you are equivocating "paying no attention" with "playing scummy" (implied by your vote on me). I see no reason why scum would pay any less attention than town.

Simple.

Scum win the game by killing off townies. Right? Ergo, they have no inherent need to pay attention - other than for the purpose of appearing to be paying attention if they think doing so will be needed to cover their arse. Town, in contrast, win by killing off the scum. Since town don't know who the baddies are, they need persuasion of scumminess. It therefore makes no sense for a townie to vote without understanding why.

Vollkan, simple question. Were you, or were you not intending to spur conversation when you made your self-vote?

Yes. The whole point was to spark debate.

You are stuck on this "onus of proof". What need of proof do I have to question you about the move you made to invoke questioning about the move?
Never going to agree with you over this.

Alright, conversation should ideally have run like this:

Antagonist:

Vollkan, why would you self-vote?

Vollkan:

My post 26 - which said "why do I need to justify it?" and thatmy purpose was "to stir the pot. People have a tendency to leap onto it with presumptions and prejudices "

Antagonist:

Self-voting requires justification because it causes <something> which is bad for the town because <reason>.

See, I even allow for a prejudiced Antagonist, but one that has some explanation for why self-voting is bad but whom also accepts that whatever reason they had doesn't work.

[vollkan]

Saying that I "hedged" my arguments then attempted to "slink away" seems to be exactly the sort of thing that falls into the category of being unrebuttable. It's a particular spin you're putting on my actions. While it is certainly a feasible hypothesis that I am scum and tried to distance myself from the responsibility for my vote from the get-go, I can only claim what it was- a poor voting choice.

Ugh...this defence really should be on the list as one of my pet-peeves

Your logic here is absurd, because ANY action can be spun as something that either town or scum could so. If we didn't hold people culpable for any actions which might possibly be "poor voting choices", town wouldn't ever win. A scumbag quick-hammers: "Oopsie! Poor voting choice". Somebody fakeclaims cop: "Oopsie! Poor claiming choice". Etc. etc. This is a game of incomplete information for town and, as such, town HAS to rely upon drawing reasonable inferences as to the likely motivations of certain actions. By this logic, the only time it is ever possible to lynch somebody is if they are confirmed by the mod to be scum - which, needless to say, doesn't happen in mafia until after death.

In your case, you never justify your vote and you are consistently stressing how weak your inclinations are. My point that it suggests you were dodging accountability is a particular spin I am putting on your actions, and I make no effort to gloss over that fact. Faced with the two viable possibilities of "scum avoiding accountability" and "town casting dodgy vote", the former is the more reasonable choice - because the latter depends upon a presumption of aberrant play.

I guess the best way to put this is that we all play with a presumption that other people are competent. If somebody does something which is only consistent with them being pro-town in the event in a scenario where some lapse has to occur in their standard of play, that action should generally be treated as a scumtell.

(Btw, I will say now that this line of talking has a tendency to veer dangerously into a pure theory discussion about "What is a scumtell?" It's a debate which never ends in MD, and which we should not be having, to an unreasonable extent, in this game. Getting into a debate about the philosophy of mafia is a diversion, not a defence)

And people I feel often forget on the first day that, chances are, you're not going to catch scum, you're going to lynch a townie. Thus in some sense I feel people read more into votes than there is. Technically if you feel you've come to odds better than what your prior probability would be (20% or 30% in this game depending on whether there are 2 or 3 scum) at any point then a vote's probably justified.

Nice try.

Whether or not a vote is justified is a question that has to be answered objectively. A politician may say "I feel my decision to enter a war was justified because I thought there was a threat", but that doesn't make it so. You gave no explanation for your professed belief that their were better-than-random prospects of him being scum.

Of course, what your publicly announced justification for your vote is is a different matter

No. The public justification is everything.

As I said, I had, at the time, a slight preference for Ectomancer. I was then asked to justify it, so tried. I believe there's a psychological phenomenon whereby if people believe something, irrespective of whether it has any factual basis, they will attempt to rationalise it by coming up with supporting arguments. I'm also of the belief that some people often go on hunches or even more sophisticated reasoning than that they actually announce to the town- because there's certain accepted conventions in mafia that irrationally make some ways of argument more "accepted" than others. One example is putting a vote on an existing bandwagon without what is felt as acceptable reasoning by others, as I did. Then if you stay on it, you're asked to give better reasoning. If you unvote, you're portrayed as distancing yourself from your initial vote. So it can often almost directly lead to your own lynch, just as for example self-voting can in other games (sometimes even if done during the random phase).

A reductio ad absurdum of your confirmation bias argument would lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't expect any votes to be justified, since people are ultimately just voting based on emotional presuppositions. The assertion that we are all playing according to subsconscious biases is unfalsifiable. If this game is to be anything other than just a random slew of votes, we need to play on the presumption that we are all acting rationally. That means that proper reasoning is required from all players. If a player cannot show that they are actually thinking about who is scum, then the most reasonable conclusion will ordinarily be that they are themselves scum.

While it is certainly a feasible hypothesis that I am scum and tried to distance myself from the responsibility for my vote from the get-go, I can only claim what it was- a poor voting choice.

Here's my problem. I dont get the impression that you unvoted because it was a poor voting choice. I get the impression that you are now saying it was a poor voting choice due to the flack you got over it from all sides. (something Im certain you didnt expect) Your case wasn't developed because you were trying to ride the coattails of others. Mine was a developing wagon. My opinion is that you may have been trying to reserve a 'safe' seat on the bus. You didn't start the wagon, thus avoiding too much attention, and you don't have to end it either, once again avoiding too much attention.

The telling event here is your referencing orangepenguin as a source for your case, when he said himself that it wasn't one. Additionally, you had to climb over the posts where I demonstrated where his analysis fell short, or was just wrong. You didn't even talk about those points at all, or really any other point from anyone else either.

I'm also not satisified with you answer concerning the justification of your original vote. Telling us that you no longer believe it, therefor why would you explain something you don't believe is hogwash. You know why you did it back then, and current belief holds no bearing on a belief you supposedly once held.

QFT

Are you deliberately isolating my statement from the rest of my post here? Here your quoting makes it appear as if I have voted you without reason, but the rest of that post you quoted states clearly why I think your votes sucked.

I didn't pick up on this. Good find.

I appoligise for annoying you. I'm afraid I knew that could happen. Still I don't agree with you. You simply explain Ecto's behaviour, without any points why. Just saying that I shouldn't have missed it. You avoid proof that way. More people go after Ecto because he is "too agressive". Also explaining the behaviour, without telling where, and if this is scummy.

I seem to have given you the wrong impression. When I said "missed it", what I meant was that you seemed to have missed my posts discussing the existence of prejudice in his statements. I wasn't avoiding proof. My statement was essentially saying that "The tone of the attacks is relevant, in case you missed my reasoning in previous posts, because it shows prejudice".

And Ecto's point with the sheep is valid. It is not weird people would pick on you, because you made yourself special. The reactions from you that followed Ecto thought scummy (I really don't know if agree with them, seem weak), not the vote itself. Your defense assumes he votes for the selfvote.

This isn't true.

As I have said repeatedly now, I don't take opposition to self-voting as a scumtell (that would be absurd). Ecto challenging my self-vote was not scummy in and of itself. What followed, and the reason I challenged his question requiring an explanation, was to see why he thought that self-voting needed justification. As I have said, it became apparent that his attack was all bark and no bite.

If we then apply that later evidence back to the initial question, we see that the initial questioning of the self-vote, it becomes apparent that, whilst somebody might have legitimately been inquiring for good reasons, Ecto was not.

Even if OP can't point the finger to it, and I can't too, I feel the orto wagon went too fast. Not right on this moment. It is on weak reasons, bad posts from orto.

How do you reason that it went "too fast"? It hasn't had a conclusion yet

And what about the reasons do you consider weak?

You can make an argument for someone being scum for joining a bandwagon at any stage. "You started the bandwagon against him, therefore you're scum", "you were the second vote in the bandwagon, if that isn't scummy I don't know what is", "you were the third vote on the bandwagon- you were trying to join an already established bandwagon and hope you could ride it to the end"..."you hammered, you're getting lynched next". I worry that most people's case against me relies on very specific interpretations of what my goals were, which are no more privileged than any other interpretation. This is really no different from what I said in post 143:

See my rant at the top of this post. Every attack has to rely on a specific interpretation because town doesn't have complete information. This is no defence and is simply a means of using a poor theory argument to justify any sort of behaviour.

It's speculation about my motives rather than any coherent and internally consistent case for me being mafia.

I could say for example "vollkan's gambit was intended purely so he would have a device for continually launching suspicion on different people- firstly he could launch suspicion on those who called him on his self-vote, then he could launch suspicion on those who called the caller on his self-vote etc., basically a mafia's dream". However this is just an interpretation. It is ironic however that the people who attack me either aren't aware of or deliberately ignore the fact that what I am being attacked for- making a subjective determination, is exactly what they're doing in attacking me, they're just better at pretending they're not being subjective.

This is also very relevant to springlullaby's case against me:

(The statement I quoted was "Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks." and asked for an explanation for it)

Even ignoring my meta, the self-voting argument you present above is invalid because there are reasonable arguments in favour of self-voting. There are no reasonable arguments for crappy play and so, whilst the possibility of error precludes us from taking poor play as a solid instant obv scum tell, it is reasonable to rationalise such play as scummy.

[vollkan]

Fair enough vollkan, point taken.

Good. Now that we've disposed of your defence, let's get back on track:
What was it, specifically, that Ecto said or did which you found sufficiently scummy to justify a vote?

but you did. Why did you want to advance the bandwagon? How would it help us?

He advanced it because I voted it. He knows my role, so he trusted that I was right.

@ort: A future note - Don't vote somebody JUST because I do. I might not always be right, so go on what you think yourself. If you think ecto is scum too, then fine, but it kind of looked bad.

Ugh...

Unvote

If this is a mason claim (and I think that's the most reasonable explanation), it is a horrid play by OP. A non-suspected partner should NEVER claim before the suspected one - yet alone where a claim hasn't even been requested.

OP, if you are indeed claiming masons then please unambiguously state so right now but, I urge you and Ortolan, only claim masonness (ie. if either of you is a power mason, do NOT claim that - this instruction might seem obvious, but Orto's play thus far, if he is town, and the very fact that OP claimed at all make me think that they need all the help they can get )

Mason or scum it looks like.

Scum is possible (ie. mafia going after a suspected SK/other mafia), but I think mason is the more reasonable hypothesis - given that D1 scum in a mini normal would tend not to presume the existence of other scum.

If you give valid reasons why you do something (vote/unvote/FoS), nobody will attack you. With your vote, the "valid reasons" part lacked. So you are attacked.

Who is this addressed to?

The first quote is mine too, not ecto's. And of course you say the reasons against you are weak, but I'm sorry, we can see that different (I don't say I do, I just have no read on you). But you made yourself "special" by the selfvote, and you get attention for that.

I assume you mean Ecto's reasons for opposing the self-vote. This isn't simply a matter of opinion, he gave no reasons other than what was, effectively, "I dun' like it".

Being special doesn't mean justification is required.

The orto bandwagon is going too fast, because within a few posts 3 votes are on him for a weak reasoned vote. With me it would make 4, or L-2. It could very well be a newby mistake (it quite looks like that to me).

Simply stating the speed of the wagon doesn't demonstrate it is going "too fast".

(The reason I labour this point is that it is very common for scum to snipe at a wagon from outside with such attacks. That isn't an accusation against you; it's simply to explain why I consider this an important enough matter to discuss)

[vollkan]

being special means you are looked at.

Indeed it does. There is a gulf of difference between "looked at" and "questioned". On seeing my self-vote, unless somebody had a reasoned objection, they shouldn't have probed me prejudicially. Otherwise it is just fishing.

I'm not going to put a someone on day 1 within 1 page. Also, that Orto's vote looked like a newby mistake (be honest, an experienced player would never have done it, and if orto-scum did it on purpose, he would be a great player), and that most of it was based on one piece of evidence didn't convince me. I'm happy that orto would prove mason. That would solve this whole thing.

Look, I accept completely your argument against the wagon on Orto itself. I myself raised the issue of him being a newbie town, but his level of articulation made me lean against that. Indeed, even the latest post by him which I hit with reductio ad absurdum, was nonetheless very well written.

That said, this seems more to be an objection (albeit a very legitimate one) to the reasons for the wagon, rather than to the

speed

of the wagon.

I'm just trying to tease out here that there is a distinction between disagreeing with the wagonners, and thinking the wagonners are proceeding too quickly. You've adequately justified yourself on the first front but not, I think, on the second.

[vollkan]

It's speculation about my motives rather than any coherent and internally consistent case for me being mafia.

I could say for example "vollkan's gambit was intended purely so he would have a device for continually launching suspicion on different people- firstly he could launch suspicion on those who called him on his self-vote, then he could launch suspicion on those who called the caller on his self-vote etc., basically a mafia's dream". However this is just an interpretation. It is ironic however that the people who attack me either aren't aware of or deliberately ignore the fact that what I am being attacked for- making a subjective determination, is exactly what they're doing in attacking me, they're just better at pretending they're not being subjective.

This is also very relevant to springlullaby's case against me:

(The statement I quoted was "Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks." and asked for an explanation for it)

lol, this is clearly not my quote Vollkan... I don't think I ever used the words "internally consistent", "coherent", "device" or "subjective determination" in any mafia game. Clearly Ecto's.

No, this is Ortolan's post 189.

Getting your quote pyramid wrong is generating confusion Vollkan. Due diligence please.
Try again with the responses directed to the correct player? My question now is if you responded to the original, correct player who made the quotes, or if your response was to the player that you made

appear

to have made those quotes.
We're proven to have 2 players who dont generate cases of their own, and 1 who does pbpa's that get the pbp's wrong. Worse, 1 is blindly following the other with their vote.
It makes for an easily manipulated situation. You commented on something like this earlier:

I guess the best way to put this is that we all play with a presumption that other people are competent. If somebody does something which is only consistent with them being pro-town in the event in a scenario where some lapse has to occur in their standard of play, that action should generally be treated as a scumtell.

Is this an "Oopsie! Wrong player assigned to the quotes!"

Personally, I'd have to flip a coin to decide whether this was an accident or not. Ordinarily, I would say, likely accident, as anyone could go back and show where it was wrong.
Problem is, we've got the two O's whom we know dont read or think for themselves, and then Mykonian, who I dont consider incompetent

also

got the wrong player for that particular quote.

Firm it up will you?

You know, I don't think I have played a single game where I haven't messed up quote tags. It's a very easy thing to do. See, I don't know about you, but I type out each quote tag. What that means is that if I get into the mode of arguing against somebody or, at least, responding to them many times, I reflexively come to type their name in (eg. my writing in your name by mistake). I do try not to do it, but sometimes they slip through.

Fixed quote tags, you other silly goose!

[vollkan]

Irony - I messed up the quote tags in the post above

[vollkan]

I don't believe I have yet advocated lynching Vollkan.

No, you haven't. Debate =/= Lynch advocacy

Since then yes, more than once, I have said I find Volk's play to be pro town.

Two questions:
1) Have you read any of my scum games?
2) What in my play seems protown to you? (I should declare here that I am asking this partly for in-game reasons - and partly for meta research purposes)

Vollkan: Have you noticed this dialogue at the time it happened?
If yes: Why did you keep pushing ortolan? (Don't tell me you did that because you wanted to educate him or something, you clearly let him fall like a hot potato when they claimed again.)
If no: Why did you not wonder about my unvote?

Yes. My reasons are simple: Firstly, nothing confirms Orto is not scum (I doubt he is tremendously). Secondly, being town doesn't prevent him being completely wrong on things. Even in the post where I unvoted, contrary to your assertion that I dropped him like a hot potato, I made a demand of him:

What was it, specifically, that Ecto said or did which you found sufficiently scummy to justify a vote?

[vollkan]

First off, just a clarification to my last post, where I realise I didn't explain the continuance of my vote (which wasn't what you explicitly asked, but I figure it probably was implied). Basically, I have an objection to "insinuation claiming". OP's "I know for a fact that ortolan's wagon is wrong, which I am not going to elaborate on at this point" is a vague assertion. It could mean "I am mason", it could mean "I am a cop with an innocent", or it could just mean "I have a really strong opinion". Same goes for the other posts. They suggested the possibility to me, but I wasn't going to drop off just because of something so vague (unlike the explicit claim which prompted my unvote)

Vollkan, ever lynched someone meta based day 1? But I have to say, on this moment, you could either be town, or scum hiding behind nice words and pretty logic. A logic player is very hard to catch, as you can vote for a towny based on logic pretty easily. Expect my vote on you, when your logic is wrong

You've hit at the reason why I questioned Spyrex about my meta. Basically, I do my best to keep a calm, neutral, and logical style of play as scum. I don't always succeed, but my meta for it is known by most people who I've played with a lot, so I am somewhat obliged to mention this fact.

[vollkan]

First off, just a clarification to my last post, where I realise I didn't explain the continuance of my vote (which wasn't what you explicitly asked, but I figure it probably was implied). Basically, I have an objection to "insinuation claiming". OP's "I know for a fact that ortolan's wagon is wrong, which I am not going to elaborate on at this point" is a vague assertion. It could mean "I am mason", it could mean "I am a cop with an innocent", or it could just mean "I have a really strong opinion". Same goes for the other posts. They suggested the possibility to me, but I wasn't going to drop off just because of something so vague (unlike the explicit claim which prompted my unvote)

Yeah, when I wrote "dropped like a hot potato" I meant your unvote. (Which, as you'll admit changes the tone of your questioning of him a lot).

Yeah. I acknowledge that I have a tendency to go "Interrogator"-ish when I think I am on to scum. An explicit claim firms up a person is probably town, so there is less warrant for that sort of attitude - they probably

aren't

hiding anything.

If you don't like implicit claims, why did you not just ask them about it, but instead pretended nothing happened? Policy?

Yeah. I think claims are really very anti-town and should usually only be a kind of "You're now at L-1 and nothing you have said has dissuaded us. Have you got any last words" thing. I really don't want to trigger an explicit claim outside those or similar circumstances.

As for it possibly being something other than a mason claim - They both claimed to be 100% sure. Unless you consider two cops investigating each other a viable possibility.

I didn't think they were cops, but I did think it was possibly just obscene hyperbole.

[vollkan]

3. logic in this game is always based on assumptions. You can choose them right, you can choose them wrong. There will be many reasonable assumptions. The logic that follows can be right, and nobody will find something there. A logic scum player can post his wrong assumption so that everyone will think it natural. That's why a player who's play is mainly based on logic close to unreadable.

I think I have read two games of vollkan. In both he was town, but if he plays just like that as scum, he can be antitown without us noticing it.
I have also read two games of Ecto, in both he was scum. If he plays always like that we will catch him soon enough. In both he hammered a uncounterclaimed powerrole... But more dangerous, in both he got away with it.

That's pretty much correct. What I would add, and I know that my saying this is loaded with WIFOM, is that I think the Achille's heel of logic-scum is in the assumptions as to reasonableness. As you say, all logic in this game depends on assumptions (see the last point I make to Orto below as a great example - my assumptions as to what is reasonable to expect are completely at odds with his). I guess this is the reason in part why I insist so much on reasons for suspicion - because I know firsthand that reducing things to the base assumption of "What makes the most reasonable hypothesis that this is a scummy action?" is probably a good way of breaking skilled scum. (Another reason I detest gut play - because it shirks explaining the basis for the assumptions)

But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.

As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.

Unless you are trying to set a precedent for auto-lynches of me, there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me.

That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

You miss the point completely.

Deferring of reasons is scummy - and I don't see how you can conflate that with an attack on me. You might disagree, but I don't see what the relevance of this is outside of an OMGUS.

I really hate it when people say that a particular discussion didn't "lead" anywhere. Most things in this game won't result in any specific outcome. What my self-vote did was set in train a discussion which has really laid the groundwork for what we have now. I didn't expect it to lead to a lynch or anything of the sort. Discussion is an end in itself, and that's what I achieved.

By saying you would keep your vote on me "until somebody else really screws up" you were trying to hedge your argument in exactly the same way you criticised me for doing. You were implying you were only voting for me "because I had screwed up the most", rather than that I was actually scum.

Uh, no. I voted you because you refused to justify yourself. That's scummy. You are cherry-picking the choice of the word "screws up". It's clear from my posts that I thought your actions were scummy and, in that context, "screws up" can only reasonably take the meaning of "does something really scummy"

Also, assuming we are telling the truth about our mason claim, you were, in fact, asking for an explanation where one in the form you wanted didn't exist. I didn't have a good enough argument for voting Ectomancer, according to you, so this request was impossible to satisfy.

Yes. You were scummy if you didn't provide a reason, and you were scummy if you didn't have a good one. That's not a Catch-22 or anything. It's common sense. If your vote was for no reason - then it's scummy inherently. The request is only "impossible to satisfy" if you had no reasons, which is precisely what I was trying to determine.

This doesn't, however, entail that I am scum. There are many other possible explanations e.g. that a townie felt your convoluted discussion was not helping in the lynching of scum and decided to take a different approach to break the stalemate.

There are

always

possible explanations for things. ANYTHING can be justified on the basis of "town acting oddly". A scumtell is an action where the most reasonable explanation is one of scumminess. Without taking a post hoc analysis, at the time I saw a vote which had no apparent justification. The most reasonable conclusion is not "Ortolan is town who has come to a (wrong) decision about my self-vote and has decided to stir the pot". The most reasnoable conclusion is that "Orto is scum who got caught out". Now, the varying probabilities mean that it isn't lynchworthy in and of itself, but it is still a scumtell.

[vollkan]

But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.

Then I simply have a different playstyle to you- one which may rely more on gut. Why did this ever merit a vote then? Furthermore, there's a problem with this. It may be that in fact your playstyle is more effective at catching scum. However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.

You've (again) cherry-picked one bit of my post out of context to attack me. Nothing I said at all addressed whether or not gut is scummy. I was specifically addressing whether or not logical posting is a town-tell. That's a completely different matter.

Secondly, it is not about logic being "better" at catching scum. It is that requiring players to explain what the hell they are on about tends to favour town more than allowing a free-for-all with people's (declared) feelings serving as justification.

However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.

*headdesk*

This is precisely what I HAVE BEEN SAYING. Logical play is not a town-tell. I don't know why the hell you are acting like you've stumbled upon some fantastic revelation - I said as much myself that logical play can come from town and scum.

Now, how about explaining to me why you "think" I have been exploiting my playstyle in this game? Because thus far, you've provided nothing but innuendo.

There was more. This was an introduction to the case that I then launched against you. Did you just single out a statement to avoid relating it to it's context? I think we've "seen that before" this game...

*double headdesk*
Yes, that was the introduction. But if you bothered paying ANY attention to my post you would see that I addressed each part of your argument.

Here is where I attack your intro:

As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.

Unless you are trying to set a precedent for auto-lynches of me, there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me. [/quotee]

Here is where I attack the second point you make:

That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

You miss the point completely.

Deferring of reasons is scummy - and I don't see how you can conflate that with an attack on me. You might disagree, but I don't see what the relevance of this is outside of an OMGUS.

I really hate it when people say that a particular discussion didn't "lead" anywhere. Most things in this game won't result in any specific outcome. What my self-vote did was set in train a discussion which has really laid the groundwork for what we have now. I didn't expect it to lead to a lynch or anything of the sort. Discussion is an end in itself, and that's what I achieved.

Third part:

By saying you would keep your vote on me "until somebody else really screws up" you were trying to hedge your argument in exactly the same way you criticised me for doing. You were implying you were only voting for me "because I had screwed up the most", rather than that I was actually scum.

Uh, no. I voted you because you refused to justify yourself. That's scummy. You are cherry-picking the choice of the word "screws up". It's clear from my posts that I thought your actions were scummy and, in that context, "screws up" can only reasonably take the meaning of "does something really scummy"

Fourth part:

Also, assuming we are telling the truth about our mason claim, you were, in fact, asking for an explanation where one in the form you wanted didn't exist. I didn't have a good enough argument for voting Ectomancer, according to you, so this request was impossible to satisfy.
[/quote[

Yes. You were scummy if you didn't provide a reason, and you were scummy if you didn't have a good one. That's not a Catch-22 or anything. It's common sense. If your vote was for no reason - then it's scummy inherently. The request is only "impossible to satisfy" if you had no reasons, which is precisely what I was trying to determine.

And fifth part:

This doesn't, however, entail that I am scum. There are many other possible explanations e.g. that a townie felt your convoluted discussion was not helping in the lynching of scum and decided to take a different approach to break the stalemate.

There are always possible explanations for things. ANYTHING can be justified on the basis of "town acting oddly". A scumtell is an action where the most reasonable explanation is one of scumminess. Without taking a post hoc analysis, at the time I saw a vote which had no apparent justification. The most reasonable conclusion is not "Ortolan is town who has come to a (wrong) decision about my self-vote and has decided to stir the pot". The most reasnoable conclusion is that "Orto is scum who got caught out". Now, the varying probabilities mean that it isn't lynchworthy in and of itself, but it is still a scumtell.

Oh, wow, it seems I addressed your entire post. FFS

Another example of your double standards:

^ As it turns out, an example of emotional rhetoric

So here you say you don't take opposition to people opposing self-voting, but if they ask for *justification* for the act of self-voting, you do. You also repeatedly stress that you require people to give reasons for their opinions and votes. Thus, if someone did oppose self-voting, presumably you would require them to give reasons for this stance. If they gave these reasons, presumably they would be along the lines of mrfixij's response, that from a certain perspective self-voting can never help town as votes are intended to be used for pressure purposes and self-voting inherently voids this purpose. This amounts to "asking for justification for the act of self-voting", thus you'd now deem them scummy.

You essentially have three principles

1)If someone criticises self-voting this is not scummy
2)If someone asks for justification for not voting this is scummy (I find it ridiculous that you even try to draw some substantial distinction between these two positions in the first place)
3)Someone must give reasons for their argument

However if someone acts in accordance with principles 1 and 3 this implies 2, and thus it is impossible to both comply with rule 3 and criticise self-voting without appearing scummy.

Thus I feel your "principles of play", set up with much pomp are in reality a mere device- impossible to comply with, they allow you to springboard suspicions safe in the inherently-biased "groundwork" you have "laid out".

No. Again you are misrepresenting me completely. I even said in the bit you quoted:

Ecto challenging my self-vote was not scummy in and of itself

My "principles" are this:
1) If someone criticises self-voting, this is not inherently scummy
2) If someone asks for justification, this is not inherently scummy
3) If that someone is unable to give reasons other than received prejudice as to why self-voting is scummy or anti-town, this is inherently scummy

What I look for is to see whether the "someone" is just trying to rack up points by striking on a popular target for criticism, or whether they are actually trying to discern who is and is not scum.

On that note, I would like you to define "scummy" in the sense you used it in your last post. It has multiple possible interpretations, including: being anti-town, acting in a way which benefits scum, acting in a way which implies you are scum. I would like you to clarify which meaning you're using it with exactly- are you still suggesting I am mafia this game despite being a claimed mason?

I define as scummy any action which I reason to most reasonably be consistent with the conduct of scum, and inconsistent with the conduct of town.

Your conduct "scummy" in that sense. However, you are also unlikely to actually be scum.

[vollkan]

Ugh, I just typed out a response and then closed the browser window.

Regular use of "Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C" is your friend

But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.

Then I simply have a different playstyle to you- one which may rely more on gut. Why did this ever merit a vote then? Furthermore, there's a problem with this. It may be that in fact your playstyle is more effective at catching scum. However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.

You've (again) cherry-picked one bit of my post out of context to attack me. Nothing I said at all addressed whether or not gut is scummy. I was specifically addressing whether or not logical posting is a town-tell. That's a completely different matter.

Um no, the only reason I quoted only the second paragraph was to conserve space (which I will no longer worry about as it seems to merely leave me open to crummy attacks like this). I was responding to what you wrote in both the paragraphs jointly, and to suggest otherwise is outright deceptive (what I quoted doesn't even make sense without your previous remarks).

Well, how was I meant to know that? Nothing you said made sense as a response to the first paragraph and the one sentence you quoted in isolation made it look like I had contradicted myself by drawing an equivalence in playstyles.

Now I *CLEARLY* responded to all of this- discussing the inconsistencies in your request for "reasons" etc. so the suggestion I somehow cherry-picked and misrepresented your argument is rubbish.

It wasn't clear at all.

I was discussing why there is a need for reasons - to expose underlying assumptions. Your post, in contrast, was attacking my suggestion that lack of reasons is scummy and casting an assertion that my logical play was a ploy. That's only tangentially relevant to the point I was making.

No, actually, I am making an altogether different point. I am saying scum do not in fact play logically but rather benefit from maintaining a facade of doing so. If they in fact played logically, this would not benefit them as using arguments logically and consistently inherently benefits town. Instead there will be underlying inconsistencies in their logic and approach (in order to enable directing accusations where scum want them), they will merely attempt to conceal them.

Okay, so your argument is that purely logical play will help the town?

That isn't true. As I am saying, logic in this game is always based on assumptions as to reasonableness, which always require some degree of judgment that isn't purely logical. Logical play is built on those assumptions. When scum use logic to attack something, it is either that: a) A townie has actually committed a scummy action (this occurs a lot, suffice to say) which the scum can attack with right logic and right assumptions; or, b) A townie commits something which is not scummy but scum can attack it with right logic and dodgy assumptions (eg. If scum attacks somebody for lurking, aggression, or self-voting they will attack on an assumption that the issue is "scummy", but they will probably lack good reasons for their assumption).

There was more than that to justify a lynch of you. You just cut it off, as though this point was being made somehow independently of the rest. Furthermore you seem to be misinterpreting what I was saying here. I was not saying "you play logically", I was saying you assume a "logical demeanour" which implies it is only an act and your approach is not, in reality, logical and internally consistent. Again, I gave two examples of this.

Your introductory point was a scaremongering exercise - "Ooh, vollkan is hard to catch as scum". I addressed it specifically in isolation only to point out that it shouldn't serve as an independent reason for lynching (as you yourself acknowledge). It's an appeal to emotion that you should not have inserted unless you actually meant to instigate a policy of auto-lynching me.

[vollkan]

Well, how was I meant to know that? Nothing you said made sense as a response to the first paragraph and the one sentence you quoted in isolation made it look like I had contradicted myself by drawing an equivalence in playstyles.

Err, what? Now you're just further muddying the waters. My post was a perfectly valid response to yours. Reread:

That's pretty much correct. What I would add, and I know that my saying this is loaded with WIFOM, is that I think the Achille's heel of logic-scum is in the assumptions as to reasonableness. As you say, all logic in this game depends on assumptions (see the last point I make to Orto below as a great example - my assumptions as to what is reasonable to expect are completely at odds with his). I guess this is the reason in part why I insist so much on reasons for suspicion - because I know firsthand that reducing things to the base assumption of "What makes the most reasonable hypothesis that this is a scummy action?" is probably a good way of breaking skilled scum. (Another reason I detest gut play - because it shirks explaining the basis for the assumptions)

But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.

Then I simply have a different playstyle to you- one which may rely more on gut. Why did this ever merit a vote then? Furthermore, there's a problem with this. It may be that in fact your playstyle is more effective at catching scum. However, on average you're only town about 75% of the time. The rest you're scum. If you use a playstyle which is "better at catching scum" when you are scum it's not going to work out well for you. So what I can only assume you do in this case is find some way of subverting your playstyle so that it still appears to be pro-town and "logical" while trying to throw suspicion onto townies. I think this is the case this game, and will show why your apparently "logical" play has in fact been inconsistent.

I understand perfectly how this paragraph relates to yours. Have you been reading something else?

Well, maybe you could explain how it directly relates to mine - because as I keep saying I just don't see any link. I was explaining why I see reasons as important. Your post was was insinuating that I am exploiting my playstyle, and that gut-play is legitimate.

Now, I'm not saying it's an invalid response but - going back to the whole point of this argument - all you quoted in reference was that last sentence of my post. In isolation, it gave a strong appearance that you were trying to suggest that I was making a point about any "particular sort of playstyle" being valid - which I was not. That's why it was cherry-picking, because the bit you chose to respond to was one which gave a different impression of what I had said.

Now, maybe you did mean to respond to the whole thing, but, as I have already said, how was I meant to know that? I might very well be wrong about your intentions - but that's neither here nor there. I can't be expected to have psychic knowledge of your every intention.

In case it is still unclear to you (you seem to keep misinterpreting my argument), I will try to express it more simply. You claim to have a very logical and skeptical playing style, with certain "principles" such as demanding people justify their reasoning and voting patterns, and giving your own (i.e. in opposition to gut play). I am saying as scum, you would have a vested interest in not doing this, as if you for example were forced to give your *real* reasons (that you want to get a townie lynched), then you would be discovered. Instead, you need to find ways to obfuscate your real intentions. One way you could do this is by still using these "principles", but applying them inconsistently and opportunistically. I gave two examples of where you had done this: you apparently dislike people "hedging their arguments" i.e. implying they are not confident in their vote and distancing themselves from the outcome of it (as you accused me of doing so). Yet you did the same while voting for me, by saying your vote would stand "until someone screws up more", which serves as a way of distancing yourself from your vote.

Yes, vollkan-scum would have a vested interest in bending the rules if he thought it would be to his advantage. Any scum player would do the same thing?

Also the example you give is completely invalid. You hedged because you were presenting your suspicions as "slight leaning" and a "mild case", without actually giving any substance as to why.

In contrast, I voted for you "until someone screws up more". As I have already said, all that means is that I was saying that I would be voting you unless somebody scummier came along. That isn't hedging - I never once expressed self-doubt. In fact, it's perfectly ordinary play - voting for the scummiest person.

The second point is that you attacked me for "taking something out of context" when you did the same yourself. And stop saying you didn't:

Unless you are trying to set a precedent for auto-lynches of me, there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me.

Saying "there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me" IMPLIES that is all the evidence I gave in support of lynching you. In fact it was an introduction which flowed on to the valid points I then made.

Yes, Orto, I am not blind. I know you had more material. Let me spell this out for you as clearly as possible:

The "vollkan is hard to catch as scum point" cannot, by your own admission, carry a lynch. I was drawing attention to the fact that it was not a valid reason for suspicion or anything. It's an emotional plea on your own part that I needed to quarantine and destroy. My singular attack on it was to point out that it is meaningless on its own. That doesn't imply there was nothing else - it simply attacks the viability of that one argument.

[vollkan]

@vollkan: If you know which assumptions are wrong, and which are right, I know you could pick out the best wrong one and show us that it was the best.

I don't know if I am completely understanding you, but I assume you are saying that scumcould argue that a wrong assumption is a right one. And, yeah, that's true. Again, importance of reasons and so on. Unless a townie has actually committed something scummy, at some level there should be something wrong in the scum's reasoning at an assumption level (or higher).

I thought your defense weird, vollkan. well, defense... You seemed to attack orto more. A claimed, and likely mason. Seemed the wrong way.

Frankly, if he hadn't claimed I'd have posted a "Confirm Vote: Orto" or something in response to his attacks.

His arguments against me were, as I have submitted, very dodgy indeed. I'm not sure if this is just error on his part, or taking advantage of his claimed position for a bit of OMGUS-style revenge; I'd hope it's only the former.

[vollkan]

Didn't mean to hit submit...

But doesn't everybody know that meta is not a very strong way of research. You have to get scum on the way they choose. If vollkan scum makes a habit of making bad choices, then we lynch him. If vollkan makes a lot of good choices, we lynch him in the end just after his buddies. That is the way you can get every scum.

I don't understand this at all.

[vollkan]

There are a number of things that sounds ungenuine

Examples and explanations?

a sense of unclear perspective in his post.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.

Beside I think this post
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 71#1350271
is a fake. It looks like a misplaced post, but I believe it is dirty tactic aimed at proving his consistency in his play - an angle he has been going about a lot, I've done that as scum.

*sigh* It was a misplaced post - not a cynical attempt to improve consistency. In any event, you only need to look through my history to see that I frequently get into clashes over my opposition to gut.

[vollkan]

vollkan; a glimpse at your profile allows a weighing up of your play this game compared to your meta. In both games I compared your play to your posts are almost universally shorter and actually seemingly express quite concise ideas, which I can see despite not playing in those games. In contrast, even when arguing with you this game I barely understand your remarks in response to my arguments. I get the impression your main tactic is convoluting things to the point of confusion (how can one person have so much to say about self-voting?) For reference, the reason I didn't respond to your last post was that I just got tired of us circling over the same issues.

Firstly, what games are you comparing with?

Secondly, the conclusion you draw - that my posts are typically shorter than they are here - really couldn't be further from the truth. My reputation generally is for enormously long posts. And, not infrequently, this does draw the criticism that I hide behind walls of text as a shield. Not true - I am just naturally verbose.

Thirdly, if you find it hard understand what I am saying, that doesn't in any way justify drawing a conclusion of scumminess, yet alone a conclusion that I am deliberately hazing.

No, this was not my thesis. My thesis was that you would act ostensibly logically, while applying this logic inconsistently. It included examples. You still have not responded adequately, apart from various attempts to straw man it.

No, this was not my thesis. My thesis was that you would act ostensibly logically, while applying this logic inconsistently.

You are such a hypocrite. If you have trouble understanding me, then it is my fault and I am scum delibereately trying to fool you. But if mistake your thesis (via a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the word "inconsistent"), you accuse me of strawmanning.

In one breath you acknowledge that point wasn't intended to be judged by itself, then in the next you imply it was intended to "carry" a lynch, as though it was the SOLE or OVERRIDING EVIDENCE for the lynch. You can't slip out of this inconsistency with weasel words.

I'm getting tired of repeating myself here.

I KNOW FULL F***ING WELL THAT YOU HAD OTHER REASONS!

What I was doing was isolating your point and showing that it cannot be judged by itself. That is to say, it is not a justification for suspicion. I needed to treat it specifically because, despite not being a reason for suspicion, it carries emotional connotations that I needed to shut down.

This isn't a case of inconsistent logic - it's a case of you not understanding what I am saying.

They are both qualitatively similar because they both express that there is a contingency in one's vote. Furthermore, if your remark "until someone screws up more" is perfectly ordinary play and merely entails voting for the scummiest person, why did you ever feel the need to make this remark, which you claim was already implied, explicit?

As I have said, every vote is always contingent upon "unless somebody else is scummier". If voting was never contingent than "unvote" would get a lot less use than it does.

Why did I make it explicit? Frankly, I don't have a reason for making it explicit. It's just like a figure of speech. I don't see why that should be relevant, though, since your whole point is that I am inconsistent for making my vote have any degree of contingency, which is ridiculous. There is no inconsistency in saying, on one hand, that people should not hedge their cases by stressing how weak they are whilst, at the same time, deeming it acceptable for people to unvote if somebody scummier comes along.

Now what worries me here: You have strong reason to believe I am a confirmed mason at this point. Having attacked you, if you were town, I would think you would try very hard to see the merit in my arguments, as you would wonder what possible reason a townie could have for suspecting you. Instead, you've pretty much remained on the offensive. You're basically trying to discredit me by suggesting my case is motivated purely by revenge. As for the "error" comment, I'm feeling that's less likely with your every post.

The fact you are a likely mason (I wouldn't use the word "confirmed" - because you're not) doesn't mean you are more likely to be correct in your suspicions than anybody else. Fine, you probably don't have malign intent, but that really doesn't help your credibility at all.

I am also not suggesting that you are motivated purely by revenge. I am saying that your perspective on me may be tainted by revenge - that you might be prejudiced against me based on my prior attacks on you.

And if more support is needed for my argument that vollkan's "principles" have been applied only opportunistically this game, take SpyreX's post 268:

I'm getting this bizarre sense of deja vu.

Orto, nice simple list: Why do you think Volkan is scum?

I see a lot of words again, however I see a severe absence of "X is scummy for Y" or even "X is scummy"

I actually think vollkan would be a good lynch target. As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour. That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

This alone, if you were not a claimed day-1 mason, would make me want to vote for you again.

Here SpyreX simply quotes a post of mine and says it would make him want to vote for me again. He doesn't explain why. I still don't know what problem he seems to have with it. vollkan has constantly told us how much he hates gut play i.e. attitudes given without reason. He also hates merely citing others' arguments, as he told us in Post 165:

And, obviousy, there is room for agreement in this game. The point is, though, every player should still be able to explain things themselves.

[quoet] Yes. Because if you cannot articulate your reasons, you avoid accountability (because it means that you are protected by the other player's reasons).
[/quote[

At best, Ecto's post is the first case- expressing an attitude towards me without giving reasons. At worst, it is the second case- hoping by merely parroting vollkan's suspicion of the paragraph he will be vindicated by whatever vollkan makes of it.

Yet, vollkan hasn't even felt he should mention it. He's carried on as though nothing's happened, and benefited from SpyreX continuing to defend him. Clearly, vollkan has been highly opportunistic with his "principles" this game.

I bolded the key sentence in what Spyrex said. His reasons are pretty clear - you spout a large paragraph against me but it contains nothing explaining why I am actually scummy. Thus, he doesn't simply say it would make him vote for you. His reason is your poverty of reasons. That makes perfect sense.

My final reason for voting for vollkan: town still has absolutely nothing to show for your thoroughly wordy play throughout this game. To me your posts have seemed motivated more by gaining authority for yourself as a "thoroughly logical player" (which then gives you leeway in spinning things, as you've done) than actually catching scum.

FFS, my posts have produced discussion. That's all I wanted. I didn't expect to ensnare scum D1, nor do I think it is reasonable to require that of me.

And, your point about me simply trying to garner authority is pure conspiracy.

1. I think your first vote on Ectomancer is unclear and is wrapped up in excess of rhetoric to make it look more solid than it is.

Here is your vote:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=275

The reason of your vote for Ectomancer is at the bottom of this post and is in fact isolated from everything that you have been arguing about. But what's more, the reason of your vote seems coherent with your rhetoric and displayed attitude toward mafia play, but I feel it is not genuine because I think Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex has merit even thought his construction does not fit in your systematic approach. This is scummy I think because I would think that you have enough experience to recognize this as town.

You see, I think there is a certain quality of tension building up between yourself and Ectomancer during the earlier phase of the game, and I think what you did there was voting first so you could stay ahead in the event Ecto were to vote you, and the 'streching' nature of your vote maybe the symptom of that.

Alternatively I can also conceived it as a soft vote for distancing purpose, because you dropped it pretty fast when the ortolan case surfaced.

I'm not decided between the two atm, but I'd like to put both theories out there.

ex vote was based on an assumption of me being town. Without repeating my earlier point, that's scummy - no matter what appraoch to play you take. No townie can defensibly mount a case based on a presumption of another's alignment. That wasn't the only reason for my vote - as you say there was clear tension between us - but it was the immediate prompt because I found it especially egregious.

2. I do perceive the double standard ortolan is talking aobut. At several occasion your post seemed to indicate 'good sentiment' toward me, and imo for no good reason whatsoever.

Right now I am too lazy to go fish them up, but from memory you exemplified my case against ortolan as a 'good example'. Only I think it was as much 'without any basis' as any case in mafia, and I think equally justifiable in your own system than Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex.

At another occasion you said something along the line of 'good catch' to my asking ortolan if he had isolated my post on purpose. I do not believe what I said merited such attention because I think it was a minor point.

And you see, I think that that 'double standard' is most significant in light of the fact that Ecto and I were the most affirmative in our diverging opinions concerning your selfvote. And I think this artificiality is pretty scummy because I think that what you did there was 'compensate' by casting me in a relatively good light for you going after Ectomancer to make you look less OMGUS-y.

I explained my position on your Orto vote. Your reasons were subjective but based on reasonable implications, NOT (contra Ecto) on assumption of somebdoy else being town.

And "good catch" is just to express my agreement with you. Doesn't alter anything, other than showing that I agree with your point.
This is a judgment call of mine, I think that it is a tad too coincidental that the misplaced post should be another post about your 'position' on mafia play whereas one of your leitmotiv in this game has been 'I'm very consistent with myself'.

Not really. It's amazing (or perhaps it isn't ) how often I get into playstyle debates. I cannot fault you for finding it highly coincidental, but I think you are drawing a long bow to suggest it was deliberate, especially given that I could just as easily have referred to my meta, rather than contriving a fake wrong post.

At any rate, to be frank, what I think of your play and your list and your 'consistency' is that it is a tactic that you use as much as a methodology to find scum than as a rigid frame into which you can confine yourself to disguise your play as scum.

And you see, you frequently going 'into clashes' over your positions doesn't exempt you from being scum when you do it; and more importantly and I think your constant reminder to town that it is a nulltell for you is pretty scummy, because no one as of yet has said that you are scum because of it.

I play my style primarily because it is how I am personally and it works for me at scumhunting. By necessity, I then need to follow the style as scum (lest I want to have an obscene failure rate as scum). I admit that I do seek to maintain a consistent meta to benefit myself as scum - but doesn't everybody?

[vollkan]

Nice job - a proper case.

Phase One - Post Analysis

Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?

That said, I also don't like Ectomancer, there is something muffled in his toeing the line of aggression with Vollkan.

This one has a few key points that stand out

1.) She calls self-voting (not Volkan's specific instance) an antitown play. More to the point, he says it shows no willingness to catch scum.
--- See her first post.
2.) She parrots Ecto's sentiment of "you cant lynch me"
3.) She parrots my sentiment of Ecto's aggressiveness.

1) She repeats twice that she has resolved the apparent contradiction here, but I still don't see where.
2) As I said at the time, it's very important people have to give reasons for their suspicions - a "you can't lynch me" attitude is not scummy; it's a nullity unless taken to extremes
3) And, yeah, aggression is not scummy - even when you obscure it with gut labels about "something muffled"

I'll get the answers out of the way first because I behind.

@Vollkan on random voting.

It is my pet view that the random voting stage is a form of greeting ritual custom to forum mafia and that its symbolic is to indicates one's willingness to scumhunt and lynch - I'm sure that this view is debatable, however I'm not interested in adding another theoretical topic to the discussion.

What I think everyone can agree on is that the random voting stage serves a function which is to generate discussion.

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

However, as I already said, I do acknowledge that, given the current meta self-voting is not indicative of alignment, or even always an antitown move. But this not because of any 'inherent property' to self-voting, but simply because you can sometimes derive value by going against custom.

@Vollkan and Spyrex on 'contradiction'

1. I see no contradiction in my play. See above.

2. Actually you guys seem to think that I have voted Vollkan because 'I think self voting is inherently bad'. I don't like this because it is not the case.

@Mykonian

1. I did state why I didn't like ecto's play. I don't see where I'm following spyrex.

2. Your point about my 'keeping my options open' irritates me. See my answer to it from another game:

Next I'll examine people post more closely and give my opinion.

In rereading, this one is a hoot.

First of the postulate that the random vote is tied to willingness to scumhunt and lynch. Even if I do not agree, she in-fact self voted denying her own postulate.

The postulate itself is pure BS. The random stage is meant to start the game - there's no purpose in "signifying a willingness to catch scum. To quote myself:

No player in their right mind would think "Oh, look, vollkan cast a random vote. He must be willing to catch scum. +10 townie points for vollkan."

Then there is the doublespeak. On one hand self-voting is always bad and inherently anti-town (Volkan) yet it is not indicative of alignment or even always antitown (her self vote) On top of the fact that this doublespeak allows her to justify the vote - it is backwards. She said she thinks its always bad - so doing it would always be a bad thing yet if it is not indicative of alignment than how could it hold the vote for Volkan?

She didn't vote me for the self-vote per se - the impression I got was that the vote was for my use of the "need evidence" defence.

An agreement vote (why say you agree when, in fact, you already had suspicion?) on a growing wagon for three reasons:
1.) Sounding ungenuine - ?
2.) Unclear perspective - ??
3.) That Volkans post quoting another player in a different game was deliberate to show consistency in his play...

The thing here is that not once does she explain how I am X scummy for doing Y. I mean, the claims she makes are essentially unfalsifiable. Almost by definition, one cannot prove that one is not ungenuine. An "unclear perspective" is similarly vague. And the point about my mistaken post, whilst technically valid, glosses over the facts that: 1) Arguments of this sort are common for me; and 2) Mis-posting is hardly a very bizarre error (especially with tabbed internet browsing).


-- She says that Volk voted as a pre-emptive OMGUS.
-- Or it was a soft vote for distancing from the lynch.

Neither of these make sense in the earlier theory of Volk AND Ecto being scum together.

I thought she meant that it was a distancing vote from ecto - which would be consistent with her theory of vollkan and ecto as scum (but the pre-emptive OMGUS is not)

Aside from your point about the lurking, what is interesting is the way that she returns to a vote for me after claimed-Orto does, but she doesn't rely on Orto's reasons (instead, she makes her own conspiracy argument: 1) Ungenuine; 2) Unclear perspective; and 3) "The Post"). The reason this is interesting is that she begins by saying that she agrees with Orto's vote on me, but makes no attempt to defend Orto's reasoning (other than the argument that I use "double standards", but that's a fundamentally malleable principle).

I mean, her votes so far:
1) The self-vote: Still confusing

2) The Orto vote: Her reasons are - 1) She didn't like the "dangling question"; and 2) Doesn't understand Orto's vote and asks if he is avoiding responsibility.
-- Earlier, I said this:

Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective [this should read 'objective']. You (and Ecto ) need to understand that there is a difference between drawing an inference and gut. Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

As for the second point, you have completely mischaracterised it. She isn't expressing agreement with anybody. She is saying that Ecto just seems to be agreeing with Spyrex and OP. In fact, she is ATTACKING agreement.

And, obviousy, there is room for agreement in this game. The point is, though, every player should still be able to explain things themselves. Otherwise we run the risk of having strong, articulate scum being able to pull the wool over townie's eyes just by posting impressively.

That was defending SL's vote against an argument made by Orto:

I cite springlullaby's last post (144) as an example of this- her 2 points against me are basically entirely subjective: one is putting an additional question at the end of my post after voting, and the second is deferring to others' reasoning- if no-one agreed with anyone else in this game I don't see it going very far.

However, I did also ask:

@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

Orto's rebuttal was wrong - her points here were not purely subjective. That said, she never did explain at all why the "dangling question" was a scumtell (Why is X scummy for Y?). Same goes for the second point; she draws an inference of shirking responsibility. That said, however, neither of these is a compelling argument at all; they both make large assumptions which, whilst objectively explained, aren't supported enough by evidence to carry a vote.

The reason I went back to this vote is that I think we can see a rather clear tendency here. Coming to my point about assumptions underpinning arguments. What we see is that even where SL's logic is impeccable (Objectively speaking, I

could

very well have quoted "the post" for the reasons she supposes), her assumptions are not (ie. mistake is a more reasonable explanation in the case of a mispost). Her arguments on "genuineness", however, fall into a different category, since they don't construct an argument stemming from anything specific in my play. They fail for being unfalsifiable gut assertions.

Unvote (if I am), Vote: SL

[vollkan]

vollkan: What do you think about mrfixij's vote? It seems to conflict with how you have said votes have to be justified, yet you didn't mention it at all.

I didn't kick up a stink about it because he did justify it reasonably. His point about scum being on the wagons is valid, as was his supplied reason for voting SL.

Also, he has given adequate reasons now.

Dare I say it, but I have a strange gut feeling about Ixfij. By no means am I saying he is suspicious or anything, but it is my intention to reread him more closely in the near future to work out why I am worried.

1) I believe that like Spyrex you do not know of feigning to not know what ritual and symbolic means. Just wikipedia it or something.

I understand perfectly well what you mean; don't patronise me. My point about "+10 townie points" was a reductio ad absurdum of the very idea of some kind of ritualistic "We want to hunt scum" activity. As I have said, that isn't the purpose of the random voting stage, and your employment of it as the purpose simply concocts a justification for suspicion where, in fact, one does not exist.

2) My stating my view on random voting in general is in direct response to your inquiry. You saying it is BS is your opinion, it is my opinion that there is an interesting essay to write on the formation of customs and ritualized human interaction specifics to mafia play, but this thread is not the place for it and it is a point that has no bearing on anything. i.e. I think your system of scumhunting is BS too, yet I do not think you are scum because of it.

And yet, you do take issue with my self-vote because I go against this ritualistic activity. By your own logic, that's invalid because you are presuming that I am sharing your opinion about the purpose of random voting. Maybe there is an interesting essay to write on the subject - doesn't mean that people see the random voting stage in the same way that you purport to.

2) The 'unfalsiable' point is making me roll my eyes. All cases in mafia are 'unfalsiable', with the only exceptions of cardflip and investigation result. The nature of mafia play is the vying of 'unfalsiable' hypothesis, if that was not the case the scumhunting success rate would 100% and there would be no point to the game. Now explain how my putting forth 'unfalsiable' claims is scummy.

Facts

- Cardflips and mod-confirmed knowledge. These are usually the only way of completely proving something untrue.
|
|
|
V

Theory

- This is the level at which scumhunting operates. We have a variety of competing theories. Now, take the example of "Player X hammers Player Y, a claimed vig, with no explanation of his vote. Player X claims it was a mistake". We have a number of vying ideas: (for simplicity sake, I shall list three) 1) Player X is scum trying to off a vig, 2) Player X is a townie who made a mistake, 3) Player X is a cop with a guilty on Y. Now, we cannot "prove" any of those to be true. Likewise, we cannot "prove" any of them false. However, we can effectively do the same based on the reasonableness of each theory - how likely it seems. For instance, 3) would be extremely unlikely and, absent a claim, should not be acted on as valid. 2), likewise, presumes an exceptional aberration in play, which makes it also highly unlikely. 1) in contrast, fits perfectly with motivation of scum and, thus, is most reasonable. But the important thing to note here is that the 3 theories can be challenged and debated. You might point out X's propensity to make mistakes as town. That might make 2) more likely. For the purposes of the game, theories can be falsified. Not

proven

to be true or false absolutely (that would require them to be facts), but proven to be false as reasonable explanations.
|
|
|
V

Conjecture

- I have much disdain for this category. This includes things like "gut" (when used as a justification for suspicion/vote), a declaration that "something seems fishy/ungenuine/etc." The reason is simple: claims of this nature CANNOT be challenged or rendered unreasonable. They depend entirely upon what the individual making the claim thinks (or, in the case of scum, purports to think). I cannot prove I am not "ungenuine", for instance, or even prove that is not a reasonable explanation. Because it is one wholly subjective interpretation of my play.

In essence, theories can be proven invalid as a matter of gameplay. But conjecture cannot ever be refuted. You are conflating the two.

Why does your use of conjecture make you scummy? We see in your attacks a reliance upon making claims that people cannot rebut. This might range from your point about "rituals" (You even just now tried to reduce it to a "that's my opinion" thing), to calling me "ungenuine" or having an "unclear perspective". It's all effectively just emotional rhetoric. We cannot possibly hope to debate with you, because you shroud it all in the cloak of "my opinion". That's scummy because, firstly, you are avoiding accountability by only making arguments which cannot be refuted and, secondly, because it allows you to play the offensive without actually having to find evidence of scumminess.

3) You know, I think that your use once again of the 'benefit of the doubt' defence is pretty scummy, it is oftentime a scum trait to want to disminish the potential scumminess of their own action in their accuser's eye. I would expect town to say something along the line of 'think what you will, it was a mistake and that's it'. Beside, I actually did meta you, and the misplaced post was the only one of this nature in the timeframe in which you post it, so yeah the odds of my being right are improving.

I'm not going to say "think what you will", because I don't accept that there are good reasons for suspecting me for this. That's just granting you license to continue peddling this nonsense. The game is still ongoing, but check out Mini 688 "The Iceman Modeth". I stress that the game is ongoing (I am dead, however, which is why I am referencing it), so please say nothing which could influence that game. That is where the post was meant to be made.

This is a long paragraph, it doesn't say if and why you think I am scummy for the action you describe.

I assumed it was self-evident, but since you press me: Craplogic is something which is inherently scummy. When craplogic is used there are basically two explanations: 1) Scum trying to justify an ungenuine attack; 2) Town making an error. If we shirked from any suspicion because of the chance of 2), we'd never be able to justify suspicion. There's no magical line in the sand, but that makes craplogic scummy because, accounting for the prospect of town error, there is scumminess. Thus, sustained use of craplogic can justify a lynch, because the odds of 2) diminish.

Confusing how? Plus I do remember you posting something that seemed to indicate that you were ok with my justification of my self-vote right after I made it.
Here:
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97#1345697
Tell me, if you really thought my self-vote was confusing, why didn't you pursue the subject at the time?

First off, you never said that was your justification? (If I am wrong, where did you say it?)

And, in any event, you'll find that the post you quote actually has me profoundly disagreeing with you:

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

However, as I already said, I do acknowledge that, given the current meta self-voting is not indicative of alignment, or even always an antitown move. But this not because of any 'inherent property' to self-voting, but simply because you can sometimes derive value by going against custom.

You are entirely correct. My very tactic of self-voting relies on the fact that it will be controversial. If self-voting ever became the norm, the tactic (like any sort of ploy) would become entirely invalid.

It's wrong to judge play based on its effects "if everybody did it" because, quite simply, that inquiry doesn't relate to whether or not something is pro-town or anti-town in any given instance (this is analogous to the distinction between deontologism and utilitarianism).

There's no tension between believing that self-voting would be bad if everyone did it, and believing that self-voting can be good in any particular instant (as you say, by going against customary practice)

In essence, "Yes, you are right that my self-voting requires controversy - but that is really irrelevant to the question of any specific instance where not everybody does"

1)The answer to that question that I did omit to respond to is: it might, but I thought it was scummy for the reason I described and pressed it.

I know that is what you purport. What I want to know is why is YOUR explanation more reasonable than MY explanation.

2) I explain further why I think it looks like shirking responsibility and why think it was scummy in my reply to orto that follows. I also do remember you having no qualm with the second point when I posted it.

No, I didn't attack your second point at the time. I did say this:

As for the second point, you have completely mischaracterised it. She isn't expressing agreement with anybody. She is saying that Ecto just seems to be agreeing with Spyrex and OP. In fact, she is ATTACKING agreement.

And, obviousy, there is room for agreement in this game. The point is, though, every player should still be able to explain things themselves. Otherwise we run the risk of having strong, articulate scum being able to pull the wool over townie's eyes just by posting impressively.

I am objecting to your idea that it is necessarily scummy as shirking. There are a range of acceptable behaviours. Some agreement is alright, but too much is scummy.

3) Here please define what is according to you 'enough evidence'. I thought orto's post was pretty scummy and said why.

There's no magical quantity or anything, but I mean that your arguments should aggregate a number of scumtells which would, in total, make scum the most reasonable explanation overall. Even if a player is not scum for any one individually, 1) becomes more reasonable than 2) in the aggregate. The points you raise fail that threshold.

[vollkan]

Dare I say it, but I have a strange gut feeling about Ixfij. By no means am I saying he is suspicious or anything, but it is my intention to reread him more closely in the near future to work out why I am worried.

Conjecture - I have much disdain for this category. This includes things like "gut" (when used as a justification for suspicion/vote), a declaration that "something seems fishy/ungenuine/etc." The reason is simple: claims of this nature CANNOT be challenged or rendered unreasonable. They depend entirely upon what the individual making the claim thinks (or, in the case of scum, purports to think). I cannot prove I am not "ungenuine", for instance, or even prove that is not a reasonable explanation. Because it is one wholly subjective interpretation of my play.

This is your most shameless inconsistency yet.

And please don't say "I didn't actually say he was scummy, I said I'd read into him further". You made a very, very deliberate choice to say emphatically you get a strange "gut" reading from mrfixij, without backing it up. Why? We have little interest in hearing about your private introspection, and as you say anything announced without explanation amounts to conjecture, which you despise. Why did you say this rather than wait until you could actually dredge up the "reasons" underlying your gut suspicion of him?

Like clockwork

I said that for three very different reasons:
1) Nothing I have ever said is against the viability of gut as an indicator of "maybe you should read up on this person", which is precisely what I said. There is nothing wrong with me saying that I have a funny feeling, provided I don't use it to back up a declaration of suspicion or a vote. And, in fact, I specifically stressed that I don't consider Ixfij scummy simply because of the feeling.

2) To see who would jump on this as an apparent contradiction. Would it surprise you if I said that you were my first guess?

3) To make a point. Rather than saying "I think Ixfij seems odd, so he is therefore scummy", I have said "I think ixfij seems odd, so I need to reread him more closely". This is precisely the distinction between objective reasons and subjective feelings.

[vollkan]

1) Nothing I have ever said is against the viability of gut as an indicator of "maybe you should read up on this person", which is precisely what I said. There is nothing wrong with me saying that I have a funny feeling, provided I don't use it to back up a declaration of suspicion or a vote. And, in fact, I specifically stressed that I don't consider Ixfij scummy simply because of the feeling.

You're still expressing a gut feeling, it just happens to be a neutral one, tinged with suspicion. Also; there is something wrong with it, it's an attempt to elicit an emotional and/or irrational response- which you earlier attacked me for. I ask you again why you would make the comment in the first place if you didn't intend it to carry some weight?

It's only an attempt to elicit a particular response if I use it as a conclusion, which I didn't. I didn't say I found him suspicious or anything; I simply said that I felt that something was odd and I would be reviewing him to find out why.

You are falsely framing things by suggesting that I HAVE to intend all my remarks to carry weight. In this case, I am just saying that I want to look at ixfij more closely; that's it. It's pretty clear I didn't intend for what I said to carry any weight.

Ah, yes, great trapping skills you've exhibited. Unfortunately, the fact remains your position is inconsistent. Also; you're saying you intended to trap me here: what did you hope to gain for town by this?

My intention was to determine whether people would be inclined to attack me for something which didn't merit attacking. Basically, Orto, I have already expressed my suspicion that you are being prejudicial. What I "hoped to gain" was to show this or, alternatively, show that somebody else was using craplogic to attack me.

That's not a "point", especially within your own framework where opinions need to be "justified". It rather amounts to an announcement of an action you intend to undertake in the future. I ask you again- why did you feel the need to tell us about it?

Uh, it is a point. The point is that where I have a gut feeling I don't rely on it to attack people; I use it as a direction for future investigation. A policeman doesn't arrest somebody because he gets a nervous feeling about somebody. He may stop somebody in the street and talk to them if he has such a feeling, to see if there are reasons for arrest.


And there was no pressing need for me to say it, but that's really irrelevant. I figured that, on balance, there was nothing to be lost by doing so and it would demonstrate my point about gut as well as serving as a trap.

One thing I'd like to also point out is that gut can go both ways. I can have gut that Myc is town or I can have gut that he's scum. Vollkan just has a gut read on me, he never specified which way it went. Seems like an obvtrap.

And yeah, this is true. I mean, it's fair to say that the main reason I want to follow it up is because of the prospect of finding scumminess, but you are absolutely right that it doesn't at all mean that my gut feeling is that you are scum.

[vollkan]

If you didn't want to communicate something to us by it, you shouldn't have told us.

FFS. As I have already said, I wanted to say how I was feeling. That's it. That's what I wanted to communicate. It doesn't mean anything, but there is no harm in my saying so - especially given I have stressed its inconsequentiality.

may not make sense as you "appear" to have already responded:

I quote this only to note the way Orto feels the need to put "appear" in inverted commas.

Orto, I responded. Why the hell would you need to put inverted commas around the word "appear"?

This would "appear" to affirm my point about you being prejudiced. I made a reasonable response (you didn't attack it or anything), but now you just aspersions on it.

I still want to know how exactly it was craplogic?

The craplogic proceeds thus:
1) Vollkan thinks gut is scummy when used to justify votes/decs of suspicion
2) Vollkan said he had a gut feeling that something was weird with Ixfij
3) Combining 1 and 2, Vollkan is inconsistent and therefore scummy

The craplogic lies in the assumption that there is any congruence between my opinion in 1) and my action in 2). (Hint: There isn't).

I beg your pardon. If I am reading you correctly, your chief complaint is my timing, which is a core part of my case against Spring. So if you are accusing my vote timing correlation of being a weak scumtell, then you're damning your own accusation.

You're seriously simplifying the case he made against you here. Timing in isolation wasn't the problem, it was timing combined with a lack of reasons provided.

Yes, and I did not expect anything particular, I just wanted to see what Voll and to an extent others people would say. No, I'm saying that I could imagine very well Volkan doing the self-vote as a sort of gambit, creating a false peek of interest toward him and appealing to the 'why would he attract that much attention to him as scum'. My answer to that question is that it is very probably not a good question to be asking oneself when it is apparent that it is a question that is dictated in the subtext of the person's action.

So, in essence, you self-voted for a reason that was essentially the same as mine - to provoke reaction.

I love that when

you

do it is pristinely pro-town but when

I

do it you seem to object to it becasue you can "very well imagine" me doing it for nefarious purposes. Your hypocrisy is truly astounding.

No, I did not like the fact that Ecto was pushing Vollkan while staying short of being really aggressive. aka I think his behaviour toward Vollkan could be qualified as passive-aggressive, he was needling him on many things but never expressed suspicion that was backed-up with a vote. This is bad because it puts people in a defensive position whereas there is no clearly stated game relevant opinion opposite.

"no clearly stated game relevant opinion opposite"? Say what you will about the viability of Ecto's arguments, but it is absurd to say that he had no clearly stated opinion. Backing a point up with a vote does nothing to alter whether or not there are clear opinions - the two exist independently of one another.

a) It is my view that the symbolic behind the greeting-ritual that can be said to be the nature of the self-voting stage is to signify one's willingness to find scum and lynch.
i.e.
Ritual: hand-kissing
Symbolic: historically/culturally to signify one's respect and allegiance.
.
Again, I'm not open to debate on this subject in this thread as it this theory and has no relevance on the game itself; I have expressed my view on this only in direct reply to Vollkan's inquiry and made it clear.

Note here that it is self-evident, and that by definition, the symbolic of a gesture is not the same thing as the intention/motive of its execution

Uh, this is very relevant to this game - because it was a basis of your argument against an action of mine. You've essentially just made your own assertion about the point of random-voting and now expect us not to debate the viability of it. Again, as I keep saying, the random voting stage is just to kick off the game. There is no symbolic point to it.

b) I do believe that self-voting is antitown as lurking is antitown, and should never viewed otherwise for the reasons I have explained (i.e. Imagine a town in which everyone self-voted etc.). This describes the inehrent value of self-vote, which I think is nil. Yet I do not believe that antitown=scum.

FFS. By that logic, being an accountant is inherently bad because, if everybody were accountants, there would be no food. Just like self-voting, accountancy is only viable as a profession because not everybody does it.

vollkan, ecto and mrfixij just see a big post, with lot of argument, and they hop on the bandwagon. Is it so hard just to check out how valid the points against spring are? Yes, his votes haven't been that strong, but really, is selfvoting to make a point and accusing vollkan of starting with a selfvote such a contradiction? I can't see town people make a point of it.

It's really rather a mischaracterisation to say that Ecto, Ixfij and myself just hopped on a wagon after seeing a "big post". I went through the reasons (many of which I had expressed previously myself), and found they added up.

[vollkan]

vollkan, ecto and mrfixij just see a big post, with lot of argument, and they hop on the bandwagon. Is it so hard just to check out how valid the points against spring are? Yes, his votes haven't been that strong, but really, is selfvoting to make a point and accusing vollkan of starting with a selfvote such a contradiction? I can't see town people make a point of it.

It's really rather a mischaracterisation to say that Ecto, Ixfij and myself just hopped on a wagon after seeing a "big post". I went through the reasons (many of which I had expressed previously myself), and found they added up.

you know I don't agree with the adding up part . But anyway, you did the best job of the people I named. How mrfixij hopped on was really ugly, and until ecto explains why he is doing it now also, it is the same.

That's essentially what I meant Ixfij and Ecto are in a different situation to me, but you tried to tar me with the same brush - hence why I called it a mischaracterisation.

And tell me, why would I vote Spyrex? because he makes a case? because he believes he is right? I would think it very unlikely that both Spyrex and Mrfixij were scum, Mrfixij is very scummy in my eyes, so Spyrex is not very suspected. Also, Spyrex got this town alive again, posted a big case (doesn't matter if I don't agree with him), clear pro-town behaviour.

By that same logic, why vote people who agree with Spyrex? Because they agree with his case? Because they believe he is right? There's nothing

innately

scummy about agreement.

And Spyrex posting a big case in no way constitutes "clear pro-town behaviour".

No I have never taken issue with your voting for 'going against ritualistic activity', I voted you based on my assessement of your character.

Here is your voting post:

Your voting post:

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

I wasn't suggesting that you voted me purely for violating ritual. But you did take issue with my vote because of its violation of ritual.

The reason this is important is because of the "character" argument you proceed to make.

In a nutshell (to make myself a bit clearer), the point I make below is thus

: SL's character argument is pure bollocks but the ritualistic argument serves to give it emotional clout.

There are an infinite number of possible actions people could do in this game. Consider something as absurd as making a post consisting entirely of:

Poop poop a doop

Now, stupid and pointless as that might be, Person X should not be suspected for it. If Person Y did decide to vote Person for that action, then Person X would be perfectly entitled to demand that some explanation be proferred as to why said action is at all warranting of suspicion. My point, in a nutshell, is that the "you need proof" mindset is perfectly legitimate.

The idea that people are scummy for demanding justification for votes is completely ridiculous, but it's precisely what your "character" argument posits. If you had posted your two points (That is, 1) The ritual argument; and 2) The character argument) separately, it would have been clear that the character argument was a load of complete rot.

But, the character argument almost has some (superficial) appeal when used in relation to something deemed "anti-town" (ie. violating a custom). The reason is that it allows a conflation of "demanding proof of likely scumminess" (reasonable) with "demanding proof of scummy motivations" (unreasonable).

It's unreasonable to require proof that something was done for scummy reasons, because obviously you cannot get inside somebody's head. But it is perfectly reason to argue for proof that something is objectively scummy (ie. by insisting on an explanation as to why a theory that holds action X being done for scummy reasons is reasonably probable as to warrant suspicion).

Where conduct is made out to be inherently anti-town (ie. as SL did with my self-voting), it becomes easier to make a demand for proof appear to be a slippery demand for proof of motivation.

Thus, the ritual argument is effectively used by SL to season a craplogic argument.

Facts - Cardflips and mod-confirmed knowledge. These are usually the only way of completely proving something untrue.
|
|
|
V
Theory - This is the level at which scumhunting operates. We have a variety of competing theories. Now, take the example of "Player X hammers Player Y, a claimed vig, with no explanation of his vote. Player X claims it was a mistake". We have a number of vying ideas: (for simplicity sake, I shall list three) 1) Player X is scum trying to off a vig, 2) Player X is a townie who made a mistake, 3) Player X is a cop with a guilty on Y. Now, we cannot "prove" any of those to be true. Likewise, we cannot "prove" any of them false. However, we can effectively do the same based on the reasonableness of each theory - how likely it seems. For instance, 3) would be extremely unlikely and, absent a claim, should not be acted on as valid. 2), likewise, presumes an exceptional aberration in play, which makes it also highly unlikely. 1) in contrast, fits perfectly with motivation of scum and, thus, is most reasonable. But the important thing to note here is that the 3 theories can be challenged and debated. You might point out X's propensity to make mistakes a s town. That might make 2) more likely. For the purposes of the game, theories can be falsified. Not proven to be true or false absolutely (that would require them to be facts), but proven to be false as reasonable explanations.
|
|
|
V
Conjecture - I have much disdain for this category. This includes things like "gut" (when used as a justification for suspicion/vote), a declaration that "something seems fishy/ungenuine/etc." The reason is simple: claims of this nature CANNOT be challenged or rendered unreasonable. They depend entirely upon what the individual making the claim thinks (or, in the case of scum, purports to think). I cannot prove I am not "ungenuine", for instance, or even prove that is not a reasonable explanation. Because it is one wholly subjective interpretation of my play.

In essence, theories can be proven invalid as a matter of gameplay. But conjecture cannot ever be refuted. You are conflating the two.

Why does your use of conjecture make you scummy? We see in your attacks a reliance upon making claims that people cannot rebut. This might range from your point about "rituals" (You even just now tried to reduce it to a "that's my opinion" thing), to calling me "ungenuine" or having an "unclear perspective". It's all effectively just emotional rhetoric. We cannot possibly hope to debate with you, because you shroud it all in the cloak of "my opinion". That's scummy because, firstly, you are avoiding accountability by only making arguments which cannot be refuted and, secondly, because it allows you to play the offensive without actually having to find evidence of scumminess.

2) If anything my vote against you stands firmly in the 'theory' zone of your scale. And I think you are very scummy for trying to represent my vote as totally disconnected from elements of this game: I have explained why I think you are being 'ungenuine' based on evidences in your play this game, and the same goes for what I describe as 'unclear perspective. Go ahead and quote me. The only thing that can be said to be 'conjecture' in your own scale is my opinion on your misplaced post, and I take full responsibility for it.

Well, to begin with the justifiactions for your vote I cover above, the "character" argument is "theory" (falsifiable). The problem with the argument, however, is the presumption that underpins it (the claim that any use of "you need proof" is scummy). My "poop poop a doop" argument above thoroughly falsifies this point. The "character" argument, therefore, is theory but scummy, because it relies on craplogic dressed up with emotional rhetoric.

So, what about the accusations of 1) Ungenuine; 2) Unclear perspective?

You say that you have given evidential explanations. Well, let's have a look shall we?

There are a number of things that sounds ungenuine

Examples and explanations?

1. I think your first vote on Ectomancer is unclear and is wrapped up in excess of rhetoric to make it look more solid than it is.

Here is your vote:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=275

The reason of your vote for Ectomancer is at the bottom of this post and is in fact isolated from everything that you have been arguing about. But what's more, the reason of your vote seems coherent with your rhetoric and displayed attitude toward mafia play, but I feel it is not genuine because I think Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex has merit even thought his construction does not fit in your systematic approach. This is scummy I think because I would think that you have enough experience to recognize this as town.

You see, I think there is a certain quality of tension building up between yourself and Ectomancer during the earlier phase of the game, and I think what you did there was voting first so you could stay ahead in the event Ecto were to vote you, and the 'streching' nature of your vote maybe the symptom of that.

Alternatively I can also conceived it as a soft vote for distancing purpose, because you dropped it pretty fast when the ortolan case surfaced.

I'm not decided between the two atm, but I'd like to put both theories out there.

The point about my vote for Ecto being isolated is garbage for two reasons. Firstly, you haven't explained at all what the significance of it being isolated would be if it were isolated. More importantly, though, it comes at the end of a post largely consisting of my argument with Ecto. I then diverge from this to attack his Spyrex vote. It's the climax of a substantially anti-Ecto post. You've basically just made up a conjecture about me putting a vote out in isolation, which is not only untrue, but you don't even explain what it means.

I also particular love this combination of sentencese: "but I feel it is not genuine because I think Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex has merit even thought his construction does not fit in your systematic approach. This is scummy I think because I would think that you have enough experience to recognize this as town." The language of my vote was very clear. You construe it as me simply voting Ecto for not sitting in my approach, but his vote actually went to the absurd end of assuming MY alignment.

You then proceed to make up one explanation for your made up account of my actions (that I was trying to "stay ahead") and then give an equally contrived alternative.

Evidential? Hardly.

2. I do perceive the double standard ortolan is talking aobut. At several occasion your post seemed to indicate 'good sentiment' toward me, and imo for no good reason whatsoever.

Right now I am too lazy to go fish them up, but from memory you exemplified my case against ortolan as a 'good example'. Only I think it was as much 'without any basis' as any case in mafia, and I think equally justifiable in your own system than Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex.

At another occasion you said something along the line of 'good catch' to my asking ortolan if he had isolated my post on purpose. I do not believe what I said merited such attention because I think it was a minor point.

And you see, I think that that 'double standard' is most significant in light of the fact that Ecto and I were the most affirmative in our diverging opinions concerning your selfvote. And I think this artificiality is pretty scummy because I think that what you did there was 'compensate' by casting me in a relatively good light for you going after Ectomancer to make you look less OMGUS-y.

This I have already addressed. There's absolutely no truth in the claim that I held your Orto vote up as a "good example" simpliciter - I raised it as a "good example of an objective argument". Anyway, this doesn't substantiate your accusation I am being "ungenuine"

I cannot find the "good catch" point you make. Firstly, if I said something you found was good, it just means I agree with your point, and there is nothing wrong with agreement. It's a huge leap for you to then say this constitutes a "double standard"

Finally, without specific examples of where I may have cast you in a better light, you are just divorcing my actions of the reasons I give.

And then we get to the "unclear perspective" point.

Your only "evidence" given for this was:

Well, I think you've been arguing a lot with lot of people and you seem to be pretty strong in your convictions when it comes to what you apparently think is good play, but I do not discern clear train of thought when the discussion is out of theorical grounds and when it comes to scumhunting.

Purely subjective twaddle about a "clear train of thought". This has no tying to anything I have done and is just an unfalsifiable claim - how can I possibly prove that I have a clear train of thought?

a) Furthermore, your thing about argument which cannot be refuted is I think pure BS. The only way it could be said to be scummy would be basing it off the assumption that only town could refute theories, and scum would ultimately fail to refute them. Or even that town would never make these calls. I do not believe for one second that someone with your experience can really believe that.

I make no pretence my strategy works flawlessly - scum can refute theories (often rightly so. Remember, just because somebody makes an argument for somebody being scum and that person turns out scum doesn't vindicate the argument. Anybody who has been lynched as scum for a crappy case knows what I mean). The question is what is most reasonable. Conjecture dodges accountability because it prevents a person having reasoning analysed. You just concoct a feeling and nobody can argue with you.

b) Do quantify 'play the offensive without actually having to find evidence of scuminess'. I found what I consider evidence of scuminess in your play, and I think you are entirely sidestepping the issue by repeating continually saying 'no evidence' 'no evidence'.

But what you have presented is not saying "Vollkan did X. X is scummy because it is most reasonable that scum would do X, because of reason Y". Instead, your arguments have followed this formla: "Vollkan did X. X is scummy because Vollkan-scum could have done X because of reason Y". You never attempt to give any objective credibility to your arguments. It seems that the mere

possibility

that, say, I deliberately inserted a misplaced post, or that I may have been trying to keep ahead of Ecto for scummy reasons is enough for you.

Just because you say it is nonsense doesn't make it so. I don't get why you are referrencing that game here, I get that it is where the misplaced post was supposed to be destined to, but so what?

Well, it kind of shoots down any objective credibility to your argument.

Simple challenge: Prove to me that your explanation of my misplaced post is more reasonable than the explanation that I just made a mistake with my tabbed browser.

I don't need numerical proof of the number of times I or others have made said mistakes (though that would be acceptable). I just want you to explain why that theory is more reasonable than my explanation of mistake.

And you know, the strangest thing here is that I'm starting to think that I may have been wrong about you misplacing your post intentionally, but I still think you are very high chance of being scum based on your response. Your first response to it, and indeed to my entire case on you was pretty much on the appeasing side, now you are blurring the lines and saying that I'm scummy because of my reasons to think you so.

Sorry? Where was I appeasing? And why would a change in attitude on further reflection be scummy?

Okay, yet to fail to demonstrate how anything I say is craplogic. Please quote.

Please see my sustained criticism of your arguments against me.

You asked me to explain why you were scummy, and I did so. "Craplogic" is an umbrella term that covers bad theory (theory based on crap assumptions) and conjecture.

I don't believe that, and I think you are backpedalling here: it is written '@Vollkan' at the beginning of that, and my post prior to that was my saying 'before I answer you, let me ask a question'.

No it doesn't.

This is the post it links to:

Vollkan - I'm not going into another quote pyramid to restate the position we are both taking, which is, "I'm right and you are wrong."

Ecto, I am not simply posting for your benefit. I am not arguing against you to persuade you - I am doing so to show others the faults I see in your arguments against me (and now against Spyrex). I don't expect we will reach any sort of accord.

What I find ironic in this is that I took the early position that 'gut feelings" are a perfectly acceptable manner of playing mafia. Both Vollkan and Spyrex took opposition to that form of play. But when pressed, the actual reasons they give are what boils down to "gut feelings".

"It wasn't what he did, it was how he did it".

Argue otherwise if you would like, but when others do not agree with your assessment there, what it comes down to is that your gut doesn't agree with how I did what I did. I know it galls you to hear it, but your assessment of my alignment comes down to an entirely debatable "gut feeling". As I said, they can be valid, so I dont discount it as a reasoning at all. I just find it funny that you would discount it if it were coming from someone else.

You're completely wrong here. My attack on your "How" was an attack upon the way that you presented your case - strong rhetoric which ends up being just hollow rhetoric. That isn't scummy for "gut" reasons. It's scummy because it reflects a lack of sincere critical analysis on your own part about possible motivations for my actions.

In a game of incomplete information, there is always going to be a need for inferences to be drawn (nobody can ever prove that a certain action is definitely scummy). As I have done in my argument against you. The point is, however, that inferences have to be based on a genuine analysis of various possible explanations and likelihoods and so on. That's in stark contrast to a suspicion based purely on "gut". Maybe the "gut" has gone through the inferring process - and maybe it hasn't. That's the problem with basing a case on "like", "feeling", "gut" etc.

Right here, its all questions on whether he still considers his move a valid one after the mod made a clarification on the mechanics of the game. No 'strongly attacking' at all here. The "Why would you.." came from Vollkans original post on this topic.. Those were the exact words he used. In fact, to flip it around, Vollkan himself is the one that implied that there was a justification there to be had. My parroting his own question to himself in his own words does not then make myself the originator of the question in that manner.. He then attempts to blame the introduction of the "Why would you..." on me in order to attack me, supporting my earlier assertion that he was simply waiting for the first person to respond so that he could go on the attack.

So, basically, you think that you are exculpated because your question was mere parroting? As I said above, the whole point of that question was to set up a pit for the uncritical in order that a debate may begin. You're in control of your own language; you wrote "Why would you...".

I searched "@vollkan" to try and find what you may have meant, and I found this:

I'll get the answers out of the way first because I behind.

@Vollkan on random voting.

It is my pet view that the random voting stage is a form of greeting ritual custom to forum mafia and that its symbolic is to indicates one's willingness to scumhunt and lynch - I'm sure that this view is debatable, however I'm not interested in adding another theoretical topic to the discussion.

What I think everyone can agree on is that the random voting stage serves a function which is to generate discussion.

Now, hypothetical scenario: what would happen in a game in which nobody were to random vote but self-voted instead?

I think the answer to this is that the self-votes would serve no purpose because it really gives nothing to people to work on - or even less than random vote if you want - and that is why I think that in absolute self-votes are always bad and inherently anti-town, and should never be viewed otherwise.

However, as I already said, I do acknowledge that, given the current meta self-voting is not indicative of alignment, or even always an antitown move. But this not because of any 'inherent property' to self-voting, but simply because you can sometimes derive value by going against custom.

@Vollkan and Spyrex on 'contradiction'

1. I see no contradiction in my play. See above.

2. Actually you guys seem to think that I have voted Vollkan because 'I think self voting is inherently bad'. I don't like this because it is not the case.

@Mykonian

1. I did state why I didn't like ecto's play. I don't see where I'm following spyrex.

2. Your point about my 'keeping my options open' irritates me.

See my answer to it from another game:

Link removed:

Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role.

---------------

Next I'll examine people post more closely and give my opinion.

In that case, my presumption would be that your justification is that you were trying to prove in practice your point about how it would fail if everybody did it. Needless to say, that's a bollocks argument.

Huh, that's not the impression I got from the post at all. I do not believe that if you had an objection to what I said then you would have let it drop, wasn't it your stated motivation of your self-vote manoeuvre?

Well your impression was wrong, frankly.

I didn't let it "drop". I rebutted your point, in the very post you identify. What more did you want?

You prove me that my explanation is LESS reasonnable than yours. Man do you have a point? This is going into BS arguing land hardcore.

You were the one accusing Orto of being scum. It's for you to prove your argument. This isn't BS - it's basic principles of argument. You made one assertion for Orto's motivations, and I expect you to explain why it is more valid than contrary non-scum interpretations.

Am I missing something or are you recognizing your own contradiction? What is the point of what you quoting yourself here? You said in you last post that you objected to my point, I pointed out that was not the case and now you are saying...what?

You know what, I think what you are doing here is acutally sidestepping the issue.

To clarify,
You said I had "no qualm" with it. I didn't attack your point, but the reason I quoted was that I was showing that I also did not express any agreement with you - I was just attacking somebody else who completely misrepresented what you said.

BS strawman. I emitted the hypothesis that it may have been shirking responsibility, I distincly remember putting my accusation of orto in the form of a question.

Well, that's probably why I didn't attack your point at the time. It was a long time ago, so forgive me for not knowing that that is what you said at the time. I only raised it now because I was showing that I didn't agree with an inherent argument against agreement. In posting that, I didn't read any posts by you at that time, only what my post said.

Misrepresentation, I never said that I was 'pristinely pro-town' for anything, people throw crap contradiction my way, I point out how they are talking crap.

I self-voted to provoke reaction. How is your purpose qualitatively different? (and would you please state with clarity exactly what your purpose was?)

No, I did not like the fact that Ecto was pushing Vollkan while staying short of being really aggressive. aka I think his behaviour toward Vollkan could be qualified as passive-aggressive, he was needling him on many things but never expressed suspicion that was backed-up with a vote. This is bad because it puts people in a defensive position whereas there is no clearly stated game relevant opinion opposite.

"no clearly stated game relevant opinion opposite"? Say what you will about the viability of Ecto's arguments, but it is absurd to say that he had no clearly stated opinion. Backing a point up with a vote does nothing to alter whether or not there are clear opinions - the two exist independently of one another.

The term is 'game relevant opinion' with the emphasis on 'game relevant'. You know, who think whom is scum and why.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Ecto was debating me on the scumminess and anti-townnes of my self-vote. I was in a defensive position, but I had a clear sense of his opinion. The mere fact Ecto hadn't outright accused me of being scum is irrelevant, as his opinions were pretty much manifest. There was no need for a vote to "back it up"

vollkan I have a bad feeling about, but I can't quantify where I actually got it, and the case on him is not particularly enforcing it. Still don't like how he kept his vote on the claimed mason for policy reasons instead of just asking them about it.

Uh...my policy reason was the reason I didn't ask. I thought it was premature for a claim, and claims should only occur explicitly.

[vollkan]

making yourself usefull to the game gives you towny points in my eyes... And if spyrex is scum, it is much easier to find if he posts a lot, then if he lurks.

Yeah, long-term use of goodlogic (verging on the Orwellian...) is more

likely

to come from town. Though, Spyrex posting one single big case doesn't meet that benchmark.

And what about agreement with a case that is not that obvious? Personally, I would discuss it first, let spring defend, and look what I could do then. But it is easier to just hop on the bandwagon.

You dodge the main point of my question here. True, it would also be possible to agree more subtly, but the question is not "What alternatives exist to express agreement?". The question is "

Why is explicit agreement problematic

?"

I could read Volk posts all day.

Was that a compliment, or a jab at the size of my posts?

[vollkan]

*sigh* What you are ignoring is that my policy reason was specifically a policy reason

for requiring explicit claims

(ie. for ignoring implicit pseudo-claims).

The analogy you've provided is a false one because nothing suggests that the policeman has a good reason for not helping. Suppose, for instance, that there had been attacks on police officers by persons pretending to seek help. In that case, there would be a valid policy reason for not answering implicit, muffled requests on the streets.

Stupid alteration of the analogy, I know, but my point is that I have, as I have explained, good reasons for not allowing soft claims.

[vollkan]

Because I considered it premature for a claim. I didn't want it clarified; I wanted it swept away.

[vollkan]

Just noticed Orto's post. Will respond now.

[vollkan]

Mafia is as much about what is not said (or rather, what is said implicitly), as what is said. You had no valid reason for announcing your gut suspicion beyond *wanting* to imply something in this way, yet deny it has any meaning.

I didn't *want* to imply anything; I've already been clear about that. I was just saying the way I felt. Maybe someone else felt similarly; maybe the day would end and it could serve as a note to myself or another; maybe it would set in motion a train of discussion about Ixfiij. I don't know. Enough with your bullshit conspiracies about my intentions. It's as though you won't be satisfied unless I specifically give some specific outcome that I sought. If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

It's also amusing you think my response in some way demonstrates I am "prejudiced". You still haven't answered what you intended to achieve by "trapping" me either. If you simply meant you thought it somehow demonstrated I was prejudiced, I don't accept this at all, so you haven't achieved much. And in your use of "prejudiced", you earn +1 scumpoint for use of emotive language, +1 scumpoint for an entirely subjective judgement, +10 scumpoints for your hypocrisy in the following criticism of sl in your recent post:

Emotive language is only problematic if unjustified. "prejudiced" can be emotive, but in the context I am using it, it is justified. My judgment is not "subjective". I've already said that I wanted to see whether and how you would react to me saying something which I knew would provoke charges of hypocrisy from a careless or judgmental observer, into which category I predicted you would fall.

Furthermore you are being entirely disingenuous on this point anyhow, as you appear to be interpreting SL's argument as deductive (premises clearly follow from the conclusion) rather than inductive argument (premises support conclusion), which it clearly is.

Sorry? I have no clue what you are trying to get at here. Her arguments are conspiracy (premises pulled out arse to justify conclusions)

I happen to agree with her claim that your discussion is not at all helpful in regards to scumhunting in this game, and am equally skeptical of the inconsistencies and opportunism which you've demonstrated (and which I've continually attempted to draw attention to).

I happen to think that I've done a damn good job of rebutting the attacks that SL and yourself have made against me.

Furthermore the vast majority of your arguments (and indeed, everyone's) are inductive and so your criticism of the unclear perspective point on the basis they are not valid deductively is little more than opportunistic posturing.
..Funny, here sl has to "prove" her interpretation of your misplaced post was correct. Again you are deliberately equivocating obligations in deductive vs. inductive logic, but that's not the worst part.

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

So, when you're attacking me, it's alright to use a specific subjective interpretation of my actions which is no more likely than any other, but sl's interpretation of your actions has to be "proved" to be more valid than the alternative you provide. One standard for vollk, different standard for everyone else.

No. Because when requested I can and do justify my premises (the assumptions of why scumminess is most reasonable).

[vollkan]

You have clearly stated you intended to voice an "opinion" on mrfixij, but have given no reasons for it. This means you are relying on gut- which you've given us an incredible song and dance routine over because of how much you supposedly detest it. Basically, you're being very, very hypocritical.

The paragraph I quote above by Orto is pure falderal for one simple reason: I didn't express an "opinion" on mrfixij, so it is absurd that he would suggest I need to give "reasons". Here is what I said:

Dare I say it, but I have a strange gut feeling about Ixfij. By no means am I saying he is suspicious or anything, but it is my intention to reread him more closely in the near future to work out why I am worried.

I've neither done nor said anything relating to Ixfij which requires justification.

In any event, this pretty much confirms you aren't a Freemason; they have a requirement that members be of sound mind.

You may have proven to yourself I am "prejudiced" (your argument is terrible though- apparently because I pulled you up on something you wrongly claim is objective this proves I am "prejudiced"), but I'm afraid you'll need to convince other people also to have accomplished anything.

You pulled me up on something where, if a person was taking a sobre and unbiased attitude to my actions, they wouldn't have leaped to the conclusion that I was being contradictory.

(I'd couple this with the fact that the rest of your attacks against me have all been "big swing, no ding"

I entirely agree with her that your arguments show an "unclear perspective" i.e. the positions you adopt are inconsistent and opportunistic. Not only has she provided evidence of this but so have I. I fail to see how you can think this point is somehow derived from nothing.

I think I have refuted every single example either you have brought up.

Please, if you sincerely suspect me, list (and categorise) every example of me being inconsistent and opportunistic (neither of which, by the way, means "unclear perspective". By using those terms, you are shifting the goal posts for yourselves, but your argument is still bullshit so I'll play along with it)

I disagree completely. Your attempted rebuttals only make you look more scummy in my eyes. Unfortunately this only further supports the notion that we are at a stalemate and need input from a third party to progress.

None of my rebuttals have been refuted, though. This entire debate is basically you and SL calling me a list of emotional labels and then coming up with contrived non-evidence to support those conclusions.

Well there's your first mistake- inductive arguments don't need to be "valid".

That's nice to know. Arguments that don't need to be valid are just super

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

You asked her to prove her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid. Firstly; this is unnecessary- inductive arguments are good just in case the premises give decent reason to believe the conclusion.

Yes, I know the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

But, what I was trying to get at is that I don't think that SL's logic even is valid inductively.

I mean, a classic inductive argument is something like:
1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

Now, take the "misplaced post" example. The logic as advanced by SL is basically:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Scum would benefit from showing meta-consistency (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was scummy (conclusion)

Both premises are sound. The trouble is that there is a competing inductive argument that I have advanced:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Vollkan of any alignment could have made the post by mistake (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was a nulltell (conclusion)

Are we to shrug our shoulders and adopt an "anything goes" agnosticism? No. This game is all about lynching the people most likely to be scum. You can make inductive arguments to prove just about anything about any action in this game. It's NOT enough to simply show that something could be scummy; you also

need to show

that that is a reasonable conclusion relative to the other possibilities. I underline "need to show" for the simple reason that we shouldn't forget that the onus is on the person deeming something scummy or towny (the base presumption being all things are nulltells unless proven otherwise).

Returning to our friend Socrates for a moment, consider the following argument:
1. Socrates was a genius. (premise)
2. Most geniuses don't eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates did not eat fish. (conclusion)

If we are interested in the question of whether Socrates ate fish, it's not enough to simply say that he ate fish because he was a Greek. That inductive argument is necessarily impacted upon by the one I just made up. If we are to learn anything about Socrates's eating habits, we need to look at other factors which impact upon that question. SL's inductive logic is internally sound, therefore, but is completely invalid in terms of this game (which is the important thing).

Quantitative proof that, say, more mis-posts end up being by scum would be great - but it would be absurd to expect that. What is needed, though, is for it to be demonstrated that it would make less sense for a townie acting reasonably to do something than for scum to do it.

Secondly, it flies in the face of what happened earlier when I questioned interpretations of my "dangling point" and "hedging my arguments". You argued that you and sl's interpretation of my actions was perfectly valid, and made no such mention of an obligation to prove your interpretations were more valid than mine. Again, you're being hypocritical.

It was a fact that you had hedged your arguments - the question was what to make of it. The question is then whether it is more reasonable to think you did it for scummy reasons (a leave-pass to avoid accountability) than as a mistake. A reasonable townie wouldn't cast a vote based on admittedly weak reasons outside exceptional circumstances. Scum, on the other hand, has every reason to want to downplay the strength of their opinions. The prospect that a reasonable townie could have done it, of course, is not at all ridiculous, but that doesn't make it a nulltell - it just means that it isn't an auto-lynchable offence.

And, again, you did not provide any reasons for your

pointing of the finger at mrfixij

so this is untrue anyhow.

See my first point in this post. I not only never expressed suspicion of ixfij, but I expressly denied it.

[vollkan]

Unfortunately your replies to my arguments are mostly one-step-behind.

You have clearly stated you intended to voice an "opinion" on mrfixij, but have given no reasons for it. This means you are relying on gut- which you've given us an incredible song and dance routine over because of how much you supposedly detest it. Basically, you're being very, very hypocritical.

The paragraph I quote above by Orto is pure falderal for one simple reason: I didn't express an "opinion" on mrfixij, so it is absurd that he would suggest I need to give "reasons".

You did express an opinion on mrfixij. You even acknowledged such:

If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

There's no getting out of that I'm afraid.

You're playing semantics. I used the word "opinion" to describe it, but what I was describing was very clearly not an "opinion" in the sense of the term that you are portraying it.

In any event, this pretty much confirms you aren't a Freemason; they have a requirement that members be of sound mind.

ad hominem

No, it was an insult. It would be ad hominem if I used it to justify an argument (which I didn't). It is simply a conclusion I have reached after arguing with you.

You may have proven to yourself I am "prejudiced" (your argument is terrible though- apparently because I pulled you up on something you wrongly claim is objective this proves I am "prejudiced"), but I'm afraid you'll need to convince other people also to have accomplished anything.

You pulled me up on something where, if a person was taking a sobre and unbiased attitude to my actions, they wouldn't have leaped to the conclusion that I was being contradictory.

You assert this, and I disagree. Furthermore you offer no proof.

My proof is in the very fact that there was no contradiction. If you had stopped and read what I said with any degree of care or caution you would have seen that.

I entirely agree with her that your arguments show an "unclear perspective" i.e. the positions you adopt are inconsistent and opportunistic. Not only has she provided evidence of this but so have I. I fail to see how you can think this point is somehow derived from nothing.

I think I have refuted every single example either you have brought up.

Perhaps in your own mind. If anything I've felt the gist of my attacks have been validated by your replies.

You're really dodging the question here.

Have I, or have I not rebutted your initial attacks? And what is the "gist" which you feel my replies have validated? And how have they validated it?

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

You asked her to prove her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid. Firstly; this is unnecessary- inductive arguments are good just in case the premises give decent reason to believe the conclusion.

Yes, I know the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

But, what I was trying to get at is that I don't think that SL's logic even is valid inductively.

I mean, a classic inductive argument is something like:
1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

Now, take the "misplaced post" example. The logic as advanced by SL is basically:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Scum would benefit from showing meta-consistency (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was scummy (conclusion)

Both premises are sound. The trouble is that there is a competing inductive argument that I have advanced:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Vollkan of any alignment could have made the post by mistake (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was a nulltell (conclusion)

Are we to shrug our shoulders and adopt an "anything goes" agnosticism? No. This game is all about lynching the people most likely to be scum. You can make inductive arguments to prove just about anything about any action in this game. It's NOT enough to simply show that something could be scummy; you also

need to show

that that is a reasonable conclusion relative to the other possibilities. I underline "need to show" for the simple reason that we shouldn't forget that the onus is on the person deeming something scummy or towny (the base presumption being all things are nulltells unless proven otherwise).

Returning to our friend Socrates for a moment, consider the following argument:
1. Socrates was a genius. (premise)
2. Most geniuses don't eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates did not eat fish. (conclusion)

If we are interested in the question of whether Socrates ate fish, it's not enough to simply say that he ate fish because he was a Greek. That inductive argument is necessarily impacted upon by the one I just made up. If we are to learn anything about Socrates's eating habits, we need to look at other factors which impact upon that question. SL's inductive logic is internally sound, therefore, but is completely invalid in terms of this game (which is the important thing).

Quantitative proof that, say, more mis-posts end up being by scum would be great - but it would be absurd to expect that. What is needed, though, is for it to be demonstrated that it would make less sense for a townie acting reasonably to do something than for scum to do it.

Secondly, it flies in the face of what happened earlier when I questioned interpretations of my "dangling point" and "hedging my arguments". You argued that you and sl's interpretation of my actions was perfectly valid, and made no such mention of an obligation to prove your interpretations were more valid than mine. Again, you're being hypocritical.

It was a fact that you had hedged your arguments - the question was what to make of it. The question is then whether it is more reasonable to think you did it for scummy reasons (a leave-pass to avoid accountability) than as a mistake. A reasonable townie wouldn't cast a vote based on admittedly weak reasons outside exceptional circumstances. Scum, on the other hand, has every reason to want to downplay the strength of their opinions. The prospect that a reasonable townie could have done it, of course, is not at all ridiculous, but that doesn't make it a nulltell - it just means that it isn't an auto-lynchable offence.

I dispute this because using the phrase "hedging your arguments" implies a deliberate act, especially in the context of a game of mafia where everyone is under suspicion. Thus in using the phrase "hedging your arguments" you precluded the explanation that my unclear and qualified opinions could be a "mistake", and implied I was scum. Thus it was still equivalent as a "biased interpretation" to sl's interpretation of your misplaced post, and thus the point stands.

Let the record show that tut of that entire piece I wrote repudiating Orto and SL's craplogic, Orto only addressed the bit about hedging.

To respond on the hedging point:
"Hedging" implies that you downplayed the strength of your argument. It's a fact that you did that and, since you typed it, we can presume it wasn't mere accident. As I said, there is a question about the motives, but I have already explained why I think the scummy explanation is most reasonable

There is no equivalence with SL's misplaced post point. She has made no effort to explain why her interpretation is most reasonable and has even admitted it is just conjecture on her own part:

2) If anything my vote against you stands firmly in the 'theory' zone of your scale. And I think you are very scummy for trying to represent my vote as totally disconnected from elements of this game: I have explained why I think you are being 'ungenuine' based on evidences in your play this game, and the same goes for what I describe as 'unclear perspective. Go ahead and quote me.

The only thing that can be said to be 'conjecture' in your own scale is my opinion on your misplaced post, and I take full responsibility for it

.

[vollkan]

Missed this.

As I already said, the vast majority of arguments are inductive. And yes, this entails them necessarily not being "deductively valid". You're vastly over-emphasising deductive validity.

I'm not over-emphasising deductive validity.

As my last post shows, all I am emphasising is that inductive logic has to give due consideration to competing hypotheses. It's not enough for a person to spin one narrative and run with it.

[vollkan]

EBWOP:

As my last post shows, all I am emphasising is that inductive logic has to give due consideration to competing hypotheses. It's not enough for a person to spin one narrative and run with it.

The "last post" referred to is 413 not 416

[vollkan]

As my last post shows, all I am emphasising is that inductive logic has to give due consideration to competing hypotheses. It's not enough for a person to spin one narrative and run with it.

And, as I have already said, this is inconsistent with the way you attacked me for "hedging my arguments"- you implicitly privileged your interpretation of my behaviour and refused to explain why it was superior to my alternative hypothesis that it was mistaken, impulsive behaviour.

I've let this run for long enough now, so it's time for me to quote what I actually said at the time, to demonstrate just how stupid your argument is:

]

I don't think what ortolan did was that scummy. He basically agreed with what you and vollkan said. Instead of introducing new things, which there weren't, he just went along with what you guys said.

Being a newbie is no excuse for "sheepishness". If a townie doesn't understand something, they shouldn't vote. Ortolan has the opportunity to explain himself, and we are right to demand answers.

According to Ecto, my summaries were off. Well, considering they were giant paragraphs, it's not going to be 100% on. But I think ecto's behavior in this game has shown scumminess. ort's show sheepiness.

There's a happy medium between doing a meaningless summary that gives no reasoning of your own, and going into pbp overkill. You fell well short of that medium.

vollk, I don't really believe in your clear delineation of objectivity and subjectivity

I'm not delineating objectivity and subjectivity in any philosophical sense.

What I am saying is that giving an inference with explanation is fundamentally different to saying "my gut says he is scum". Obviously, there is always subjectivity involved (eg. different people will weight things differently). The point is, though, that the reasons for suspicion should be objectively ascertainable, even if there is disagreement.

Going to spring's point as an example (BTW - I notice a typo in post 165. "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective" should read "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is

objective

"). I don't agree with her reason - her subjective weighting of one interpretation is one I don't agree with, but I can see her reasoning process.

"Gut" or "feeling" are wholly subjective. They don't refer to any reasoning process that leads to a conclusion. By definition, I cannot attack somebody's "gut" reasons, because there are no reasons. In the case of spring, however, I can see her process of thinking and, even if I do have a theory disagreement, the important point is that

there are reasons for me to disagree with

.

I suppose the litmus test for "subjective" / "objective" in the sense I am using those terms would be this:

Is the argument capable of being rebutted?

"Gut" cannot be rebutted - other than by pointing out the stupidity of relying on gut in this game from a policy perspective. Spring's style of reasoning can. I'll do it now:
@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

I have acknowledged there was insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I no longer see sufficient reasons for voting for him. Why, then, would I try to convince you of something I don't believe? That itself would be illogical and hardly town-ish. I had insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I have acknowledged this. Also, how can you possibly try to characterise my withdrawn vote as "slinking away and hoping no-one notices"? I openly drew attention to the fact that when I withdrew my vote it would likely simply lead to more suspicion placed on me, as it did in another game.

Ha! Nice try.
Let's have a looksie over what you actually said post-vote:

...
I believe there is a mild case against him, but that this case is stronger than the one against SpyreX
...
To support, this I started that all it had given me were various hypotheses, none of which have particularly more support than any other (but obviously, I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer). ..

From the get-go, you are hedging your arguments.

If my post expressed this (that I had gleaned little), then this was partly the point. It also hardly seems contentless to me- it contains a vote for Ectomancer based on orangepenguin/spyrex's arguments, and it asks springlullaby for an explanation.

You are explicitly acknowledging here that your vote had a basis in their arguments.

I'll be honest. I did read through the theory discussion before. Now I've had to read some of it again in order to express why exactly I'm voting for Ectomancer. Can I firstly take a leaf out of his book and go with "whatever argument you make use of, it's still ultimately coming from your gut instinct". I cite springlullaby's last post (144) as an example of this- her 2 points against me are basically entirely subjective: one is putting an additional question at the end of my post after voting, and the second is deferring to others' reasoning- if no-one agreed with anyone else in this game I don't see it going very far.

I also acknowledge the case against Ectomancer isn't particularly strong. It's possible he is townie and just likes indulging in lengthy theory discussions mid-game. I also see it as quite viable, however, that, as mafia, he tried to jump on you for the self-vote (as can often be done successfully in other games) then realised after your rebuttal that no-one else would support it, was drawn into a deep discussion of why he had reacted against it, and whether that sort of thing is good or bad in general (a discussion which he tried to curtail in post 99).

My other reason is simply I have a slight leaning towards him over SpyreX, again call it gut if you will. Thus I wanted to tip him into the more likely to be lynched category.

It's ironic that, as a side effect of extremely lengthy theory discussions to get "reads" on people, I find the progression of argument too convoluted for it to serve this purpose, and am forced to regress, in a way, to gut instincts.

Again, you hedge things. The bolded is interesting though. I don't see why his position to Spyrex is at all meaningful. The question is whether he is scummy enough to justify a vote - and you seem to think that merely being scummier than Spyrex (relatively, not absolutely) somehow warrants, as you say, tipping him "into the more likely to be lynched category".

Unvote

Ok. I acknowledge the case isn't strong enough to keep a vote on him. Unfortunately this will probably just bring me under further suspicion as past experience has dictated. I blame your gambit, Vollk.

Then, once everything about your vote has collapsed, you drop off.

What's my point - it's slinking away for the simple fact that you never justified yourself in the first place and from the start you were under-cutting yourself (if you don't appear convinced, you don't have to justify yourself? Right? ) It's like - you are going to vote and be unaccountable and then, once you get caught out, you simply dodge accountability by saying that you were all wrong from the start.

On the possibility that you are just a confused newbie - unfortunately, this is a real possibility. What runs against this is the fact that you have articulate and long posts. Your posts show you are clearly a reasonably clever guy, which makes it less likely you are just a dazed newbie. I am watching this closely, though, but you just don't seem to fit the newbie paradigm.

Well actually, I did already back down. Which in fact makes this whole point moot (straw man, etc.)

If you paid any attention to me, you would see I was addressing a post before you did so. It still responded to what you said and, thus, is still relevant. Not a strawman - so don't try and sling mud that way.

That seems a pretty subjective claim to me again. For example, do you mean pro-town content i.e. content that is more likely to help town and turn up scum, or just content. I don't see how we're going to find out whether this discussion was in fact helpful for town until at least the end of this day (when we'll find out whether the lynch that stemmed from this discussion was a townie or scum), and probably not until even later than that, so I'll hold my judgement until then.

It's not a subjective claim. This game has, if you compare it many others, a high level of proper arguments and so on. I don't mean that it all is pro-town - absent prior knowledge, that's impossible to tell.

You seem oblivious to the potential irony of this. You're exactly the sort of person who, as scum, would fill this category.

Yeah, exactly. In all seriousness, it's a very effective scum strategy. Hence, why people should be made to give reasons. It stops scum doing to impressive posting ploy, and it also stops scum doing the "I agree with Jones. Vote: Mr X" move.

Please justify why you are equivocating "paying no attention" with "playing scummy" (implied by your vote on me). I see no reason why scum would pay any less attention than town.

Simple.

Scum win the game by killing off townies. Right? Ergo, they have no inherent need to pay attention - other than for the purpose of appearing to be paying attention if they think doing so will be needed to cover their arse. Town, in contrast, win by killing off the scum. Since town don't know who the baddies are, they need persuasion of scumminess. It therefore makes no sense for a townie to vote without understanding why.

Vollkan, simple question. Were you, or were you not intending to spur conversation when you made your self-vote?

Yes. The whole point was to spark debate.

You are stuck on this "onus of proof". What need of proof do I have to question you about the move you made to invoke questioning about the move?
Never going to agree with you over this.

Alright, conversation should ideally have run like this:

Antagonist:

Vollkan, why would you self-vote?

Vollkan:

My post 26 - which said "why do I need to justify it?" and thatmy purpose was "to stir the pot. People have a tendency to leap onto it with presumptions and prejudices "

Antagonist:

Self-voting requires justification because it causes <something> which is bad for the town because <reason>.

See, I even allow for a prejudiced Antagonist, but one that has some explanation for why self-voting is bad but whom also accepts that whatever reason they had doesn't work.

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

Moreover, it is not an automatic requirement that people explain the assumptions under things unless requested. I mean, take contradictions for an example. When you and SL have accused me of being contradictory in my behaviour, I never once bothered asking "why is a contradiction scummy?". The important thing is that you can give the explanation when asked.

Let the record show that tut of that entire piece I wrote repudiating Orto and SL's craplogic, Orto only addressed the bit about hedging.

That was all I needed to do to refute your argument, because your response hinged on your incorrect claim that it was an objective fact that I was "hedging my arguments". In fact it was still your interpretation, because it implies I tried deliberately to pre-empt accusations of my case being wrong by distancing myself from it. This is simply not an objective fact- I know that this wasn't my intention in writing the post. Thus you are still open to the drawing of an equivalence between your interpretation of my vote on Ecto and sl's interpretation of your misplaced post.[/quote]

First up, I'd like to draw an analogy with contract law. When a contractual dispute is being resolved - when the court tries to resolve the meaning of the contract - the lawyers and judges don't ask themselves "What did Party X want when she asked for this clause?". Instead, you determine the intention of the parties based on what is manifest in the contract. Because it is impossible to know what is in Party X's head, you judge subjective intention objectively.

Now, it is a clear fact that your post contained a number of phrases which indicated a lack of commitment to your own argument. That means your arguments were hedged - it doesn't matter what your intention was. I don't

know

what your intention was; only you do. Of course, your intention is very relevant in judging scumminess, and I have already explained why I think a scummy explanation is the most reasonable

[vollkan]

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

Even when you first made this point it was only ever a false dichotomy- that either I must be a confused newbie or scum. By assuming this you then went on to argue that I was unlikely to fall into the former category due to your interpretation of my posts as intelligent. However this ignores that there was no evidence I had to be in one or the other of these categories to begin with. For the record; at the time I was: new to the game- yes, confused- somewhat, making intelligent posts- subjective. You didn't consider that I could make seemingly intelligent posts while being new to the game and somewhat confused. By reducing interpretations of my behaviour to a simple binary choice you were able to place me under suspicion.

No, it wasn't a false dichotomy. As I just said:

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

There's no false dichotomy. I was giving you a greater degree of tolerance for error than I would give to an experienced player, for whom I wouldn't consider the prospect of dazed newbie. In the same way that you proceed with a presumption that contradiction is scummy because no reasonable townie would do it, I proceeded with a presumption that no reasonable townie would hedge, but I had to explicitly address the prospect of you not being a reasonable townie (ie. being a dazed newbie).

There is, therefore, no false dichotomy. I explicitly considered scumminess and newbie error, and I have been able to explain my assumption against reasonable error on request.

As I have already said, phrases such as "a lack of commitment to your own argument" and "your arguments were hedged" are loaded phrases.

If I was to say "Ecto seems the most scummy, I'm not sure about him but enough to warrant a vote" is this "a lack of commitment to my own argument"? No, because my argument is only that he has acted the most scummy and thus warrants a vote, not that he definitively is scummy. You're importing your own prejudices about what a vote signifies by saying otherwise.

Again with the phrase "hedging your arguments"- this to me strongly implies a *deliberate* act, which I dispute it was- it may have had the effect of looking to others as though I was trying to justify why I may be voting for a townie- but this is just an interpretation based on the circumstances. So again, I deny that it is an objective fact that I "hedged my arguments".

If you said "Ecto seems the most scummy, I'm not sure about him but enough to warrant a vote", then that does show a lack of commitment and hedging. The hedging is deliberate for the simple fact you typed it. You deliberately downplayed your argument's strength - you deliberately hedged.

It doesn't necessarily follow that you did so for scummy reasons, of course, but it's not a question of what you actually did in your own mind, but of what the rest of us can see and what is reasonable.

Dear Vollkan, the energy you put into arguing unarguable grounds that may sounds pretty on paper but are indeed very far removed from mafia reality is amazing, and I think quite scummy because I think you do have the pragmatic experience to know that you are spewing BS.

Everything I have said I firmly believe and you need only look at my meta to see that the views I express are my own.

Please do show me one case in the entire mafia history that couldn't be explained 'reasonably' away, especially on day 1.

Then I'll show you any number of instances where a case is spot on despite being possibly 'reasonably' explained away.

You see, any scum worth his money knows to thrive within the confines of reasonableness, and I do not believer for one second that you can be oblivious to that fact.

Mafia is about perspective, and finding the right one in a sea of possibilities that are all equally uncertain. The reason of this uncertainty is because there isn't a standard for scum action that you can 'objectively' check people's action against to determine what is scummy or not. What is left is hypothesis, and agreement or lack thereof upon them.

Yes, SL. You are completely correct that scum can and do exploit reasonableness. That's precisely because we don't have quantitative probabilities to evaluate actions against.

What's your point?

I've never made any pretence that my theory is a foolproof method of catching scum. My argument has simply been that my objective play theory is better for town than subjective play theory.

That said I'm still sold on Vollkan. I think my original arguments stands true

They don't.

and I also urge people to reread our argument, because I think there is backpedalling on Vollkan part (specifically on my 'contradiction' thing),

Could you elaborate?

I also think that his manner of responding first appeasing-ly to my case then going full steam for 'I'm so scummy for it' is scummy.

If my attitude changed, it was only because I found fault in your arguments. I can't see why or how that is scummy.

Plus, his latching on my 'misplaced' post argument and trying to represent all my arguments as equivalent is what I would expect scum to do.

I've used the misplaced post as an example, because it's the only one of your arguments that isn't couched in some highfalutin abstract concept like "unclear perspective". Your arguments are all equivalent because they all boil down to conspiracy.

@Volk:

At this point, do you think OP and Ort are scum that claimed masons?

If they hadn't claimed by now, I'd definitely be calling for them to be strung up - which makes this a bizarre situation. Two scum claiming mason together D1 is a huge gambit. I don't think it's absurd, by any means, but I think it unlikely.

At this stage, I think they are more likely to be scum than an "average claimed mason", but because of their claimed status I think it is less likely they are scum than the "average player" - if that makes sense.

[vollkan]

from post 403

post 403. Explicit agreement is problematic, because you have no way to tell the person you agree with isn´t scum. You should make up your own mind.

The fact that somebody could be scum shouldn't stop you expressly agreeing with them if you think they are in the right. You still have to "make up your own mind", insofar as you have to decide whether you agree with them.

post 404. Personally I don't know what the whole discussion on deductive vs inductive logic is, and it seems a lot like theory discusion, so I don't care.
I think vollkan is right in the part where orto accuses him of double standarts. There is nothing wrong with a story that explains what happened, you only got to prove that story is the most likely.

The inductive/deductive thing was pointless. It was just a lot of noise from Orto that obfuscated the simple point about having to prove which story is correct.

post 406. This was a pretty obvious softclaim, wasn't it? But you didn't think logically about it, because you had to follow your policy, isn't it vollkan?

As I have said, the softclaim obviously meant 'mason', but softclaims by their very nature are ambiguous. It is by no means unusual for people to hyperbolise and say "X is so townie" or "I know X is town". Thus, my policy is to ignore a softclaim and hope the person drops the matter and only claims at an appropriate time (ie.. claims should be a sort of "any last words" thing, not a "I'm a Doc, leave me alone" thing)

post 413. Vollkan, there is no need to insult orto. Or you are town and you are going to argue every point with him, or you are scum that tries to do the same, because he wants to look town, but this is not the way. But you still posted it, so it has a function. I think I know how to translate it: You are wrong, because you are dumb, I don't have to argue with you.

I argue every point regardless of my alignment. I'm an argumentative person in real life, too.

And the attacks aren't ad hominem fallacy. They just stem from my frustration at what is an unending torrent of silly arguments from Orto (and I am entitled to use the word 'silly', because thus far there hasn't been a single point that I haven't rebutted. He just keeps jumping from point to point.)

I really don't know what to think about you vollkan. One moment you can make clear why something is right or wrong, the other moment you go to subjective argument, like you have no better. And all the theory discusion, is it really helping? From all your posts, I really have to search for the important points, because there is so much that is close to irrelevant. Is that a strategy?

I haven't made a single subjective argument. If you mean the gut thing, and you don't want to wade through my posts, I made no claim about Ixfij's alignment from my gut. I simply stated that I felt something odd, and I was clear that I don't take that as indicating anything objective about him.

The theory discussion is important. Though, I admit my writing style is very dense. It's not an alignment-based strategy (brief glance over my meta will confirm this beyond a shred of doubt); it's just a personal quirk.

[vollkan]

Ok, my current one is Mykonian. The simple gist of it is that he has had a remarkable 180 degree turnaround on SL with regards to his early attacks, followed by his recent vehement defense. Nothing in game seems to be the source of this new direction, therefore ulterior motives are suspected.

Who else's name do we toss in the hat and why?

Did you have any more specific ideas as to what ulterior motive might exist for such a change in position, or is the simple fact of a "broken pattern" as you called it?

This is not at all convincing. You've been so keen to analyse and deconstruct everything this game except the only occurence so far that is actually relevant to game content (a mason claim).

What's not to understand?

I think soft claims are bad and ambiguous, therefore I ignore potential softclaims
I think premature claims are bad, therefore I don't inquire for a "confirm or deny" of any softclaims.

actually, as I already stated, your play this game is not consistent with what I've observed of your meta. Actually, wait, there was one other game where you played just as arrogantly (refused to claim at L-1 etc.). You were lynched and flipped scum.

You brought this up earlier. I address it with these questions, which I don't think you ever answered:

Firstly, what games are you comparing with?

Secondly, the conclusion you draw - that my posts are typically shorter than they are here - really couldn't be further from the truth. My reputation generally is for enormously long posts. And, not infrequently, this does draw the criticism that I hide behind walls of text as a shield. Not true - I am just naturally verbose.

Thirdly, if you find it hard understand what I am saying, that doesn't in any way justify drawing a conclusion of scumminess, yet alone a conclusion that I am deliberately hazing.

And I know which game you are referring to. I'd say, simply, that my play there was by no means an aberration from the norm of my play. It's meaningless other than as confirmation that I try to keep a consistent style.

I'm happy to put my head out to prove how ridiculous and un-town-motivated vollkan's attempt to turn on a claimed mason is

What do you mean by "turn on a claimed mason"?

In pre-emption: If you mean that I have argued stridently against you, so what?

[vollkan]

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

Wait, what? Are you saying that it doesn't matter if her perspective is inductive or deductive, we should just view it as inductive because it makes her look scummy? If inductive vs deductive is irrelevant, why do you mention inductiveness right after explaining the irrelevance?

Orto's argument was that SL's logic was valid inductive reasoning, and that I was over-prioritising deductive reasoning. I thought this distinction was irrelevant because of the point I made about needing to disprove the validity of counter-hypotheses.

I asked Orto to explain himself to see how he could manage to argue for the validity of SL's reasoning despite her arguments being conspiracy. I was reasonable certain the distinction was irrelevant, but I needed to see his argument to make sure.

Emotive language is only problematic if unjustified. "prejudiced" can be emotive, but in the context I am using it, it is justified. My judgment is not "subjective". I've already said that I wanted to see whether and how you would react to me saying something which I knew would provoke charges of hypocrisy from a careless or judgmental observer, into which category I predicted you would fall.

Appeal to self-authority. In fact, I'm seeing a ton of implicit semi-gambits that you're playing in order to view a reaction. I'm quite curious about this. You take issue to the unspoken aspect of mafia as you say here:

I didn't *want* to imply anything; I've already been clear about that. I was just saying the way I felt. Maybe someone else felt similarly; maybe the day would end and it could serve as a note to myself or another; maybe it would set in motion a train of discussion about Ixfiij. I don't know. Enough with your bullshit conspiracies about my intentions. It's as though you won't be satisfied unless I specifically give some specific outcome that I sought. If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

But then go ahead and leave numerous implications and contradictions in your posts for the sole purpose of "drawing a reaction" In fact, your self-vote, which we're criticizing Spring for was also to "draw a reaction." I've got no issue against scumhunting, and if this "reaction-drawing" is a primary method that you use, then would you please make that explicit now? As it is, you're using a ton of good logic, but then throwing in bits and pieces of personal opinion which go against your logic.

I see no tension between insisting on objective play and also doing reaction-stirring.

It isn't a "primary" method of scumhunting of mine (insofar as I don't always use it), but it is definitely one I have a history of using.

///The following isn't necessary to read to understand me - I say this because people are complaining about my verbosity - but I give it as substantiation of my history of reaction-gathering //

See Mini 495 an example. To give the necessary background: I was town, shaft.ed was town, Korlash (who replaced Oman) was scum, AlyG was a tracker (and had claimed at the time of my trap), and Orig was a vig (he had claimed by virtue of being outed by AlyG, who tracked his NK and thought he might be scum)

Now, in that context I made this suggestion:

One possibility would be to lynch AlyG.
If AlyG comes up mafia, we pretty much know that Orig is mafia also. If that happens, we know we have a SK and I would be willing to bank very strongly on it being Dybeck.

(The SK bit is known because there were two nightkills, so if Orig was mafia there must have been a SK - not a vig since no counter-claim)

Now, the above quote was complete BS by me. The very idea of lynching a claimed tracker to prove that he wasn't mafia is stupid. That was not, however, how Oman (who, I stress, was scum reacted):

Dybeck is choice #1 for a lynch, but AlyG could help us confirm Orig mafia if(when:lol:) AlyG comes up mafia.

Then we're left at...something:1:1 (Didn't do the math) In a WCS
Yeah, I reckon either AlyG or Dybeck.

Shaft.ed, who was town, rightly rejected the idea, but Oman took the bait. It didn't result in his autolynch, due to other factors and suspicions, but it haunted him and Korlash throughout.

I think it instructive, in the context of this game, to have a look at Korlash's attitude to my trap:

I raised the option of an AlyG lynch, as I said, to see what people though. By that, of course, I meant that I was interested to see who supported it. Again, shaft.ed, you have taken the pro-town option, whereas Oman has, again, supported something on a dodgy basis. I have done this also, which was why I raised the AlyG thing, to see the extent of what Oman would support.

HELLO? OTHER TOWN PLAYERS? HOW CAN YOU HAVE COMPLETLY OVERLOOKED THIS?

*cries blood*

1) How can the excuse "I voted player X just to see who would also vote him! Actually voting him is scummy! So lets lynch the person who agreed with me!" fly... How come Volkan is still alive? Why did this last an additional ... 20 odd pages... ???!?!?!?! Is there a logical answer later on? Did I miss something? What?

2 Now I'm not saying the excuse "I want to see how fast someone would bandwagon" or "I want to see how fast someone would switch votes" or something similar means anything bad, I'm saying the excuse Volkan used in this post seems like something a scum would say to throw a "Bandwagon" he started onto the shoulder's of someone else... It seems like either a frame up, or a cover up...

3 Also a bit more of that Shaft.ed is town stuff from Volkan... still not anything plausible, but seeing a pattern over and over is something I like to run with...

In this game I didn't even go quite so far with my trap, because I didn't advocate something anti-town or say anything untrue.

An even more extreme example is Mini 486. This game had an unusual setup. Mod confirmed at the start that "There are 3x mafia, 3x masons that win with the town, and 1x day-vig that can be a mafia, mason or townie." I had the fortune of being a dayvig-mason. On D1, a very bad wagon occurred - a player named Nelly632 self-voted (just after random stage) and got put to L-1 for it. It wouldn't surprise any of you to learn that I didn't like the wagon at all. So, I took a big gambit. I prematurely claimed one-shot dayvig (Not vigmason, in the hope that it would save my life by making me an unattractive kill target), influenced largely by the fact that I feared being NKed. Anyway, I started toying with Oman (Oman again ) and proposed a BS dayvig shortlist (risky, given that the mod had confirmed the possibility of a scum-vig). He took the bait and got dayvigged. He was scum.
////////////////////////////////////////////

Trapping doesn't at all go against my principles of logic. In the examples above, I work out what scum would likely do in response to certain conduct, and then proceed to test people. In this case, my test confirmed my suspicion of Orto's prejudice. At the very least, he wasn't looking at me in a detached manner. In both the examples I give above, my actions were such as to place myself at risk and, in that sense, were anti-town. But it all comes back to risk v reward - I expected good odds of a return for taking a risk so I was willing to gamble a bit.

Basically, for those on the go

: the standard pattern of my reasoning is to look at somebody's action and then evaluate whether it is reasonably scummy. The trap pattern is simply a reversed version of this, in that I work out what a reasonably scummy response to conduct would be and then proceed to commit that conduct in order to see whether the action occurs.

In fact, I think I see what Spring meant by unclear perspective, but I think she worded it wrongly. You're hedging your cases inside each other. You're making your case based on strong logic and contradictions in others' statements. But when you put forth your own opinion, or interpret your arguments, you're leaving a rather large gap and putting your foot in your mouth so to speak. Your perspective is very clear when you offer it. However, your perspective tends to not follow the case you line up.

I frankly don't understand this at all.

Maybe I answered it above. Otherwise, could you give an example or something? (As you should have anyway).

Vollkan: your issue is in your interpretations vs your arguments. Your arguments are solid, your interpretations and opinions are not reflective of said arguments. This is a seeming contradiction. Also, your excessive use of gambits intended to draw a reaction is slightly worrysome, and I'd like you to be explicit here and state if this is what you have been and plan to do for the rest of the game.

What do you mean by "interprations and opinions".

As for the gambitting, see above. I have been gambitting (self-vote and the gut comments) and I will continue to do so if I see an opening.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: Just to make my preceding post clear, this:

///The following isn't necessary to read to understand me - I say this because people are complaining about my verbosity - but I give it as substantiation of my history of reaction-gathering //

applies to everything written up until this:

////////////////////////////////////////////

[vollkan]

I made my case, if I were better town I would do a nice summary in one post, but I'm not and you will have to go over from my original vote, and argument with Vollkan. At this point I can't imagine town Vollkan, all his votes and especially the one on me is so stiff, I don't think it's real. If someone want me to answer further something he brought up, I'll do.

This is ridiculous.

SL cast a vote for me based on vague, unfalsifiable assertions. I argued extensively with her and Orto and, frankly, I don't think they have a single leg to stand on.

For her now to say that people should just read over the debate is absurd given how long things ran for.

[vollkan]

I don't want to get modkilled so can someone give me a rough idea of what's generally considered "acceptable" paraphrasing

I am assuming you mean in the context of role PMs.

Okay, say your role PM was

You are a mason, along with Mr. X. Each night you and your partner may communicate via PM.

Both you and your partner win when all threats to the town are eliminated

It would be unacceptable to write:

I am a mason, along with Mr. X. Each night, my partner and I may communicate via PM.

My partner and I win when all threats to the town are eliminated

But (and this is only going by what I would allow as a mod, and I don't pretend to be authority on this), I imagine this would be acceptable:

I a mason with Mr. X. I can talk with my partner each night via PM. We are both pro-town

The main issue is making sure you don't include anything which could potentially lead to the mod being identified as an author. The role PMs I made up used the common "Role. Details. Win condition" structure, which is acceptable for paraphrasing given its ubiquity. If there was a more peculiar structure, it would be inappropriate to use it in "paraphrasing", because it might confirm your claimed role.

I'd be inclined to always check with the mod before attempting any paraphrasing (as in, PM the mod a planned paraphrasing) - it just saves a lot of trouble.

[vollkan]

don't worry I'm still going to reply to vollkan's latest and possibly previous post when I can muster the energy, but solely on the earlier meta point (which is probably more useful than merely responding to your latest crappy arguments), I didn't think we were allowed to reference ongoing games, so was loathe to refer to specific games (the one in which you were lynched and flipped scum was an exception as clearly your alignment was already revealed)

Huh? Neither of the games I referred to is ongoing.

And it's generally alright to refer to an ongoing game, provided you don't provide comment on what occurred within it. I'm not sure what rage's policy is (which is why I am not going to refer to it), but saying "In ongoing game ### vollkan was scum and did X" doesn't have any real dangers.

[vollkan]

I hope you weren't waiting for a modkill SL...

What do you mean?

[vollkan]

Just an interesting meta exchange I came across whilst reading California Trilogy - Going to San Francisco a game where I was lynched as town. A bit of "food for thought" shall we say:

I don't like your analysis of me. It doesn't look genuine.

Thankyou for giving me your conclusion. Now give me the reasons which led you to it.

Same attack as I have received here, and I have the same attitude to it.

[vollkan]

Here you're suggesting in one game you "trapped" another player due to you being a dayvig (btw I don't even understand what actually happened in the other game from the way you described it) and he took your bait and flipped scum. That's all well and good. Except you draw an analogy with this game, where you said you had a bad gut-reading on mrfixij and acknowledged it was an opinion with no basis, having previously said you loathe opinions given with no basis. You claim (wrongly, in my opinion) that giving voice to a gut suspicion is not voicing an opinion. You then further stretch your argument to saying that by pulling you up on this, this proves I am "prejudiced". Please explain how a game where you can prove you caught a claimed scum is analogous with a game where we have no knowledge of your alignment and in which you made a subjective, weak (and in my opinion downright wrong) argument for having "caught" me being "prejudiced".

Okay, for starters, I never said that I had "gut suspicion" of mrixfij. I said I had an odd feeling about him. You must see that there is a massive distinction between suspecting somebody for gut and acknowledging a gut feeling. In the former case, the person uses their suspicion to justify an ingame action. In my case, I simply voiced a feeling (it isn't an "opinion", because I expressly repudiated that it meant anything for ixfij's alignment)

My position is simply that gut/emotion cannot serve as a basis for suspicion. Nothing I said contradicts that. I have NEVER said emotions are totally irrelevant and should not be spoken of.

As for the meta, I spent more time on 495 (the one you didn't understand) for the simple reason that it is directly relevant. I will explain that shortly, but the point I was trying to get across with that reference was my history of doing things which are somewhat disingenuous for pro-town aims. Mini 486 (the dayvig game) is less directly relevant, but the reason I quote it is to show the risks which I have run in the past in gambitting (if my gambit flopped in 486, the town would have been in deep trouble)

Here is a simplified explanation of my Mini 495 trap:

Background

AlyG (actually a tracker) claimed tracker. In doing so, AlyG said that he had tracked Originality (actually a vig) as committing the N1 nightkill of a townie named CarrotCake.

In response, Orig (stupidly) claimed vig.

Now, there were good reasons to suspect AlyG (thus the claim) and nobody was wholly convinced by the claim. We knew, however, that if AlyG was mafia, then Orig would have to be also. Think about it: If AlyG was mafia he would have no way of knowing that Orig had committed the kill unless Orig was also mafia.

My trap

Given the above, I made a trap by suggesting the lynch of AlyG:

One possibility would be to lynch AlyG.
If AlyG comes up mafia, we pretty much know that Orig is mafia also. If that happens, we know we have a SK and I would be willing to bank very strongly on it being Dybeck.

The above idea is stupid, of course. It is like saying that we should lynch Ortolan to prove that orangepenguin is not mafia. The reason I raised it was to see how people would react.

Shaft.ed, who was town and who I thought was town, responded against the idea
Oman, who was scum and who I suspected of being scum, expressed coy support for the idea by saying:

Dybeck is choice #1 for a lynch, but AlyG could help us confirm Orig mafia if(when:lol:) AlyG comes up mafia.

This I considered scummy because the idea was horrifically and very obviously anti-town.

What's the relevance?

The trap I pulled in Mini 495 is like in nature to the one here, only more extreme and more deceptive. Here, I genuinely believed what I said (odd feeling on ixfij) and wanted to express that feeling, but of course I was also majorly motivated by a desire to gather reactions.

You make use of traps in the game of mafia. That's fine, don't we all. This doesn't change the fact that your argument that you "trapped" me is entirely weak and subjective and I'm certainly not the slightest bit convinced by it. The fact you devoted so many words to describing two meta-cases which plainly aren't at all analogous with this game is suspect.

The games are analogous.

And my argument here is not weak and subjective any more than my argument that Oman was scummy for falling for my Mini 495 trap was "weak and subjective". Both you and Oman reacted in a way that didn't show a reasonable level of reflection. If you hadn't claimed mason, I would have jacked up my suspicion on you for your response to my trap, but since you have it instead becomes evidence that weren't giving me the due level of consideration.

The assumption underpinning my argument is that a reasonable townie would not have found fault in what I said. If you want to deride me as weak and subjective, critique that assumption.

I will say this one more time for your benefit. "Validity" is not a concept in inductive logic. Thus you are not refuting inductive arguments by saying they are "invalid", in fact you are saying nothing at all. You have to argue why they are not reasonable or why the weight of evidence they summon is not adequate. I don't like you arrogantly assuming my point had no basis when in fact you're still entirely wrong about your usage of the term "validity" in the context of inductive logic.

You are attacking the word "validity" in a technical sense. What I mean, and what I have attacked SL on the basis of, is her failure to demonstrate why her reasoning is more reasonable than competing hypotheses. If she doesn't do that, her logic is invalid.

You're focusing on the "validity" of inductive reasoning in a purely technical sense (as you say, "in the context of inductive logic"). What I am saying is that, in the context of this game, inductive logic is invalid if it fails to deal with competing hypotheses.

And I agree entirely entirely about your usage of the word "conspiracy"- I haven't studied law (where I assume it comes from) and it's not a term used in philosophy, which I have studied/study so have no knowledge of what it really means (and I remember googling it a while ago and still not finding a satisfactory explanation). Firstly I am skeptical of you importing this term without an explanation and I am doubly skeptical that you would attempt to dismiss sl's arguments simply be describing them as "conspiracy", assuming that it's magically obvious to everyone else how they fit this archetype of being "conspiracy". I can only assume SpyreX has studied law and instantly understands your vague usage of obscure terminology, hence continuing to lap up your posts like nectar.

Well, it isn't a legal term. (Legal conspiracy is the crime of plotting to commit a crime)

I actually defined it way back in my list of "ground rules":

8) Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.

and again much later:

Her arguments are conspiracy (premises pulled out arse to justify conclusions)

If you want a clearer and fuller definition:

Conspiracy

: An argument that somebody is scummy which either: a) Is not linked to any specific in-game actions (eg. there is no "because he did Y") or; b) Is linked to specific in-game actions, but no explanation is made as to why the most reasonable hypothesis is that the action in question is more likely to come from scum than town (eg. "

could

help scum because Z").

So, take the "ungenuine" point. This is conspiracy under category a). It doesn't take any action of mine and explain why it is scummy. Instead, it simply makes the unfalsifiable assertion that I am not being genuine which, axiomatically, presumes scumminess. There's no logical pathway to the argument from my actions.

The "misplaced post" argument is a class example of a case b). Here there is an identified action, but SL makes no effort to explain why her view is more reasonable than me being town. It weaves a nice narrative about the possibility of scum (pulling the premises out of the arse), and stops right there.

[vollkan]

Here you're suggesting in one game you "trapped" another player due to you being a dayvig (btw I don't even understand what actually happened in the other game from the way you described it) and he took your bait and flipped scum. That's all well and good. Except you draw an analogy with this game, where you said you had a bad gut-reading on mrfixij and acknowledged it was an opinion with no basis, having previously said you loathe opinions given with no basis. You claim (wrongly, in my opinion) that giving voice to a gut suspicion is not voicing an opinion. You then further stretch your argument to saying that by pulling you up on this, this proves I am "prejudiced". Please explain how a game where you can prove you caught a claimed scum is analogous with a game where we have no knowledge of your alignment and in which you made a subjective, weak (and in my opinion downright wrong) argument for having "caught" me being "prejudiced".

Okay, for starters, I never said that I had "gut suspicion" of mrixfij. I said I had an odd feeling about him. You must see that there is a massive distinction between suspecting somebody for gut and acknowledging a gut feeling. In the former case, the person uses their suspicion to justify an ingame action. In my case, I simply voiced a feeling (it isn't an "opinion", because I expressly repudiated that it meant anything for ixfij's alignment)

My position is simply that gut/emotion cannot serve as a basis for suspicion. Nothing I said contradicts that. I have NEVER said emotions are totally irrelevant and should not be spoken of.

As for the meta, I spent more time on 495 (the one you didn't understand) for the simple reason that it is directly relevant. I will explain that shortly, but the point I was trying to get across with that reference was my history of doing things which are somewhat disingenuous for pro-town aims. Mini 486 (the dayvig game) is less directly relevant, but the reason I quote it is to show the risks which I have run in the past in gambitting (if my gambit flopped in 486, the town would have been in deep trouble)

Here is a simplified explanation of my Mini 495 trap:

Background

AlyG (actually a tracker) claimed tracker. In doing so, AlyG said that he had tracked Originality (actually a vig) as committing the N1 nightkill of a townie named CarrotCake.

In response, Orig (stupidly) claimed vig.

Now, there were good reasons to suspect AlyG (thus the claim) and nobody was wholly convinced by the claim. We knew, however, that if AlyG was mafia, then Orig would have to be also. Think about it: If AlyG was mafia he would have no way of knowing that Orig had committed the kill unless Orig was also mafia.

My trap

Given the above, I made a trap by suggesting the lynch of AlyG:

One possibility would be to lynch AlyG.
If AlyG comes up mafia, we pretty much know that Orig is mafia also. If that happens, we know we have a SK and I would be willing to bank very strongly on it being Dybeck.

The above idea is stupid, of course. It is like saying that we should lynch Ortolan to prove that orangepenguin is not mafia. The reason I raised it was to see how people would react.

Shaft.ed, who was town and who I thought was town, responded against the idea
Oman, who was scum and who I suspected of being scum, expressed coy support for the idea by saying:

Dybeck is choice #1 for a lynch, but AlyG could help us confirm Orig mafia if(when:lol:) AlyG comes up mafia.

This I considered scummy because the idea was horrifically and very obviously anti-town.

What's the relevance?

The trap I pulled in Mini 495 is like in nature to the one here, only more extreme and more deceptive. Here, I genuinely believed what I said (odd feeling on ixfij) and wanted to express that feeling, but of course I was also majorly motivated by a desire to gather reactions.

You make use of traps in the game of mafia. That's fine, don't we all. This doesn't change the fact that your argument that you "trapped" me is entirely weak and subjective and I'm certainly not the slightest bit convinced by it. The fact you devoted so many words to describing two meta-cases which plainly aren't at all analogous with this game is suspect.

The games are analogous.

And my argument here is not weak and subjective any more than my argument that Oman was scummy for falling for my Mini 495 trap was "weak and subjective". Both you and Oman reacted in a way that didn't show a reasonable level of reflection. If you hadn't claimed mason, I would have jacked up my suspicion on you for your response to my trap, but since you have it instead becomes evidence that weren't giving me the due level of consideration.

The assumption underpinning my argument is that a reasonable townie would not have found fault in what I said. If you want to deride me as weak and subjective, critique that assumption.

I will say this one more time for your benefit. "Validity" is not a concept in inductive logic. Thus you are not refuting inductive arguments by saying they are "invalid", in fact you are saying nothing at all. You have to argue why they are not reasonable or why the weight of evidence they summon is not adequate. I don't like you arrogantly assuming my point had no basis when in fact you're still entirely wrong about your usage of the term "validity" in the context of inductive logic.

You are attacking the word "validity" in a technical sense. What I mean, and what I have attacked SL on the basis of, is her failure to demonstrate why her reasoning is more reasonable than competing hypotheses. If she doesn't do that, her logic is invalid.

You're focusing on the "validity" of inductive reasoning in a purely technical sense (as you say, "in the context of inductive logic"). What I am saying is that, in the context of this game, inductive logic is invalid if it fails to deal with competing hypotheses.

And I agree entirely entirely about your usage of the word "conspiracy"- I haven't studied law (where I assume it comes from) and it's not a term used in philosophy, which I have studied/study so have no knowledge of what it really means (and I remember googling it a while ago and still not finding a satisfactory explanation). Firstly I am skeptical of you importing this term without an explanation and I am doubly skeptical that you would attempt to dismiss sl's arguments simply be describing them as "conspiracy", assuming that it's magically obvious to everyone else how they fit this archetype of being "conspiracy". I can only assume SpyreX has studied law and instantly understands your vague usage of obscure terminology, hence continuing to lap up your posts like nectar.

Well, it isn't a legal term. (Legal conspiracy is the crime of plotting to commit a crime)

I actually defined it way back in my list of "ground rules":

8) Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.

and again much later:

Her arguments are conspiracy (premises pulled out arse to justify conclusions)

If you want a clearer and fuller definition:

Conspiracy

: An argument that somebody is scummy which either: a) Is not linked to any specific in-game actions (eg. there is no "because he did Y") or; b) Is linked to specific in-game actions, but no explanation is made as to why the most reasonable hypothesis is that the action in question is more likely to come from scum than town (eg. "

could

help scum because Z").

So, take the "ungenuine" point. This is conspiracy under category a). It doesn't take any action of mine and explain why it is scummy. Instead, it simply makes the unfalsifiable assertion that I am not being genuine which, axiomatically, presumes scumminess. There's no logical pathway to the argument from my actions.

The "misplaced post" argument is a class example of a case b). Here there is an identified action, but SL makes no effort to explain why her view is more reasonable than me being town. It weaves a nice narrative about the possibility of scum (pulling the premises out of the arse), and stops right there.

[vollkan]

Thank you for again explaining the success of traps in your other game. Unfortunately it is not analogous to this game because your "trap" in this game is one only in the sense that it should be encased in inverted commas and dismissed as laughable. For something to be a "trap" you need to bait someone into doing something and then show them why it was wrong. You have not convinced me in the slightest that your expressing of a bad "gut" feeling on mrfixij was consistent with your earlier disavowing of gut play, and thus you haven't "trapped" me at all. In fact even if you had it would be a ridiculously minor point- "You 'trapped' me and proved I'm 'prejudiced' because I pulled you up on something that you are subjectively arguing isn't scummy". It doesn't wash, and it's not worthy of bringing up your entire playing history on this site to give support to.

1) You say I haven't convinced you that my play was not inconsistent. As I have already said, my position as expressed earlier was that subjective gut/feeling cannot be a basis for suspicion. I have not used my gut/feeling as a basis for suspicion of ixfij. Therefore, how can you possibly say I am inconsistent?

2) The trap here is essentially the same as the Mini 495 trap - I say something, albeit genuinely here, for the purposes of eliciting reaction. You mightn't like my argument for you being prejudiced, but that's a completely separate consideration as to whether I laid a proper trap in the first place

3) I repeat myself: "The assumption underpinning my argument is that a reasonable townie would not have found fault in what I said. If you want to deride me as weak and subjective, critique that assumption."

And your point about conspiracy- concerning potentialities, and "what ifs", brings me back to the original argument concerning your hypocrisy in allowing sl's interpretation of my "dangling" point whereas not allowing sl's interpretation of your misplaced post, where the explanation for the former does not seem more plausible than the latter.

That's not actually true.

What I said on the "dangling" point was:

Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

Above, I make the very same point about competing hypotheses (other reasonable inferences exist; the relevant question is "which is most reasonable?")
And in my next post I asked her:

@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

And I did later refer to this in justification of my vote for her:

Orto's rebuttal was wrong - her points here were not purely subjective. That said, she never did explain at all why the "dangling question" was a scumtell (Why is X scummy for Y?). Same goes for the second point; she draws an inference of shirking responsibility. That said, however, neither of these is a compelling argument at all; they both make large assumptions which, whilst objectively explained, aren't supported enough by evidence to carry a vote.

The reason I went back to this vote is that I think we can see a rather clear tendency here. Coming to my point about assumptions underpinning arguments. What we see is that even where SL's logic is impeccable (Objectively speaking, I could very well have quoted "the post" for the reasons she supposes), her assumptions are not (ie. mistake is a more reasonable explanation in the case of a mispost). Her arguments on "genuineness", however, fall into a different category, since they don't construct an argument stemming from anything specific in my play. They fail for being unfalsifiable gut assertions.

Unvote (if I am), Vote: SL

[vollkan]

Glad to see you didn't contest point 1), on my adhering to the law of non-contradiction.

No it isn't, you haven't been able to prove that your intention in making the comment about mrfixij was to "trap" me, you have merely made the post-hoc justification of "oh yes, haha, it was a trap!" It's exactly the same as if I said I had baited you into attacking me as a mason and then revealed myself as a mason to show you must be scummy. Actually that's not true, the latter case of a mason is actually verifiable (as was the case where you were a town-vig) whereas all we have to go on is your crappy smart-arse, after-the-event suggestion that your comment was a "trap". Furthermore even if you intended it as a "trap", it proved nothing. So I really suggest you stop going on about it, it only makes you look as though you're defending a baseless position for the sake of it

Proof of intention is impossible. You're setting up an impossible onus upon me if that's what you seek.

I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?

This argument is extremely crappy. There is much variety in mafia, I'm sure there are extremely well-respected players who rely on gut, make impulsive moves and often appear scummy as town even in the process of turning over countless scum (in my experience already the "best players" are a totally separate category from "least likely to be wrongly lynched". I'm sure there are much more skilled players than you, who, in some instances you would be capable of portraying as scum when they were in fact town. The whole notion of a "reasonable townie", especially in the way you've applied it, is really so loaded as to be useless.

Just because there is diversity in playstyles doesn't make the concept useless. The lynch of townies is unavoidable because townie can, and do, act unreasonably - even the best. The notion of a "reasonable townie" shouldn't be understood as a concrete concept. It's content can and should be debated. My argument is that there was no contradiction in my post, and that a contradiction would most likely only have been found by somebody that was uncritically reading me and leaped on the mere fact that I mentioned my gut.

Apparently all this amounts to is us disagreeing over the interpretation of "subjective". I meant subjective in that she was privileging her interpretation of my dangling "point" over any alternative perspectives, without any justification (which would be a scumtell, contrary to what you say, because it implies I deliberately misrepresented her, which is rather scummy in and of itself).

Uh...I agree with you here. As my question implied, she hadn't explained her interpretation over other perspectives. Her interpretation was most certainly subjective. As I said:

Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective. You (and Ecto ) need to understand that there is a difference between drawing an inference and gut. Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

Note, also:

(BTW - I notice a typo in post 165. "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective" should read "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is objective").

(I quote the previous recognition of the typo so that you don't accuse me of changing my story now, even though the typo is obvious just from my use of the thre phrase "but the reason given", which implies a difference)

What I mean is that her reasoning is objective insofar as she has specfically based it on something you have done. It falls apart for subjectivity at the broader level, though, because she doesn't consider competing theories

[quote="Orto]
You have a semantic disagreement that her interpretation was "objective", but no more likely than any other. You implied her privileging this interpretation was justified, but not her privileging of her interpretation of your misplaced post, which you applied stunningly different criterion to- she suddenly had to prove that her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid than any other. I don't see why this point is so hard for you to concede.
[/quote]

That's wrong.

For the umpteenth time, I said:

Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

And I asked her:

@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

I did NOT imply I thought she was justified at all; quite the contrary. I explicitly said I don't agree with her, and I specifically questioned her on the point.

[vollkan]

Just an interesting meta exchange I came across whilst reading California Trilogy - Going to San Francisco a game where I was lynched as town. A bit of "food for thought" shall we say:

I don't like your analysis of me. It doesn't look genuine.

Thankyou for giving me your conclusion. Now give me the reasons which led you to it.

Same attack as I have received here, and I have the same attitude to it.

This is interesting, tell me who are you trying to convince here? And of what exactly?

Well, Xtoxm was town in that game, so it isn't meta evidence for your actions being scummy. I cite it only because I have received the same complaint before, suggesting it might just be something in my playstyle.

I agree with orto in the trap business. This proves nothing. It never could. Just from your starting play you should have known people could react like that Vollkan. The amount of traps you have made in other games doesn't change a thing in that.

Just two hypothesis:

a you are town, tried to trap scum in a slightly weak trap, and you cought a mason. Bad luck.

b you are scum. You tried to open your possibilities in case there came more votes on mrfix, and you expressed your direction. On the moment you get attacked for that by a confirmed person, you say: "hehe, it was a trap".

I personally think b more likely, as it assumes quite good play, while the first assumes not looking at the possible reactions on your "trap", or simply throwing a trap in, without knowing what will happen, without having thought about it.

While the action of mentioning your gut wasn't scummy on itself, your explanation just seems off.

Well, I disagree with you, but I'll say first up that I am pleased to see an argument in precisely the format I like

Now, the first point I take issue with is that I "should have known people could react like that". Certainly, I knew that people could react like it. The question was "Would a 'reasonable townie' attack me for it?" There was very clearly no contradiction in what I said. The express repudiation I made of it having any bearing on the game only bolstered this. Attacking me for the post would have depended upon drawing a false equivalence between using gut as a justification as using gut as a "pointer".

Also, your hypothesis a) suffers from the minor problem that I did, in fact, expressly consider the chance of "catching" Orto as most likely. As I said in my immediate justification of the trap (a post which I have really just been having to repeat again and again):

1) Nothing I have ever said is against the viability of gut as an indicator of "maybe you should read up on this person", which is precisely what I said. There is nothing wrong with me saying that I have a funny feeling, provided I don't use it to back up a declaration of suspicion or a vote. And, in fact, I specifically stressed that I don't consider Ixfij scummy simply because of the feeling.

2) To see who would jump on this as an apparent contradiction. Would it surprise you if I said that you were my first guess?

3) To make a point. Rather than saying "I think Ixfij seems odd, so he is therefore scummy", I have said "I think ixfij seems odd, so I need to reread him more closely". This is precisely the distinction between objective reasons and subjective feelings.

It wasn't aimed squarely at Orto - others might have jumped on and I would have found them scummy - but I figured it most likely would be Orto.

I'd spoken of my concern about Orto possibly being prejudiced, so backing up my theory was a legitimate aim for me.

The trouble with b) is more significant. I have been so rabidly anti-gut here and abroad that there is no way that this would be a viable ploy for vollkan-scum. Saying "I have a gut feeling on ixfij" might work for other players but, in light of my meta, it would be a very stupid town that would let vollkan-scum get away with voting or even declaring suspicion for ixfij unless he presented a case to his usual standard.

So, I really disagree with your conclusions. B) assumes that I would play in total ignorance of the implications of my meta, and you've all seen the extent to which I make use of my meta in argument. I don't see where you get off saying that a) depends on me not thinking about possible reactions or consequences. I've already outlined what I expected to happen.

I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?

That means it's a crap trap, was pointless and it's suspicious you even brought up. See for example the comparison case of a mason who baits votes onto himself then _can_ prove his alignment to attempt to find scum who voted for him. Contrast this with a vanilla townie who can't spring the trap by claiming mason- they have to get lynched. Contrast this further with you who can never prove your trap worked regardless of whether you flip town or scum, because you can never prove what your intentions were in leaving that

inconsistency

(re: mrfixij) in your post.

(NB: You don't have the right to call it an inconsistency since I rebutted you on this)

Now, this leads right into the Mini 495 trap and the Mini 486 traps. In both cases, I was unconfirmed (remember, in Mini 486 there was the prospect of a scum-vig. I was just lucky that by killing Oman I prevented any possible suspicion; imagine what would have happened if I had bulldozed a townie in that way). In Mini 495, where I was a vanilla, I had no way of proving that I wasn't actually suggesting the lynch of AlyG - it was quite open to the others to run that idea.

Interestingly, the question you are asking here is exactly what Korlash (scum) asked me in Mini 495:

1) How can the excuse "I voted player X just to see who would also vote him! Actually voting him is scummy! So lets lynch the person who agreed with me!" fly... How come Volkan is still alive? Why did this last an additional ... 20 odd pages... ???!?!?!?! Is there a logical answer later on? Did I miss something? What?

Korlash leaps onto the fact that I am only justifying myself with "it was a trap" (he even throws in a charge of hypocrisy, because that trap involved me attacking somebody who agreed with my trap post)

Anyway, I can never prove my intentions to you. As I argued above, the scummy interpretation proffered by Myk doesn't compare with the trap explanation. My actions really do make most sense as a trap.

Yes, proof of your intention is impossible, that's why it was stupid to ever claim it was a trap. Contrast with the above case of for example the mason or even the vanilla townie who ultimately does have something that can prove their intention.

But why does there need to be something to "prove" intention? I had no proof of the sort in Mini 495.

I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?

It goes to my argument of you clutching at straws and being opportunistic which makes you more likely to be scum in my eyes.

Clutching at straws, how? Being opportunistic, how? Nice words, but you don't link them to anything.

Just because there is diversity in playstyles doesn't make the concept useless. The lynch of townies is unavoidable because townie can, and do, act unreasonably - even the best. The notion of a "reasonable townie" shouldn't be understood as a concrete concept. It's content can and should be debated. My argument is that there was no contradiction in my post, and that a contradiction would most likely only have been found by somebody that was uncritically reading me and leaped on the mere fact that I mentioned my gut.

Well your initial arguments clearly did not take account of, or deliberately ignored, these subtleties. You stated that my crappy vote on Ecto *must* be due to either me being scum or me being new, and left no potential for me to lie in-between. You argued I was unlikely to be new because some of my posts seemed intelligent, and concluded from this that I was scum. Yet now you acknowledge that what a "reasonable townie" is and what "aberrant play" is are indeed extremely subjective, which leads me to wonder why you felt you had such a concrete basis for your vote on me in the first place.

You're dredging this up

again

? . You have already made me repeat myself once on this point about me setting up a dichotomy of newb or scum. I'm just going to quote those two other posts, because I am getting tired of repeating myself.

Before that, just a brief word on your newest idea - that the "reasonable townie" concept is subjective. You're conflating "not set in stone" with "subjective", and the two are distinct. Play practices can and do vary over time and between sites; what is reasonable here may not be reasonable on MTGS. If I could give a defintion, consider the idea that a "reasonable townie" is a townie who is consciously playing in pursuit of hsi or her win condition - that means there is an expectation of impartial analysis, but some allowance for the possibility of error. It's to be objectively understood - as in, taking the Mini 495 trap, "Why might town-vollkan, acting reasonably, have made such an atrocious post?"

As my last post shows, all I am emphasising is that inductive logic has to give due consideration to competing hypotheses. It's not enough for a person to spin one narrative and run with it.

And, as I have already said, this is inconsistent with the way you attacked me for "hedging my arguments"- you implicitly privileged your interpretation of my behaviour and refused to explain why it was superior to my alternative hypothesis that it was mistaken, impulsive behaviour.

I've let this run for long enough now, so it's time for me to quote what I actually said at the time, to demonstrate just how stupid your argument is:

]

I don't think what ortolan did was that scummy. He basically agreed with what you and vollkan said. Instead of introducing new things, which there weren't, he just went along with what you guys said.

Being a newbie is no excuse for "sheepishness". If a townie doesn't understand something, they shouldn't vote. Ortolan has the opportunity to explain himself, and we are right to demand answers.

According to Ecto, my summaries were off. Well, considering they were giant paragraphs, it's not going to be 100% on. But I think ecto's behavior in this game has shown scumminess. ort's show sheepiness.

There's a happy medium between doing a meaningless summary that gives no reasoning of your own, and going into pbp overkill. You fell well short of that medium.

vollk, I don't really believe in your clear delineation of objectivity and subjectivity

I'm not delineating objectivity and subjectivity in any philosophical sense.

What I am saying is that giving an inference with explanation is fundamentally different to saying "my gut says he is scum". Obviously, there is always subjectivity involved (eg. different people will weight things differently). The point is, though, that the reasons for suspicion should be objectively ascertainable, even if there is disagreement.

Going to spring's point as an example (BTW - I notice a typo in post 165. "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective" should read "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is

objective

"). I don't agree with her reason - her subjective weighting of one interpretation is one I don't agree with, but I can see her reasoning process.

"Gut" or "feeling" are wholly subjective. They don't refer to any reasoning process that leads to a conclusion. By definition, I cannot attack somebody's "gut" reasons, because there are no reasons. In the case of spring, however, I can see her process of thinking and, even if I do have a theory disagreement, the important point is that

there are reasons for me to disagree with

.

I suppose the litmus test for "subjective" / "objective" in the sense I am using those terms would be this:

Is the argument capable of being rebutted?

"Gut" cannot be rebutted - other than by pointing out the stupidity of relying on gut in this game from a policy perspective. Spring's style of reasoning can. I'll do it now:
@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

I have acknowledged there was insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I no longer see sufficient reasons for voting for him. Why, then, would I try to convince you of something I don't believe? That itself would be illogical and hardly town-ish. I had insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I have acknowledged this. Also, how can you possibly try to characterise my withdrawn vote as "slinking away and hoping no-one notices"? I openly drew attention to the fact that when I withdrew my vote it would likely simply lead to more suspicion placed on me, as it did in another game.

Ha! Nice try.
Let's have a looksie over what you actually said post-vote:

...
I believe there is a mild case against him, but that this case is stronger than the one against SpyreX
...
To support, this I started that all it had given me were various hypotheses, none of which have particularly more support than any other (but obviously, I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer). ..

From the get-go, you are hedging your arguments.

If my post expressed this (that I had gleaned little), then this was partly the point. It also hardly seems contentless to me- it contains a vote for Ectomancer based on orangepenguin/spyrex's arguments, and it asks springlullaby for an explanation.

You are explicitly acknowledging here that your vote had a basis in their arguments.

I'll be honest. I did read through the theory discussion before. Now I've had to read some of it again in order to express why exactly I'm voting for Ectomancer. Can I firstly take a leaf out of his book and go with "whatever argument you make use of, it's still ultimately coming from your gut instinct". I cite springlullaby's last post (144) as an example of this- her 2 points against me are basically entirely subjective: one is putting an additional question at the end of my post after voting, and the second is deferring to others' reasoning- if no-one agreed with anyone else in this game I don't see it going very far.

I also acknowledge the case against Ectomancer isn't particularly strong. It's possible he is townie and just likes indulging in lengthy theory discussions mid-game. I also see it as quite viable, however, that, as mafia, he tried to jump on you for the self-vote (as can often be done successfully in other games) then realised after your rebuttal that no-one else would support it, was drawn into a deep discussion of why he had reacted against it, and whether that sort of thing is good or bad in general (a discussion which he tried to curtail in post 99).

My other reason is simply I have a slight leaning towards him over SpyreX, again call it gut if you will. Thus I wanted to tip him into the more likely to be lynched category.

It's ironic that, as a side effect of extremely lengthy theory discussions to get "reads" on people, I find the progression of argument too convoluted for it to serve this purpose, and am forced to regress, in a way, to gut instincts.

Again, you hedge things. The bolded is interesting though. I don't see why his position to Spyrex is at all meaningful. The question is whether he is scummy enough to justify a vote - and you seem to think that merely being scummier than Spyrex (relatively, not absolutely) somehow warrants, as you say, tipping him "into the more likely to be lynched category".

Unvote

Ok. I acknowledge the case isn't strong enough to keep a vote on him. Unfortunately this will probably just bring me under further suspicion as past experience has dictated. I blame your gambit, Vollk.

Then, once everything about your vote has collapsed, you drop off.

What's my point - it's slinking away for the simple fact that you never justified yourself in the first place and from the start you were under-cutting yourself (if you don't appear convinced, you don't have to justify yourself? Right? ) It's like - you are going to vote and be unaccountable and then, once you get caught out, you simply dodge accountability by saying that you were all wrong from the start.

On the possibility that you are just a confused newbie - unfortunately, this is a real possibility. What runs against this is the fact that you have articulate and long posts. Your posts show you are clearly a reasonably clever guy, which makes it less likely you are just a dazed newbie. I am watching this closely, though, but you just don't seem to fit the newbie paradigm.

Well actually, I did already back down. Which in fact makes this whole point moot (straw man, etc.)

If you paid any attention to me, you would see I was addressing a post before you did so. It still responded to what you said and, thus, is still relevant. Not a strawman - so don't try and sling mud that way.

That seems a pretty subjective claim to me again. For example, do you mean pro-town content i.e. content that is more likely to help town and turn up scum, or just content. I don't see how we're going to find out whether this discussion was in fact helpful for town until at least the end of this day (when we'll find out whether the lynch that stemmed from this discussion was a townie or scum), and probably not until even later than that, so I'll hold my judgement until then.

It's not a subjective claim. This game has, if you compare it many others, a high level of proper arguments and so on. I don't mean that it all is pro-town - absent prior knowledge, that's impossible to tell.

You seem oblivious to the potential irony of this. You're exactly the sort of person who, as scum, would fill this category.

Yeah, exactly. In all seriousness, it's a very effective scum strategy. Hence, why people should be made to give reasons. It stops scum doing to impressive posting ploy, and it also stops scum doing the "I agree with Jones. Vote: Mr X" move.

Please justify why you are equivocating "paying no attention" with "playing scummy" (implied by your vote on me). I see no reason why scum would pay any less attention than town.

Simple.

Scum win the game by killing off townies. Right? Ergo, they have no inherent need to pay attention - other than for the purpose of appearing to be paying attention if they think doing so will be needed to cover their arse. Town, in contrast, win by killing off the scum. Since town don't know who the baddies are, they need persuasion of scumminess. It therefore makes no sense for a townie to vote without understanding why.

Vollkan, simple question. Were you, or were you not intending to spur conversation when you made your self-vote?

Yes. The whole point was to spark debate.

You are stuck on this "onus of proof". What need of proof do I have to question you about the move you made to invoke questioning about the move?
Never going to agree with you over this.

Alright, conversation should ideally have run like this:

Antagonist:

Vollkan, why would you self-vote?

Vollkan:

My post 26 - which said "why do I need to justify it?" and thatmy purpose was "to stir the pot. People have a tendency to leap onto it with presumptions and prejudices "

Antagonist:

Self-voting requires justification because it causes <something> which is bad for the town because <reason>.

See, I even allow for a prejudiced Antagonist, but one that has some explanation for why self-voting is bad but whom also accepts that whatever reason they had doesn't work.

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

Moreover, it is not an automatic requirement that people explain the assumptions under things unless requested. I mean, take contradictions for an example. When you and SL have accused me of being contradictory in my behaviour, I never once bothered asking "why is a contradiction scummy?". The important thing is that you can give the explanation when asked.

Let the record show that tut of that entire piece I wrote repudiating Orto and SL's craplogic, Orto only addressed the bit about hedging.

That was all I needed to do to refute your argument, because your response hinged on your incorrect claim that it was an objective fact that I was "hedging my arguments". In fact it was still your interpretation, because it implies I tried deliberately to pre-empt accusations of my case being wrong by distancing myself from it. This is simply not an objective fact- I know that this wasn't my intention in writing the post. Thus you are still open to the drawing of an equivalence between your interpretation of my vote on Ecto and sl's interpretation of your misplaced post.

First up, I'd like to draw an analogy with contract law. When a contractual dispute is being resolved - when the court tries to resolve the meaning of the contract - the lawyers and judges don't ask themselves "What did Party X want when she asked for this clause?". Instead, you determine the intention of the parties based on what is manifest in the contract. Because it is impossible to know what is in Party X's head, you judge subjective intention objectively.

Now, it is a clear fact that your post contained a number of phrases which indicated a lack of commitment to your own argument. That means your arguments were hedged - it doesn't matter what your intention was. I don't

know

what your intention was; only you do. Of course, your intention is very relevant in judging scumminess, and I have already explained why I think a scummy explanation is the most reasonable

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

Even when you first made this point it was only ever a false dichotomy- that either I must be a confused newbie or scum. By assuming this you then went on to argue that I was unlikely to fall into the former category due to your interpretation of my posts as intelligent. However this ignores that there was no evidence I had to be in one or the other of these categories to begin with. For the record; at the time I was: new to the game- yes, confused- somewhat, making intelligent posts- subjective. You didn't consider that I could make seemingly intelligent posts while being new to the game and somewhat confused. By reducing interpretations of my behaviour to a simple binary choice you were able to place me under suspicion.

No, it wasn't a false dichotomy. As I just said:

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

There's no false dichotomy. I was giving you a greater degree of tolerance for error than I would give to an experienced player, for whom I wouldn't consider the prospect of dazed newbie. In the same way that you proceed with a presumption that contradiction is scummy because no reasonable townie would do it, I proceeded with a presumption that no reasonable townie would hedge, but I had to explicitly address the prospect of you not being a reasonable townie (ie. being a dazed newbie).

There is, therefore, no false dichotomy. I explicitly considered scumminess and newbie error, and I have been able to explain my assumption against reasonable error on request.

Just two hypothesis:

a you are town, tried to trap scum in a slightly weak trap, and you cought a mason. Bad luck.

b you are scum. You tried to open your possibilities in case there came more votes on mrfix, and you expressed your direction. On the moment you get attacked for that by a confirmed person, you say: "hehe, it was a trap".

Vollkan said he wanted to show that orto was tunneling on him and not that he wanted to find scum with his trap.

Hmm...not exactly. It would be more accurate to say that I expected to show that Orto was tunneling me (in confirmation of my theory that that is what he has been doing and continues to do) and held a quiet hope that it might also catch scum.

[vollkan]

Ugh...what the hell. It double-posted last time and now it triple-posted.

I have deleted two of the copies for easier reading.

[vollkan]

of course you would never gut vote, but when you came up with a case against mrfixij when there were already 2 persons on the him, nobody would have considered it weird, you said you would look him closely. If you hopped on the bandwagon while you had never been suspicious of mrfixij, we would look closely at your actions. So the scum part could still be.

Yes, but that's just it. As I said, coming from me a professed gut read would be given no credit and it would ultimately come back to an analysis of reasons. It wouldn't necessarily have been scummy for me to have swung to suspicion of ixfij but, as you say, I would be closely examined for doing so.

Vollkan-scum gains nothing from declaring a gut feeling. You know as well as I do how much ortolan would (did, as a matter of fact) start howling at the hint of gut - imagine if I had actuallly voted ixfij without substantial reasons.

And as town, why would you want to catch orto, and orto being town, couldn't it have been that other townies would also react on it, in a manner scummy in your eyes? What purpose had the trap if you actually knew it could catch town just as easily as scum? From the traps you have mentioned it is everytime obvious that a scum player did something very antitown. That is why the traps worked. Would a player that says: "vollkan detests gut, and now he uses it" and attacks you for it do something antitown? would it be scummy? What you are implying is that attacking you is scummy, because there seems to be no other reason.

I've really explained this already. The other traps involved getting people to do anti-town actions as a means of catching scum. This one was not directed at anything so blatant and, instead, my primary expectation was to demonstrate that Orto is tunneling me.

And yes, if anybody else had reacted like Orto then it would have brought them under suspicion from me. There was no contradiction in my post, and that should have been obvious to anybody who has been giving me the level of attention which is needed in this game.

Vollkan, the other traps you mentioned were well thought out. Why not this one?

It's not a question of this one being less "thought out". It's that this one had a different expectation in mind. You could say that the other traps were "offensive" traps - in that I was taking the initiative to set up a snare for scum whereas this one was most likely going to be (but not necessarily, because it might still have snared scum in potentia) a "defensive" trap.

if i may, though, i would like to know(and forgive me if this has been answered) why did you post your rules? it seems extremely counterproductive in the early going. you have basically given any one who wants it a "how to stay off of volkans scumdar" guide. in addition, if you are scum, you now have a way of justifying not picking out your partner(s). as this appears more useful to you as scum, i find this to be very anti town.

I've had this exact criticism before.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that, whilst I consider the things on the list scummy, I don't trust them as much as I do "logical scumtells" (the sort of analysis and debate I rely on). In other words, I think it is more beneficial for town that such conduct is prevented - because doing so provides less scope for anti-town actions and more scope for logical play.

didn't catch where volkan claims he was aware that the trap could catch town, so is that part true?

He said he thought it most likely that the trap would catch orto. Orto is town. Why wouldn't other towny's apart from orto also get trapped?

Yes and no. The trap was intended to catch people who were not reading me with any degree of consideration, and I expected Orto to fall into that category. Prejudiced attacks are both anti-town and scummy. Orto, whilst not likely scum, was nonetheless shown to be anti-town in his attacks. From anybody else, other than op, it would be scummy though.

Townies would only fall into it if they weren't playing as townies should. The same goes for any scumtell.

@Volk:

I can understand showing consistency, but ultimately we both know you're smart enough to be consistent regardless of your alignment. The meta has to end man, for all our sakes.

I know I can maintain consistency across alignments; it's something I strive for. The meta I have been citing is just to show that certain idiosyncracies in my play (trapping, self-voting, anti-gut stance) should not be seen as scummy.

Quote:
in having read six pages of posts i have probably the most quotes and notes on volkan. almost every single one gives me a neutral read.

I agree, all these posts and we get little read of the motivation behind them. He could have contributed as much to scum-hunting this game had he merely been lurking.

Orto, I've been defending myself against your attacks. I find it ridiculous that you would compare me to a lurker. My defences have given a wealth of material for analysis, and refuting bad attacks is just as important as launching new ones. Moreover, my criticism of players other than yourself

is

scumhunting - I have been adding new material. You don't agree with anything I say, fine but that's another matter, but that doesn't mean I am equivalent to a lurker in terms of contribution.

[vollkan]

What if you are scum vollkan. Orto would have been on the right track all the time, but here you got him trapped. You say he is prejudiced, and suddenly, we don't have to listen to orto when we don't like it, and we also don't have to listen to spring, because she is clearly not good enough to argue with you. You are doing a good job of defending yourself, by putting labels on your attackers.

I haven't defended myself "by putting labels" on attackers.

I've shown that Orto is attacking me prejudicially. That by no means invalidates his arguments, but it does serve to undermine the instinctive tendency to trust him by virtue of his claim.

As for SL, I've never said anything like that you shouldn't listen to her or that she isn't good enough to argue against me. On the contrary, I've argued with her plenty.

[vollkan]

What "meritless cases"?

[vollkan]

I haven't defended myself "by putting labels" on attackers.

I've shown that Orto is attacking me prejudicially. That by no means invalidates his arguments, but it does serve to undermine the instinctive tendency to trust him by virtue of his claim.

As for SL, I've never said anything like that you shouldn't listen to her or that she isn't good enough to argue against me. On the contrary, I've argued with her plenty.

You have implied it by insulting orto, that was the most obvious one. There was no need to say it, and everything you say seems to be well thought over, so I take that as disqualifying your attackers.

You accused me of "we also don't have to listen to spring, because she is clearly not good enough to argue with you". I never said that and now you twisting it so that it is an implicit criticism arising from my attack on Orto.

As I have already said:

And the attacks aren't ad hominem fallacy. They just stem from my frustration at what is an unending torrent of silly arguments from Orto (and I am entitled to use the word 'silly', because thus far there hasn't been a single point that I haven't rebutted. He just keeps jumping from point to point.)

Allthough bad worded by orto and spring, vollkan's play is not perfect. Why not attack him on that?

Nobody's play is perfect. Orto's and SL's attacks are trash. There's a wide gulf between my play not being perfect and my play being on the level that Orto and SL have been suggesting.

2.) Why did you omit what I have italicized as that shows my feelings on it - which, of course, is in direct contrast with your "he's not scumhunting" statement.

I was avoiding the spotlight? By answering the questions put forth?

And, again, why did you select the LAST LINE of that post and put it forward in such a manner?

Good finds. A degree of error/inaccuracy is to be expected from replacers, but wholesale cherry-picking as we see here is not acceptable.

[vollkan]

You called it, or them ridiculous in post 62 (isolated view).

Wrong.

I made my case, if I were better town I would do a nice summary in one post, but I'm not and you will have to go over from my original vote, and argument with Vollkan. At this point I can't imagine town Vollkan, all his votes and especially the one on me is so stiff, I don't think it's real. If someone want me to answer further something he brought up, I'll do.

This is ridiculous.

SL cast a vote for me based on vague, unfalsifiable assertions. I argued extensively with her and Orto and, frankly, I don't think they have a single leg to stand on.

For her now to say that people should just read over the debate is absurd given how long things ran for.

Read the whole post including what is responding to. SL digs her feet in and says "I've made my case, and I am not going to summarise so you'll all have to read up". That pisses me off and

is

ridiculous because, as I say, her reasons were trash and I refuted them - but because the debate is so long, it is "absurd" that people should have to read over.

It's simply false of you to say that I was calling "them" ridiculous when, in fact, I was referring to SL's refusal to summarise herself.

And the part with conspiracy what you accuse Spring of. Her arguments boil down to consipiracy??? post 57 (isolated view).

I've already explained this. Her arguments were conspiracy because they involved zeroing in on one narrative for my play without counter-weighing that narrative against competing narratives.

[vollkan]

And vollkan, both times you use a (negative) word to charactarize the play of an attacker, while you also could have defended without it, as in the first post you defend against the attacker right after you call it ridiculous (see the or in my post? I think if you call a post of spring ridiculous, you could be giving spring a label), and in the second word seems just to be taking one possible explanation, and using that as the truth. Again, why would you use the word conspiracy. While everything you say is thought out, you are using (negative) subjective words to characterize your attackers, and I wouldn't think you above it that you do it on purpose.

Myk, at the risk of being tautological, I called it ridiculous because I think it is ridiculous.

The argument you are, if I am understanding you, trying to make is the "psychological influence" argument - that the use of negative words is a scummy means of discrediting people via ad hom.

I can't repeat myself enough that that is not what I was trying to do. I've been adamant from the outset that the faults in SL and orto's arguments are purely logical. What I am trying to get across, though, is my frustration at being tunnelled on conspiracy arguments. I have had to repeat myself so many times on each issue that I really don't think I am being listened to, and I would hope that some emotional language would get across that I really am adamant that SL and Orto have been pushing a truly atrocious case against me.

this is an excellent question. i just read through spyrex's last post and all i get is," so you're suspicious of me, prove it." its

Accuser bears the onus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding proof for suspicion.

I just wanted to see how you would react to a vote, since IMO you have flown under the radar. Eh. It was nothing I was going to pursue, but I figured I would give it a go. It'd probably work better if I was more involved, but meh.

unvote,

vote: Don Johnson

.

His reasoning is just off, and strikes me wrong.

I want this vote explained in full. If you think DJ's reasoning is off, to such a degree as to justify a vote, it's incumbent on you to back yourself up.

i understand this. this is why i posted excerpts from my notes for you to see. having replaced into a game eighteen pages deep it is difficult for me to immediately differentiate who is scum and town. i posted my notes because i thought my observations may be helpful in some way. what i have gleaned off of the conversations has cleared things up for me. though i have had difficulty explaining it to anyone else, spyrex has confirmed to me their focus. "we need a lynch". i don't need to prove this to you. i am not working towards a lynch of spyrex. the fact is that i want to find the best lynch. lynching for lynching's sake is a gamble i don't want to take. what i have found is that there is no way for me to read through the first eighteen pages of this thread and present a case that doesn't resemble "cherry picking." it will be more advantageous to everyone involved if i begin to play the game in the present as i find that the more i try to catch up, the more i fall behind. i play off of attitudes. i search for tones in posts. i got a gut feeling off of spyrex's posts and in his response to my "case", he proved to me beyond a doubt what i thought about him. i am happy with that and am ready to move on.

No!

The rest of us are in the position of having played for 22 pages. You are potential scum and there is no way in hell that I am giving you a leave pass to skip over the first 22 pages. I scumhunt by analysing logic, and I want to see some logic to analyse. And if you are genuinely interested in finding scum, you have 20 pages worth of debate and discussion to go over.

1.) You've built all that on just the first few pages and have no intention of catching up.

built all what? that i found your initial posts to be lacking? have i voted you? saying i have "no intention" is putting words in my mouth. i would just like to keep up in real time.

FFS. You asked to be given a leave-pass not to read the thread. He isn't putting words into your mouth - you made it clear you didn't intend to read up and just wanted to play "in the present" (Note: Another reason that is intolerable is that it would allow scum-DJ to swing any way he wished, given no prior commitments)

Also I can't say I blame don_johnson for being reluctant to read through the whole game again

I can.

I blame don_johnson for being reluctant to read through the whole game again.

[vollkan]

springlullaby -

3

(vollkan, mrfixij)

3!

[vollkan]

I'm absolutely positive had I not been a mason he would have pushed all the way to get me lynched.

I would have lynched you too.

are you conceding as scum?

What do you mean?

[vollkan]

Yes, Orto, it's all my fault

[vollkan]

This is doublespeak. No, your statement about me was not subjective, but it was also not objective. At least not objectively justifiable. You're saying something feels "odd" about my play. I don't know how you could be saying something was odd about me without an indication as to my alignment while still remaining pertinent to the game.

It isn't doublespeak.

I haven't once said anything regarding your alignment that is dependent on that post, nor have I allowed that "feeling" to influence my opinion of you. I can dissociate my feeling about somebody from my opinion about them.

That's a big issue I'm having with you vollkan. For chrissakes, you've gotten into numerous arguments with Ortolan, who is the closest thing we have to confirmed town. What's the purpose of it? To convince him to vote with you? To satisfy your own personal lust for an argument? I think you're failing to see the forest for the trees in front of you.

The purpose is to defend myself. I am not trying to being egotistical or self-important, but a slew of trashy attacks have been made against me and I am going to defend them off. In the process of defending myself, I've been very clear about what I find suspicious. It's simply nonsense to say that I am doing nothing but post verbosely.

I didn't *want* to imply anything; I've already been clear about that. I was just saying the way I felt. Maybe someone else felt similarly; maybe the day would end and it could serve as a note to myself or another; maybe it would set in motion a train of discussion about Ixfiij. I don't know.

Enough with your bullshit conspiracies about my intentions.

It's as though you won't be satisfied unless I specifically give some specific outcome that I sought. If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

And this is an example of your personal analysis falling flat on its face. During the day phase, the ONLY difference between scum and town is intent. Scum wants to lead a lynch towards town, Town wants to find the outsiders and lead a lynch towards them. As an individual player, your actions are used to find your intention, and by correlation your alignment. If you discourage speculation about your intentions, you discourage speculation about your alignment.

Thankyou for taking my post completely out of context. I was responding to this by Orto:

Mafia is as much about what is not said (or rather, what is said implicitly), as what is said. You had no valid reason for announcing your gut suspicion beyond *wanting* to imply something in this way, yet deny it has any meaning.

Orto pulled one narrative for my conduct out of his arse - assuming, without any explanation as to why, that I could have no motivation other than wanting to sneakily imply something.

I have never once said, and I do not think, that intentions are at all irrelevant. On the contrary, I've been clear that analysing intentions is very important BUT YOU ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER COMPETING HYPOTHESES.

It is completely wrong for Orto to conspire about what my intention was unless he takes a holistic view of my actions.

[vollkan]

Accuser bears the onus. There is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding proof for suspicion.

true, but the accuser openly admitted the case was weak and was based on observations around ONLY the first part of the game and the last few pages. the accuser has been willing to drop the subject. i'm sorry, but did we come to a wholesale decision that personal interpretation of data is unnacceptable for discussion? the point now has become spyrex's reaction to my posting. i offered the little amount of proof i had gleaned from the first five or six pages of posts. it was refuted, and i relented in accepting the fact that spyrex's later posts become more valuable and insightful. yet here i am still being asked to defend my case. this hostility is now my case. the last few pages are now my case.

You made arguments about Spyrex and he questioned them. The fact that you admitted weakness doesn't excuse you from being required to explain yourself.

The rest of us are in the position of having played for 22 pages. You are potential scum and there is no way in hell that I am giving you a leave pass to skip over the first 22 pages. I scumhunt by analysing logic, and I want to see some logic to analyse. And if you are genuinely interested in finding scum, you have 20 pages worth of debate and discussion to go over.

true, and if you reread my post i NEVER said i WASN'T going to continue reading, i merely stated that i wanted to be able to play in real time so that i wouldn't fall further behind. so far i haven't found any previous committments made by the player(s) i replaced and my interaction with spyrex has taken on a life of its own. i can swing any way i wish. why would that bother you?

If you can do both, that's great.

And yes, it would bother me greatly if you could swing any way you wanted. If you are forced to read up, we can expect conclusions to be reached and we can judge consistency and so on.

Ladies and Gentleman, boys and girls. Lets play...

LYNCH

ALL

LIARS

The game today is very simple. We're going to display a list of questions that have been asked up to this point. DJ has the perilous task of quoting the responses.

CAN HE DO IT? I hope so, otherwise he goes in the shark tank.

That's why he gave the Politician's Clause - "...to the best of my knowledge"

I'm going to go through the answers to Spyrex's questions now:

1.Why / what do you not agree with about Ecto being aggressive. Further, since you've said I am a top suspect for being scum, what is scummy about this?

answered

No.

You simply said [your words are bolded; Spyrex's are not]:

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

I do not agree with this

You did not explain why you disagreed, yet alone explaining what was scummy

Why did you omit what I have italicized as that shows my feelings on it - which, of course, is in direct contrast with your "he's not scumhunting" statement.

answered

I can't see where. You made a point about how you don't like wordiness, but Spyrex's post was hardly lengthy.

Again, why did you leave out what you did.

why should i answer something twice?

No. What you left out was important, and "efficiency" doesn't excuse it.

And, again, why did you select the LAST LINE of that post and put it forward in such a manner?

not answered. already answered once, why should i have to answer it again? goes back to the point i was originally trying to make about your "dodginess".

You never answered this!

You accused Spyrex of "avoiding the spotlight" by taking one line out of an enormous post (108).

You are bringing up "desire to move the game forward" as a scum tell. How and why?

how? by posting it. Why? because it is pertinent to the game. what kind of answer were you hoping for?

This is a piece of evasive smart-assery.

Ok, so pulling things out of context is good because the full contextual statements may not be scummy?

did not answer. this is a set up question with an obvious answer. rhetorical, if you will.

Yeah, and pretty accurate. The way you quoted was misleading - there is no other way of putting it. The question is rhetorical, but it is still incumbent on you to justify the quoting you did.

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

How?

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

this is not a question. it is a request.

*facepalm*

What other kind of reply did you honestly expect?

thought we covered this one twice already. this circles back to my original point.

No! What reply did you expect? Answer THAT question. I don't care what it circles back to. ANSWER the goddamn question/


(ughhhhhh........that was painful)

Its built.

I don't think, after that, I really need to say anything more on the matter. I'll just let the others go ahead and read up and make a judgment.

Excellent work on "Please cite examples and give where they were answered" - I didn't ask you to do that for my own amusement. I asked it to clarify my issue with all of this.

You've done exactly what I expected and reaffirmed exactly why I found you scummy.

So, lets see what the others think.

Atrocious. That about sums up my view.

yes, that's a wonderful strawman. way to go.

What strawman? If you're accusing somebody of a logical fallacy, then you should be able to explain it.

I am learning to be better at the game, and I no longer take actions which scum like vollkan can exploit as scumtells to place suspicion onto me

Because it couldn't be possible that town-vollkan could genuinely think your play to be scummy...no, that's just fool talk.

great way to avoid all accountability for your actions. let someone else figure "it" out and then agree with them. bravo.

He didn't need to explicitly go into things, because your non-responses made things more than patently obvious.

SpyreX: I think we can all see that don_johnson has not answered all of your questions. Why do you think he's lying when he's saying he has answered them to the best of his knowledge?
Are you voting him for not answering your questions or for saying he has, when he hasn't?

A little from column A, a little from column B.

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

Now, see, the fact that he didn't answer my

most important

question was very bothersome. The fact that he then compounded this by saying that he did, repeatedly, was a huge push towards scummy.

Once he, himself, started doing the thing he come in accusing me of it was enough for me to push my vote.

Now, why did I do what I did the way I did it?

Simple. I wanted to put forth a situation to, within its own framework, illustrate my problems with this play. His response was exactly what I suspected it would be.

The thought process went like this:

- Ask him, directly, yes or no, if he has answered all of the questions I have put forth.

1.) Put the list of major AND minor questions I have asked in one spot.
--- Include the questions he has actually answered.
--- Include the questions he hasn't answered but has "responded" to.
--- Include the above question, the one I wanted answered more than the others.
2.) Ask for specific reference. This was added specifically to force showing the examples cited to remove the simple "Yes, I did." I had been getting up to this point.

Now, explaining this might be a little convoluted, but I'll give it my best shot.

There were two majorly scummy things I wanted to confirm/deny if they truly existed:
1.) The inability to back away from a stance that, once pressed, could not be held.
2.) Cognitive dissonance.

The above was designed as a "trap" to see if the two were going to hold true. Both did. I designed it with as many "outs" as I could.

1.) Ask the initial question as a simple yes or no. This was, duh, to force the direct answer before even moving forward. The response of yes (hedged, of course), was a definite tell in this - saying yes with the ability to still back out if necessary. I really think this is, of course, because ultimately he knew that there were going to be questions that were unanswered and needed to give himself a way out.

2.) Ask for the examples: not just for my reference if they were answered but to force DJ-town to actually look back at the last 3 whole pages (this mess started on 21) and see if he did, in fact, answer the questions. The scum-response I was expecting? Some form of "I'm not doing this for X". Which is exactly what I got. For the record, the other responses I was theorizing around (as town responses):
- Admitting once examples were asked for that they didn't exist.
- Doing it because DJ-town actively thought I was scum. This would have been interesting because, if I was wrong and they had all been answered, I would have looked the fool.
- Doing those that had been answered, leaving the others for later or explaining how they had been indirectly answered (this would have been fairly neutral/minorly scummy depending in my read).

3.) Put in every reference to the above question I had. This, of course, was to try to trigger the cognative dissonance issue I have. I wanted to be sure it was reinforced as much as it could. I'll put the examples with their answers:

What accusation and/or question have I dodged?

Ever. many

Again, as I have asked - what questions have I deflected versus asking for clarification? Give examples to support said hypothesis.

probably didn't answer this as it circles back around to my original point.

Again, show me this dodgy attitude. Show me questions that have been asked that I have dodged.

this is not a question. it is a request.

So, why the dissonance?

1.) DJ initially said I was at the top of his scum list (with two others).
--- This implies that I am scum, at this point.
2.) DJ then says that the main reason for this is that I dodge questions.
--- This implies that dodging questions put forth is scummy.
----- Scummy enough that it would move someone to the top of a list.

So, from this the natural extension is that dodging questions IS, by nature, scummy.

If that is the case, why repeatedly do it? If DJ was town he would have either 1.) backed these accusations when asked in such an easy format because, by nature, it would have strengthened his case or 2.) saw that they truly hadn't been answered and, again, moved away from the argument. Logically, the one thing he wouldn't have done (as he himself says it is scummy) is dodged the questions.

This is exactly what he did.

Hence, my case was built. I just needed to explain it in full.

I really like your thought process here (clear and logical). My qualm is actually one that I see Myk raises - that DJ is inexperienced and a replacement. Combined, that gives rise to a fairly appreciable margin of error in his play. I don't agree with Ixfij that you are being premature in questioning DJ - the play that DJ has made is poor independent of any subsequent qualifications he might make to it by virtue of future reading.

There is absolutely NO need for a deadline in this game. What I would suggest is that we give DJ the time he needs to make a full reread and give opinions on everybody. At this stage, I do find DJ scummy, but I think that we really do need more content from him to judge.

Completely disagree. Ortolan is basing his vote on Vollkan at least partly on Vollkan's willingness to lynch Ortolan. Ortolan says that this means that Vollkan was willing to lynch someone who is town, therefore Vollkan is scum.
That means that Ortolan is basing his judgement upon the quality of his own play. It is more than pertinent to this discussion to point out that Ortolan's play was hardly pro-town and therefore would have attracted a lynch from both town and scum as is evidenced to me by the fact that I am town.
That makes Vollkan's willingness to lynch Ortolan a null tell, knocking out a major leg of his case.
Once Ortolan accepts the fact that his play was no stellar performance and stops trying to build cases on that premise, we can drop the topic.

This is an attack on a case, not ad hominem. It is an attack on the logic and the evidence. If it comes off as me protecting Vollkan so be it (though if anyone should be lynched for protecting Vollkan it would be Spyrex)

Agreed. His remark before about me "exploiting" his play just reflects this - it's an OMGUSy style of thinking which says that because I attacked him I must be scum.

I also agree with Ecto that we absolutely do

not

need a deadline at this point in time. I can't fathom why on earth people would be advocating one.

[vollkan]

Keep in mind the deadline I asked for was before this. Look at when I asked for it and then see if it made more sense.

I think I understand, but I'd prefer it if you'd explain to me what the difference between "then" and "now" is in respect of deadline appropriateness.

[vollkan]

When did I say I think SpyreX is scum? (well admittedly he was one my suspects in the "post your three top suspects" game but that doesn't mean I think he is scum- it was more from a process of elimination, which is now redundant due to revised opinions anyhow).

1) Did you actually declare your revised opinions?

2) That doesn't really matter though because the point here is that you are playing from a presumption that no townie could have reasonably suspected you, which would mean that you would have to suspect the wagonners.

And haven't you again adopted the entirely-reducible-to-WIFOM attitude of "hehe I *know* I'm town, I don't *know* you are".

No. He hasn't adopted that defence. What he is saying is that it's absurd that you would treat the wagonners of you as inherently scummy unless you are saying that all 3 of Ecto, Spyrex and myself are scum.

Massive lol at this. If you haven't noticed who I've been attacking in my last two posts, it's not vollkan, it's you. Nice use of the chainsaw defence on someone who I'm not even targetting currently. For a good example of a "biased statement" read the sentence preceding your use of this phrase.

I've probably said this before, but I think the whole idea of "chainsaw" is a load of BS. It's just another emotive label like "WIFOM" or "OMGUS" that's open to misuse and, based on the number of times I have seen it, is never applied to anything which is actually scummy.

And you are currently targeting me. You have your vote on me and we've been arguing pretty much continuously for pages now.

Honestly, from a completely impartial perspective, I don't even see how this is a case. You've just given us two possible interpretations of mykonian's behaviour consistent with him being scum, but no reason to buy either of them.

Uh no. Mykonian's play there is suspicious (sudden and unexplained changes in opinion hint very strongly of opportunism) and he has given the meaning of the play in two different scenarios. Think about it, town-Ecto could hardly have simply presented one of them, because SL's alignment would be ambiguous to him.

But it is nice to know you would vig me, this knowledge does assist in scum-catching.

I assume you are being sarcastic.

It actually does assist in scum-hunting, though. You have been tunneling me with a BS case and causing me immense frustration over it. Ecto has also expressed a clear view on your "case". That assists scum-hunting because it is likely to make other people take a second look before following you.

[vollkan]

The pages immediately before I mentioned it (and on it) were dominated with the discussion between you and ort. Now, OP and ort are behaving like bad masons, but I still think they are masons nonetheless. I am not voting for you.

The other major source of activity was the case on SL. That has stagnated.

Then ort said he was not moving his vote on you.

So, the only way at that point to shake the inactives would be a deadline.

Then, of course, DJ jumps in with this. Hence I no longer see the need for it - unless it again dies and we are where we were once again.

That's what I imagined. I'm satisfied with this explanation

[vollkan]

vollkan- why did you jump in before Ectomancer himself could rebut my points? There's pretty much consensus that that's scummy as all hell.

I jumped in because I smite bullshit where I see it. There's absolutely no consensus that intervening is scummy, but nice try to make appeal to majority opinion (even if your majority is fake)

Basically it comes down to my point about my earlier play. It was not simply "bad" per se, but "bad" additionally because it was able to be twisted as a scum-tell by a player with an agenda. I believe vollkan falls into this category, and gave examples of his opportunistic stances when attacking not just me but others.

I rebutted all your "examples". K thx bai.

And your play was scummy. It didn't require "twisting" or misrepresentation or anything to be found scummy - it WAS scummy. But, of course, if you admitted that then your case against me would be affected, and that would be unspeakably bad

Furthermore, this is why vollkan's misrepresentations get really tiresome. You've rebutted his/your own straw-man versions of the arguments rather than my actual arguments.

Strawmen? Where?

Your argument that "you must have genuinely played badly because there was clearly at least one town on your wagon" is wrong because:

- it rebuts something that was not claimed to begin with
- there is nothing guaranteeing not all of you are scum (although the prior probability of this is extremely, extremely low)
- you were not the only people to vote for me, and clearly my play came across as suspicious. That doesn't mean I can't attack clear opportunism in vollkan's manner of play.

- You didn't directly claim it, but you've been basing everything on the idea that I couldn't have reasonably suspected you as town.
- It would make the game impossibly broken for town.
- You can attack "clear opportunism" in my play. It's just a shame that, despite how many times you've repeated the word "opportunism", every example anybody has come up with has been absolute crap.

@Volk, Ecto:

At this point do you believe the mason claim?

I believe it, but I am finding myself constantly asking myself "How the f*** could town possibly act like this?!"

volkan: why do i have to explain my "strawman" comment, but ortolan does not?

*facepalm*

My last post was 613.

Orto accused me of strawmanning in 617.

Unless you are attributing me the ability to time-travel or something, I couldn't have possibly called out Orto to explain himself.

this was after spyrex's first line of questioning as to why i quoted things the way i did. yet both volkan and spyrex have been hammering me as to why i quoted things the way i did. why? because my answer isn't the answer they wanted? just because spyrex writes in his post in italics that he is scumhunting, doesn't mean that i can't analyze said post differently. because he italicized it, its true? i saw spyrex as dodgy. ecto's post shows that he felt the same way after the same exchange i had read. no, that doesn't mean i'm right, but it validates my feelings on the subject.

Ugh!!

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares. I do not agree with this
As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

That's Star Control 2, thank you very much.

As for leading away from the tangent - well, its not like we've got a whole lot to go on. However, the interplay between the three main heads of this theory hydra (you, volk, ecto) is worth of reading.

From an outsider not even concerned necessarily with what is being spoken but the how of it - ecto is very suspicious. My reads show both you and volk behaving neutrally (although on different sides of the argument) - echo is aggressive to the point that it sends up warning flares.

What can I make of this? Only time will tell. As it sits I'm thinking that there's not elaborate Gambit here and that a scum wouldn't be silly enough to bite so hard on a self-vote. However, it will definitely be watched - like it or not, I think all three of you have decided to dance in the spotlight for a while.

As an aside, I'd like to see the rest of the game become a bit more active. There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

Fine, we don't know whether what he italicised is true. That is not the point. You accused him of NOT scumhunting when he very clearly was. It's not a case of different "analysis". It's a case of you of completely bastardising a quote and strawmanning him.

spyrex: i honestly believe that you set your post up to prove that i am scum. therefore, you were working from a preconcieved prejudice. no matter how i answered, i felt you would have found a way to come to the same conclusion, so i decided to not play your game.

Wow...you've earned a *HEADDESK*. You were the one who misrepresnted

him

. There's no question of a "preconceived prejudice".

[vollkan]

true. i feel as though my comments are being jumped on, though. but of course, no one cares abouyt "feelings" here...

Diddums.

not the point. interesting. i am pretty sure that that is exactly the point. spyrex's defense and ensuing question(which he repeated several times) was WHY I LEFT OUT THE ITALICIZED PART! how did i misrepresent him? by observing the SAME PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR THAT WAS ACTUALLY POINTED OUT BY AN ACTIVE PLAYER IN THE GAME AT THAT TIME? have i voted for spyrex? i pointed out an inconsistency that i found. i was not the only one who noticed it. yes, i presented it poorly. that has become apparent. that doesn't make me scum. saying i misrepresented someone when i did not is reaching.

You said he wasn't sucmhunting. The italicised showed he was. What's so hard to understand about that?

so are you admitting that he has come at me with a "preconceived prejudice" or are you accusing me of said action? because that would be funny considering the facts you yourself just admitted to.

I'm saying that it's funny that you would say he is showing prejudice when there is no evidence of that and, moreover, you were the one who was pulling a BS attack on him.

also, why are you allowed to use the phrase "strawman" but noone else is?

Everybody is allowed to use the phrase "strawman", they just have to use it properly. (And you still havent explained your usage of it)

[vollkan]

Precisely what evidence persuaded you that I am voteworthy?

[vollkan]

its hard for you to understand what i have said, obviously. just because he writes it in italics doesn't make it true. are we to believe everything we read?

It doesn't matter one iota whether the statements were true or false. Spyrex's post contained statements which, to anybody who is uninformed, can only be taken as scumhunting.

By your craplogic, I could say that you are scum/my because nothing you have said is scumhunting BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place.

1) Neither the fact you said it was weak nor the fact that you did not vote has any bearing on the question of whether Spyrex was being prejudiced.
2) Admitting a case was weak doesn't excuse craplogic. That's what I've already explained as "hedging".
3) Whether or not you voted is meaningless. If your arguments are crap then you are culpable whether or not you voted.

Everybody is allowed to use the phrase "strawman", they just have to use it properly. (And you still havent explained your usage of it)

actually i did.

if you read Spyrex's posts he has an interesting way of asking questions, many of which i pointed out sound rhetorical. i offered to answer any questions he has, yet instead of laying them out in a format for me to answer, he lays them out for me in a no win situation and calls me a liar.

Ah well, the reason I missed your "explanation" is simple: it absolutely doesn't in the least resemble a strawman.

And I find it incredibly scummy of you that you would point the finger at Spyrex by saying he boxed you into a "no win situation". News flash: The situation was "no win" because of your own refusal to answer at first instance. It's entirely your fault. Spyrex is in no way to blame for highlighting your sins.

where is your explanation? you and spyrex seem to be employing a similar strategy of not accepting my explanations and then asking me the same things again.

Nowhere have I said that every use of the term "strawman" has to be fully explained at first instance, but it has to be explained if asked. Now, when I accused you of strawmanning Spyrex my reason was fairly simple. Spyrex posted one thing (a post containing scumhunting), which you instead cherry-pick from and, rather than attacking what Spyrex actually said, you attack a fantasy-post of your own creation.

I hate you guys so much right now.

<3

whether or not the statements are true is the issue. i never denied that your statements were made. i have explained why i quoted the way i did. i didn't believe you. that is my right.

1) Whether or the statements are true is NOT the issue. The issue is: Did Spyrex show evidence of scumhunting in post 52.
2) You did deny the statements were made, by virtue of you saying:

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

You denied that there was scumhunting in the post.
3) You haven't explained; you simply led us down this garden path about the "truth" of what he said.
4) Yes, you have every right to post nonsense. Just as we have every right to attack you for it.

Cheers OP.

Only two more votes needed for vollkan.

Well done OP. Orto has now officially ordained you as a member of the Masonic Brethren of the Obstinate Bullshit.

The way I see it; to me or OP, vollkan has a 25% or 37.5% prior probability of being scum (depending on there being 2 or 3 scum). To any townies his odds of being scum are 22%/33%. I would say my subjective posterior probability has probably risen to around 99.5% or so based on the way he's played, but you can make up your own mind.

Yes, Orto, I have already acknowledged that you are blinded on me. No need to go and prove my point by expressing a degree of certainty that no reasonable townie possibly can hold.

I also see that vollkan has become increasingly aggravated as the pressure builds on him- in the course of writing post 641 his head apparently impacted not only his palm but later his desk in frustration. I can't see any other explanation for this than scum crumbling under pressure.

No, it's impossible that town-vollkan could be getting frustrated by continually having crap arguments hurled at him.

Who's a better lynch than Volk? SL and DJ jump to the top of my head. But, hey, who am I.

Who are you? Just a refreshing breath of sanity in Mini 701 - Funny Farm Mafia.

[vollkan]

vote OrangePenguin

Their claim needs to be tested and confirmed. I'm not going to fall for a VI scheme.

"Hey, if we get into trouble, let's claim mason so town wont lynch us and then play scummy so that "scum" wont kill us. Haha!"

At the very least, Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels need to be neutered. Take out the inactive one.

Hmm. Scum aren't going to kill either of them. In my view, absent claim, they'd both be lynchworthy (Orto more so than OP). Basically, the only reason they are both alive is because of their claim, and that's the way things will remain into the foreseeable future, absent vigging or something.

My dream scenario would be to have a suspicion lynch of somebody today (ie. not one of the masons) and for one of them to be vigged this evening, but that assumes a vig which is very optimistic. If there was no vigging, we'd be in the same basic dilemma again, but perhaps with some more information to go on.

The only real advantage in lynching a mason today would be that the confirmation would be out of the way as quickly as possible, and we would still learn something from the nightkill/s.

But, at this stage, I would prefer a suspicion lynch.

correct, which is why voting patterns should be relevant.

How is that relevant at all to the fact that you denied Spyrex posted scumhunting?

what was that phrase again? cherrypicking?

There's a distinction between "not quoting everything"
and "cherrypicking". I didn't quote everything you said, because the bit I wanted to address was the first sentence. Nothing in the rest of that paragraph in any way affected the first sentence.

spyrex made it seem as though i was pushing the case against him when in fact i had explained it was weak. that to me is mischaracterization. \

No. If a player makes an argument against another player, they are culpable for their reasoning no matter how much clout they give the point. Clearly, the seriousness attached has some relevance, but it isn't a leavepass. You did push a case on Spyrex, and you saying it was weak doesn't alter that. If I steal a television and then say "but it was only a little one", I am still guilty.

making an out of context quote wall could very well be considered minor changes to wording. no?

Do you mean Syprex's question list? If so, then it was out of context, but there was no problem since he wasn't misrepping you.

1) Whether or the statements are true is NOT the issue. The issue is:

Did Spyrex show evidence of scumhunting in post 52.

2) You did deny the statements were made, by virtue of you saying:

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

You denied that there was scumhunting in the post.
3) You haven't explained; you simply led us down this garden path about the "truth" of what he said.
4) Yes, you have every right to post nonsense. Just as we have every right to attack you for it.

1) maybe that is your issue, but it is not mine. because:
2) what is bolded above is what i WROTE IN MY NOTES. it did not refer solely to that single post. it was my general feeling of spyrex's play. i have explained this several times now but you choose not to accept it. that post just grabbed my attention.

1) Where did you explain this before?
2) Why didn't the italicised text have any bearing on your "general read"?

he also wrote in that post:

There's enough here that opinions on at least a few players could be made and huntin' can begin.

why would huntin' begin if he was already doing it?

I can't speak for Spyrex, but I'd wager he is distinguihsing between early-game attacks and later-game scumhunting. Nothing seriously potent had come up, so he was probably looking to have things move on.

3) what? i said that i didn't believe him to be scumhunting. he said there was "factual evidence" that he was because the post contained his feelings about who might be scum. I DIDN"T BELIEVE HIM. so i wrote in my notes :

He isn’t hunting, just sitting back and pointing fingers after saying that it was an irrelevant argument so early in the game.

Which leads me back the point about the italicised text

4) absolutely. how many times do we have to cover the same ground?

Seemingly forever.

Apparently vollkan has a reputation for being good at this game. In light of this I find his dogged argumentation extremely perplexing. The points he argues with don_johnson are both extremely subjective and convoluted. They aren't good scumtells, they're just vollkan being blatantly nitpicky to a point which benefits no-one. It's not just don_johnson he's done it with this game either.

*sigh* How am I being "extremely subjective"? As for convoluted, it's entirely DJ's fault for throwing in a whole heap of tangential defences. The point most time has been spent on, post 52, is fairly simple:
Spyrex made a post which contained his reasoning on people. DJ, in his comments on that post (he now says they were just directed generally), snipped out the reasoning bits from the post and accused Spyrex of not scum-hunting.

There's other stuff as well, but most of that is all fairly simple and hasn't been laboriously argued.

I do recall reading in mafia discussion a comment that mafia is, or should be more a psychological guessing game than one which worships "logic". I find vollkan's persistent adherence to a skewed conception of logic and an almost deliberate effort to tunnel in his arguments rather than think of alternative explanations for others' behaviour as something he would only do as scum.

For crying out loud, more than anybody else I have ranted and raved about the need to consider alternatives - and now you are telling me that I am not doing it. I've already mentioned the prospect of DJ being newb replacer.

Mafia is psychological, yes. But the only insight we have into a person's mind is their reasoning and their logic. You try playing a game with people that just gut vote and so on, and see how far you get.

@TDC - Think of it as a protest vote. Kind of like putting the Libertarian Party on the ballot. You know you aren't going to win, but you do it anyhow.

Just by voting for the Libertarians you have already failed.

[vollkan]

It goes both ways. But vollkan's arguments with pretty much everyone this game have always seemed to devolve into being extremely nitpicky and subjective. I furthermore think he promotes this deliberately. Additionally, I don't see how he, being a good player, can think this method will help find scum.

I am not being nitpicky. I am attacking craplogic, as I have been doing all game and as I always do?

For the second time, what the heck do you mean by your accusation that I am being "subjective"?

I think it finds scum because, as I am sure I have already explained, I am of the view that scum expose themselves most distinctly through craplogic and faulty reasoning.

Making a show about apparently doing so is not the same as doing so. Again, it's parallel t your attack on me. You "considered" the possibility I was new then found a reason to dismiss it. It's not hard to find ways of "dismissing" ideas like this, even if you pretend to countenance them to begin with.

By all means, dispute the manner that I dismiss alternatives BUT YOU ACCUSED ME OF NOT CONSIDERING THEM. I've already explained why I dismissed alternative theories for you. And it is hard if the attack is not genuine. Sure, it is certainly doable, but that isn't the point.

Do you seriously believe that? Scum can easily fake townieness by conforming to archetypes of "logic". That's incidentally, what I think you're doing this game.

Scum can fake any sort of playstyle, and perfect scum would always succeed. Ultimatley, though, normal people scum have an inherently opportunistic drive which leaves scum open to dodgy/inconsistent/etc. reasoning.

[vollkan]

Yes, let's waste our lynch on somebody who is basically confirmed. FOS: Ecto

I don't agree with Ecto's conclusion, but it certainly isn't FoSworthy because you and Orto are most certainly not

basically confirmed

. FAR from it.

[vollkan]

and so ecto opened the possibility of lynching a mason, and vollkan doesn't disagree with it?

Ahem..

Hmm. Scum aren't going to kill either of them. In my view, absent claim, they'd both be lynchworthy (Orto more so than OP). Basically, the only reason they are both alive is because of their claim, and that's the way things will remain into the foreseeable future, absent vigging or something.

My dream scenario would be to have a suspicion lynch of somebody today (ie. not one of the masons) and for one of them to be vigged this evening, but that assumes a vig which is very optimistic. If there was no vigging, we'd be in the same basic dilemma again, but perhaps with some more information to go on.

The only real advantage in lynching a mason today would be that the confirmation would be out of the way as quickly as possible, and we would still learn something from the nightkill/s.

But, at this stage, I would prefer a suspicion lynch.

I don't agree with Ecto's conclusion

Just to make it completely obvious

, but it certainly isn't FoSworthy because you and Orto are most certainly not basically confirmed. FAR from it.

I can't say it any better than that: I DON'T AGREE WITH ORTO. I certainly do not think his idea is unreasonable (ie. I am not going to suspect him for it), but I do not agree with him.

All I can say with the whole don business, is that I'm on spyrex his side. He has been protown in my eyes. Don is completely attacking the wrong person.

Do you think DJ is scummy?

[vollkan]

just because he writes his opinions on who is and who isn't scum doesn't necessarily mean he's scumhunting. why do people choose not to understand that statement? what is evidence to you may not be evidence to everyone.

No, it doesn't mean he is necessarily scumhunting. But there's nothing to suggest that he wasn't, other than your assertion that you don't "believe" he was. Spyrex's post contained reasoning on people and was as much scumhunting as anything that anybody else had said.

You may doubt whether he was sincerely scumhunting - if so, by all means present evidence and so on to justify that claim - but simply asserting that he wasn't scumhunting because you don't believe it is completely subjective.

the general feeling i had on him up until that point was what i wrote in my notes.

Then why did you state it after your snipped version of post 52 and not as a general conclusion? It seems an odd place to make a general observation.

at this point i have not pushed a lynch, or even voted

Irrelevant.

volkan: why is everyone else here allowed to have opinions but me?

I have never once said that you aren't allowed an opinion. But you, like EVERYBODY else, has to back up their opinion with argument.

this was explained. i did not "deny" he posted scumhunting. i simply DID NOT BELIEVE HIM and I DON"T AGREE WITH YOU.

My position is simple: Spyrex's posting had reasoning on people in it and I have no good reason to claim he wasn't scumhunting.

You, on the other hand, simply say you "DID NOT BELIEVE HIM". Since you are the one asserting scumminess, it is incumbent upon you to explain why you don't think his reasoning was not genuine. Simply asserting disbelief is unacceptable.

I can't say it any better than that: I DON'T AGREE WITH ORTO.

interesting. i am really feeling like a second class citizen around these parts. maybe if i ask you a few hundred times why you don't agree with orto you will come up with a better answer.

That actually should read "I DON'T AGREE WITH ECTO" - regarding the mason lynch; and I have explained that position in full.

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

this is your opinion. i felt misrepresented.

Why? He quoted what you said purely and simply to make his point.

1) what? explain what? that i didn't BELIEVE spyrex to be scumhunting just because he wrote that he was? cause i have explained that quite a bit now.
2) it did. I DIDN"T F*%^ing BELIEVE IT.

And why don't you fucking believe it?

It's quite ridiculous to honestly believe scum would claim mason. That's honestly the worst strategy ever. Unless you're really good at this game..which, look at me, then yeah.

It's not ridiculous, at all. Masons are not exceptionally common and, given the bad situation the claimed masons were in, it's not at all unreasonable to suppose they might run the gambit of a claim. It's a very risky strategy, to be sure, but it is FAR from the "worst strategy ever".

[vollkan]

vollkan- did you ignore post 670 deliberately or unintentionally?

Unintentionally.

Anyway,

vollkan; for someone who has emphasised "logic" so much this game it is patently ridiculous that you ignore TDC's post 660, which features one of the most logical and objectively ascertainable points that has been made this game. Namely that even *speculating* as to whether OP and I are not masons is useless at this point; because if we're not, we have to be a scumpair. Thus even if you were to let us lynch whomever we want both today _AND_ tomorrow, if we were scum it is still a mere matter of convention to lynch us days 3 and 4 and take the game for town. Why, then, do you continue to even entertain speculation about us not being masons on day 1?

My dream scenario would be to have a suspicion lynch of somebody today (ie. not one of the masons) and for one of them to be vigged this evening, but that assumes a vig which is very optimistic. If there was no vigging, we'd be in the same basic dilemma again, but perhaps with some more information to go on.

This was also made after Post 660. Again, why would wasting a vig on me or OP be useful on night one? You love throwing around the word "logic" but blatantly contradict the only purely objective thing that has been said all game. You need to be lynched.

What I don't grasp here (and in TDC's argument) is the "mere matter of convention" about lynching masons D3/4 (or, in TDC's argument, "Failing that we enter Day 3 with: 2 Masons, 4 others, two of which are scum. If they are scum, we lynch town twice and enter Day 3 with our 2 scum masons and 4 townies. By then we should have a much better idea about the 4 remaining non-masons to judge whether the masons are to trust or not.") I'm not criticising the argument here or anything, but I am just confused as to what happens on D3/4 that somehow changes things.

Or do you simply mean that, by D3 or D4 we will have more information and thus be able to make a better judgment? If so, then I agree completely - as I said, even without a vigging, we'd still have more info come D2. Of course, the one problem I see there is this:

Let's say it's D4. We have the two claimed masons and some people who are moderately suspicious. I am very skeptical that, at that late stage in the game, anybody (and I include myself in this) would be prepared to hazard a claimed mason lynch over somebody suspicious. That was what I was trying to get at when I said:

Hmm. Scum aren't going to kill either of them. In my view, absent claim, they'd both be lynchworthy (Orto more so than OP). Basically, the only reason they are both alive is because of their claim, and that's the way things will remain into the foreseeable future, absent vigging or something.

At every stage of this game, the "claimed mason" status is really going to be a problem. Let me be clear that I do not support a lynch today and nor am I trying to set up a D2 lynch or anything like that. What I am saying, though, is that the situation is very problematic - I suspect both Orto and OP enough that I would normally want them lynched BUT FOR their claim, and because their claim would be a very risky gambit, I am inclined to believe it. And that's the basic dilemma for me: I hate the idea of having to trust this claim, given the atrocious play of both Orto and OP, but I also cannot think of any normal circumstances under which I would be prepared to lynch them.

That is why I expressed support for a N1 vigging. It would eliminate all doubt, and save the trouble of having to risk a lynch.

[vollkan]

Once we lynch actual scum, then ort and me are cleared that way too.

Unless there is a SK, mafia tend to come in threes. Thus, the lynch of a single scum would not inherently alter my opinion of Orto or yourself.

Wasting a lynch and/or a vig on testing whether or not the mason claim is real is pointless.

Because?

Vollkan, who was voted Best Newbie of 2007, is considered a really good player. He is good at lying and scheming, and the game in general. In Iceman Mafia, he replaced in for a player who was obv scum. vollkan replaced in, and managed to prevent a lynch for tons and tons of pages, yet eventually was lynched, and was indeed scum. If anyone can talk his way out of being lynched at L-2, it's him. He is scum. He's a lot more dangerous to have in a lylo situation then we would be if we still were unconfirmed (even though I think we are pretty much confirmed). vollkan is experienced at looking like he's town. He's not doing such a good job this game. Either is ecto. Now they're trying to cast doubt, and derail his lynch.

Well, I genuinely believed and still do believe that the case against my predecessor in that game was a load of bullshit, and I hold the same belief regarding the "case" that was presented against me personally. I was scum there, certainly, but the cases were absolute crap.

But, yes, there was for a time a meta strategy of "Lynch Mr. Flay just in case". Having said that, as my record attests I am by no means "unlynchable" as scum. I have a reputation for good play, but don't over-estimate me.

If there is a vig - don't listen to vollkanscum who is trying to direct your kill.

I'm not trying to "direct" a vig. I am simply giving my own opinion as to the optimal strategy for a vig, but they will have to AND SHOULD (since, from their perspective, I am potential scum) decide what is best.

[vollkan]

When do you think would be a good time to test them if not today? Assuming they really are Masons, do you really think we also have an investigative role to confirm them? Probably not is my guess.
So does any of this mean scum has to NK the masons? Not until after the first LYLO. They get to try to get the masons tested, or get the townie killed for a win. Failing that, even should one of them get lynched, they kill a mason and go into the final day only needing to convince the remaining mason that the other guy is scum in the final LYLO.

I'd prefer to win today, or confirm the remaining one and let scum decide when they will either NK him or have to go into the final day with him as judge.

I have not assumed the existence of a (investigative or other) power role at all. What I have said is that if they are town, there's a reasonable chance (50%) that we confirm before we

have

to decide whether we believe them

simply by lynching scum

.

I really do not see how you being vanilla makes you believe this must be mountanious. Your claim is entirely premature.

--

Let's say it's D4. We have the two claimed masons and some people who are moderately suspicious. I am very skeptical that, at that late stage in the game, anybody (and I include myself in this) would be prepared to hazard a claimed mason lynch over somebody suspicious. That was what I was trying to get at when I said:

Hmm. Scum aren't going to kill either of them. In my view, absent claim, they'd both be lynchworthy (Orto more so than OP). Basically, the only reason they are both alive is because of their claim, and that's the way things will remain into the foreseeable future, absent vigging or something.

At every stage of this game, the "claimed mason" status is really going to be a problem. Let me be clear that I do not support a lynch today and nor am I trying to set up a D2 lynch or anything like that. What I am saying, though, is that the situation is very problematic - I suspect both Orto and OP enough that I would normally want them lynched BUT FOR their claim, and because their claim would be a very risky gambit, I am inclined to believe it. And that's the basic dilemma for me: I hate the idea of having to trust this claim, given the atrocious play of both Orto and OP, but I also cannot think of any normal circumstances under which I would be prepared to lynch them.

That is why I expressed support for a N1 vigging. It would eliminate all doubt, and save the trouble of having to risk a lynch.

Again, here's what's different day 3: If they are town, we might actually have lynched scum day 1 or day 2. Doing that confirms them without killing them.
If we haven't then yes, the situation is both problematic and similar to today's. It's not worse than today's though.

How do you feel about Ecto claiming vanilla?

Unless there is a SK, mafia tend to come in threes.

Are you serious? A three player scum team in a ten player game?

I thought this was a 12 person game; in that case ignore my point about mafia lynch not confirming them - since three scum in a ten person game is exceedingly unlikely. And now I understand and agree with you about the mason lynch - lynching scum D1/D2 will effectively confirm them as town. Otherwise, we have a tough decision to make.

[vollkan]

Alright, I'm going to go ahead and claim by saying that

I'm

not standing in the way of this being mountainous.

Advantage to killing OP, we confirm Ortolan or catch them both Day 1. At the very least we keep the verbose one and his word is at least unquestionably coming from a townie.
The reason this question needs to be answered today is to avoid a LYLO where scum convinces the remaining vanilla member to test these two and it turns out it is only

mostly

mountainous.

Now obviously, there is reason for some members of the town not to overly protest the validity of this. It's why its such a damn thorny subject to get around. I had to claim even to be able to talk about it, and to dispute it here and now, a power role would need to claim.

But Ectomancer, wouldn't their gambit mean they are gambling on there being no investigative role?
Would that really be a stretch even in the slightest? I mean think about it. Here you are in a 10 player game, you get your role of Goon, and that you also have only 1 scum buddy who is also a Goon. Do you think there is an investigative role? Do you think claiming mason is really such a risk for scum in that scenario?

When do you think would be a good time to test them if not today? Assuming they really are Masons, do you really think we also have an investigative role to confirm them? Probably not is my guess.
So does any of this mean scum has to NK the masons? Not until after the first LYLO. They get to try to get the masons tested, or get the townie killed for a win. Failing that, even should one of them get lynched, they kill a mason and go into the final day only needing to convince the remaining mason that the other guy is scum in the final LYLO.

I'd prefer to win today, or confirm the remaining one and let scum decide when they will either NK him or have to go into the final day with him as judge.

How on earth do you reason that you being vanilla in any way connects to the game being mountainous?!? I just don't see your logic here.

Secondly, what makes you think there isn't an investigative role here? Have you ever played a newbie game? They have just 9 plays and some contain cops AND docs (!).

The initial reasons you gave for your mason lynch were reasonable, but this is looking a bit odd.

And I still don't understand vollkan's

Otherwise, we have a tough decision to make.

What decision exactly are you referring to? Please clarify your position exactly in regards to how you think the masons should be tested in light of your new knowledge that this is a 10-player game. When do you think would be best to test mason claims in light of either a scum lynch or townie lynch day one, and a scum lynch or townie lynch day two (account for both scenarios). I get the impression in talking about testing our claim you've talked about generalities: "oh, well they could both still be alive day 3 in which case town is in a bit of a pickle" without considering what I consider a very strong likelihood that scum will have been lynched day 1 or 2, or even apart from that one of us will be night-killed or another town death will occur which will have the effect of verifying our claims, or a power role verifies our claims. Why did you not consider these obvious possibilities which will clearly bear on our likelihood of being confirmed by day 3? It seems as though you deliberately ignored these possibilities.

In my eyes, the conduct of OP and yourself would be lynchworthy, but for your claims. What prevents me from voting for either of you is that I think that the nature of the gambit you would need to have pulled as scum to make such claims is very ballsy. Thus, my inclination is to believe your claims, albeit with an unusual level of doubt.

The tough decision, at the most general level, is basically this:

How pro-town does somebody need to appear, or how bad does the play of the masons need to be, in order for suspicion of the masons to outweigh their claim and make them subject to lynch?

There is no easy answer to that question, even at such a general level.

If we lynch scum today (or any day as the case may be), then, provided that you/OP don't flip scum by D2 as a result of any NKs, you are more likely town than before. The only way you couldn't be would be the slim chance of a 7:3 setup (which is possible if town is power-heavy). You seem to be under the impression that I think there is some abstract time when we should "test" your claim. That is not at all what I am saying.

FYI, I've re-read the case on don_johnson and the arguments against him really do seem rather subjective

Can you explain what you mean by "subjective" here?

I have considered I've been tunneling on vollkan so will Unvote for now. That said I believe that whole ridiculous "you're being prejudiced trap" argument was extremely stupid, and even if it was meant to demonstrate my tunneling on him only made me want to vote for him more.

This improves your pro-town ranking in my eyes. Or, more accurately, it seriously weakens one scum interpretation I had of your actions: the risk that you were exploiting your gambit to try and eliminate me.

(that said, I am amused that you still can't bring yourself to accept my trap )

mykonian, SpyreX, vollkan (I know you didn't vote don_johnson but you have been attacking his arguments): do you think don_johnson is likely to be mafia in this game, or do you think he is merely playing badly or has been unfairly targetted due to the difficult circumstances of replacing in?

I think his arguments are scummy, more so than I would expect to simply arise from difficulty or inexperience. I am by no means settled on him though, and intend on doing a reread very soon to order my thoughts.

on balance I still would be quite content with a vollkan lynch at present: and to be sure, my argument against him is different to the one OP made in his last post. It is not just "vollkan might be scum so let's lynch just in case" but rather "apparently vollkan is good, but his play this game, while being verbose, has shown little evidence of actually being useful in catching scum

1) Nobody's play has shown any evidence "of actually being useful in catching scum"
2) focus is reasons not results.

[vollkan]

okay then.

Vote: Volkan

Why?

Alrighty then. Sometimes you put a line in the water not knowing what you might get. At that point I didn't really care what I got so long as it was more than what we had going on. Policy lynch all liars? Sue me.

You can either ignore the "lynch OP today section", or you can press me for the details. All I can say is that it is a gambit rooted in psychology. I realize that people get nervous around gambits, but if you want a weird Ecto townie read, you can check out http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=500 (not the same situation here!) or http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight= (Got first scum, but HackerHuck owned me in endgame. My guess rooted in psychology in that situation was that the real cop would not try to counter my soft claim.)

Now that we have a more amenable atmosphere between the players here, let's continue.

unvote

I don't get nervous around gambits, but I would like you to clarify yourself somewhat. What specifically was gambit and what wasn't? By that, I mean:
1) Do you/Did you sincerely want OP to be lynched today?
2) If not, what is your actual position regarding a mason lynch?
3) Was the whole vanilla claim and mountainous speculation part of the gambit? If so, what was your intention?

[vollkan]

Those are 3 great questions. Glad you asked them. Those really are the questions aren't they? You can't look in the back of the book for the answers though. Have to wait until we get there.

I can live with my questions not being answered immediately, but I expect answers within a reasonable time.

I have typed up some ideas about your possible intentions, but I don't want to ruin a gambit. Thus, would you would like me to post said ideas right now?

On the moment he tells us it is a gambit, he must have gotten his information, yet he doesn't tell us.

Not necessarily. Revealing the gambit can be part of the gambit itself. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now. He cannot run this gambit indefinitely, that would be unacceptable, and when (not if; WHEN) it ends, we can analyse it in full.

[vollkan]

at this point i have not pushed a lynch, or even voted

Irrelevant.

why? are you saying that voting patterns are irrelevant in the game of mafia? if so, is my vote relevant now?

No, I am not saying that. My position is this:

A person is fully accountable for their reasons whether or not they vote. Thus, the mere fact you voted doesn't in any way excuse craplogic.

The above is in no way inconsistent with voting patterns being relevant.

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

1) were you modkilled in this "other" game for posting information pertaining to said game outside the appropriate thread?

Nope.

2) why did you not immediately ask the mod to remove this post from this thread as it is "obviously" not part of this game?

The thought didn't cross my mind. Probably a consequence of the fact that, if I were the mod, I wouldn't have deleted it - thus meaning I didn't consider it objectionable material.

4) why are you allowed to pish posh away your accountability for this post with

*sigh* It was a misplaced post - not a cynical attempt to improve consistency. In any event, you only need to look through my history to see that I frequently get into clashes over my opposition to gut.

and this:

I'm not going to say "think what you will", because I don't accept that there are good reasons for suspecting me for this. That's just granting you license to continue peddling this nonsense. The game is still ongoing, but check out Mini 688 "The Iceman Modeth". I stress that the game is ongoing (I am dead, however, which is why I am referencing it), so please say nothing which could influence that game. That is where the post was meant to be made.

i only need to look through your history? why does everyone else need to produce evidence to back up their claims then? with that "craplogic", couldn't i just offer this thread as my evidence of you being scum? funny how you don't "accept" the reasoning...

socrates knows your logic here is bullshit.

please explain.

Oh boy, now he's necroing SL's arguments.

As I have already explained, my misplaced post was an error arising from my use of tabbed browsing. It's not a question of me "pish poshing" (lovely phrase, btw) accountability. The fact is that you/SL, as accuser, cannot mount any serious argument that my actions aren't perfectly reasonable as a mistake.

The history point is relevant for two reasons: 1) It shows that these arguments are common for me, thus further cutting away at the idea that I posted to promote some false consistency between the two games (ie. because I have this debate so often, there is a greater than average probability that any misplaced post will relate to the debate); 2) And this is the most important reason - If I wanted to show that I am being meta consistent, it would make far more sense to quote a completed game where I was town rather than an ongoing game where I was scum.

[vollkan]

I'll leave Volk to answer Volk's bit.

Thankyou. I do so enjoy fighting zombie arguments.

(Fingers crossed that High Necromancer Don Johnson now summons the zombie duo of "Ungenuine" and "Unclear Perspective")

[vollkan]

And he points out what we all know about vollkan: his post are close to unreadable, and most of it tells nothing about the game

1) Readability is very much an individual judgment and I am posting here no differently to how I do elsewhere.
2) I don't like how people continually make it out like my posts contain nothing relevant, when that simply isn't the case. My posts contain as much relevant material as anybody else's.

I have used a lot of meta this game, but maybe it would be prudent to consider why that might be the case? I've been attacked, variously, for self-voting, gambiting, post length, verbosity, irrelevance, and theory. And I have basically been forced to write a doctoral thesis on the concept of a "scumtell". It's basically a "damned if you do, damned if you don't": Nobody understands me unless I explain myself in full, but when I explain myself in full I get attacked for irrelevance and verbosity.

Vollkan uses subjective arguments

For fuck's sake. The number of times in the past few pages I have asked for people to explain what the hell they mean by "vollkan has been making subjective arguments". This is really beginning to piss me off and I am getting the distinct impression, from the lack of explanation being given, that we have sheep behaviour going on here.

I am going to ask you this question, and bold it, and size 18 it.

What do you mean by "subjective"? Which arguments are you talking about? How are they "subjective"?

I haven's checked out the post don mentioned, but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using strawmanning. As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

You "felt" it before, huh? And you have the gall to accuse me of being subjective.

I didn't strawman Don. His argument is a load of crap, and it does wonders for my opinion of you to know that you are taking his argument as true simply on the basis of a "feeling" you had before.

he hides everything that could be a scumtell in massive post

No, I don't.

This is a perfect example of a subjective claim. My posts are big, yes. How can I possibly argue against the claim that I am "hiding scumtells" in my big posts? The most I, or anyone, can do against this sort of accusation is simply say "No I don't".

and keeps omgus attacking his attackers

...
...
hmm
...
I know
...
*HEADKNIFE*

I have been attacking my attackers. Yes. Want to know why? Because almost every argument that has been made against me has been absolute bullshit, and I have explained in thorough detail why. OMGUS is where you attack people BECAUSE they are attacking you, and I have done no such thing.

How often haven't we seen that vollkan finds his attackers scummy, or at least suck, because he finds the attacks on him rubbish. Nice way to push them in the defensive.

Yes, you're completely correct.

Forgive me, I should have realised that the protown response to bullshit arguments is to roll over and die.

Seriously, town has as much responsibility to defend as it does to scumhunt. In the process of defending, it is completely legitimate, indeed it would be a dereliction of duty to do otherwise, to attacker an attacker for a scummy argument.

That's why I absolutely have no problem with orto's play. Even after he had claimed vollkan kept doing the same (that was pointed out there) but the fun thing is, orto doesn't need to defend.

Orto does need to defend actually. Orto is potential scum and it is as legitimate for me to subject him to scrutiny as it is anybody else.

Orto did assemble a lot of small points against vollkan (would you have expected more?).

It would be more accurate to say that he continued throwing bullshit at me until some of it hardened.

What would I have expected? A few proper arguments.

Now, because everybody loves vollkan, orto is laught at. I feel that is wrong. People say he doesn't do his job. He does. Even if vollkan isn't scum, we have everybody talking about it. Orto played active, made cases, and in general tried to find vollkan-scum.

Everybody loves vollkan? You have got to be kidding me.

Now, if Orto is mason, then, yes, he has been doing his job by scum-hunting. Make no mistake about that. BUT the arguments he has adopted are scummy.

[vollkan]

OK, I'm stretching the defintion, but you attack people based on the fact that their case on you sucks. If you attacked me, I could do that too.

You are not "stretching" the definition. You are completely misapplying it. "OMGUS" is an emotive label just like "strawman" and, just like "strawman", it has a specific definition. To quote from the wiki:

OMGUS stands for "Oh My God, You Suck (for voting for me)!". it is sometimes used as a shorthand to indicate that you are voting for someone primarily because they voted for you.

OMGUS is a scumtell because the craplogic underpinning it is "I am town (or, at least, I claim to be). You must therefore be scum". This completely ignores the fact that town can attack town. It is a scummy thing to do.

That's completely and utterly different from suspecting an attacker for their reasons for suspecting you. Now, it is true that you could retort to me with attacks against me based on me making a bad case - and you'd be perfectly entitled to. Crap reasons are scummy, and anybody is entitled to suspect people for them.

Now, the great thing about labels like "OMGUS" is that you can say them and slap scumminess on somebody without explaining yourself.

As in, you can accuse me of OMGUS for that and it looks, at first glance, like a plausible point against me.

If, instead, you had said: "Vollkan keeps attacking his attackers for what he has argued to be crap reasons", it doesn't look scummy at all.

and the "I felt that before" thing is based on the point that I attacked you before on it. Some doubtful sentences, that were, if they were placed with an intention, placed to make your attackers seem dumb. That is one instance. Also the fact you call it bullshit, why I called it a minor scumtell It doesn't deny my point, but you still respond on it in this way. That is purely subjective vollkan. You put in that sentence in, and why? That is also my question with the insulting orto business. Why?

Uh...

I haven's checked out the post don mentioned, but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using strawmanning. As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

The above quote is very clearly about strawmanning.

Now you have completely flipped to talking about alleged ad hominem. As I have already explained, I insulted Orto out of frustration and I didn't ad hom. To reiterate:
Ad hominem is where you say somebody's argument is crap because they are stupid. (or any other insult)
Ad hominem is NOT where you say somebody is stupid because their argument is crap.

As I have said already:

I can't repeat myself enough that that is not what I was trying to do. I've been adamant from the outset that the faults in SL and orto's arguments are purely logical. What I am trying to get across, though, is my frustration at being tunnelled on conspiracy arguments. I have had to repeat myself so many times on each issue that I really don't think I am being listened to, and I would hope that some emotional language would get across that I really am adamant that SL and Orto have been pushing a truly atrocious case against me.

I am not trying to discredit Orto or anything (that's merely one interpretation of my conduct). Emotive language has its place, provided it is for a good reason. Getting across the depth of my opposition to the "case" is a legitimate purpose.

As for the "bullshit" point, you need to appreciate a distinction similar to that above:
It would be subjective if I said "Your arguments are wrong because I think they are bullshit"
That is not what I have said though. My position has been:
"The arguments are bullshit because they are wrong <for whatever reason, depending on the argument>"

There is nothing wrong with calling an argument bullshit, provided you back up that argument, which I have done in extensive detail.

Oh and you ignored my size 18 and bolded question.

[vollkan]

*spasm*
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "SUBJECTIVE"? You seem to just be using it in application to anything you don't like.

By all means, say that I am trying to disqualify Orto. What you are accusing me of there is psychological manipulation, NOT subjectivity. And, as I have said, it's one interpretation but I've already explained why I have done it, and have repudiated that it should be taken to discredit Orto simpliciter.

Frankly, I think that you either don't have a clue what the term means, or you are deliberately misusing it to make me appear inconsistent.

And I also explained already what I meant with the lable omgus, I explained it in the next sentence.

I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY YOU ARE WRONG HERE. I addressed the second sentence point:

Now, it is true that you could retort to me with attacks against me based on me making a bad case - and you'd be perfectly entitled to. Crap reasons are scummy, and anybody is entitled to suspect people for them.

I am going to be as blunt as possible:
OMGUS is a specific scumtell. What I did was NOT OMGUS. You abused the term and labelled something which wasn't scummy.

It is not yet strawmanning what you do here, but you don't want to read everything, and you seem to have problems understanding me in the previous post.

Then why the hell did you use the word strawmaning?

Spyrex´s action (asking for a deadline) was very scummy. And he points out what we all know about vollkan: his post are close to unreadable, and most of it tells nothing about the game. Vollkan uses subjective arguments. I haven's checked out the post don mentioned, but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before. I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using

strawmanning

. As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

I never said it was ad hominem, that was not even what you were attacked for. I attacked you at disqualifying your opponents. You defend by saying it was not ad hominem.

Your meaning was ambiguous so I addressed both ad hominem and the other form of pyschological disqualification. Thus, you are simply wrong to say that I only defended a charge of ad hominem.

I used the word omgus, and explained in the next sentence what I thought was wrong. You defend by theory discussion, and saying it could never be omgus.

I have already answered this. Even mentioning the word OMGUS was completely inappropriate. Your next sentence said nothing more than that you could do the same thing. And as I have already said twice now:

Now, it is true that you could retort to me with attacks against me based on me making a bad case - and you'd be perfectly entitled to. Crap reasons are scummy, and anybody is entitled to suspect people for them.

And it was not "theory discussion". If you accuse me of doing something I did not do, it is DIRECTLY RELEVANT to explain why you are wrong by explaining what the term actually means.

[vollkan]

Maybe I misused the word subjective

So that's three out of three so so far: OMGUS, strawman, and subjective.

Any argument that is not based on facts, derivatives from that, autorities (probably bad spelling here), etc, but on feelings, denying proof etc is subjective.

I love how slip in "denying proof" as subjective. Sorry, but "denying proof" is a purely objective argument. Saying "You haven't advanced sufficient objective reasons/weighed your judgments against alternatives to mount a case" is not subjective.

So calling someone stupid is moving the feeling of people against that person, so you win the debate. This would be bad. That is why I felt you shouldn't have insulted orto, not have called there arguments bullshit etc.

I know that is what you think. I have been reading your posts.

My point is and has always been (since the first time this argument was raised ages ago) that I wasn't discrediting Orto with insults. I was pissed off by the slew of stupid arguments he was making and kept repeating and needed strong language to voice that in the hope that it would make you people notice.

Your interpretation of my actions is valid, but put yourself in my position: If you had had to repeatedly deal with the same arguments again and again, whilst having a load of new subjective claims thrown at you, wouldn't you begin to want to let people see that you were annoyed.

In essence, what you are saying is that my actions were intended to make people pay less attention to Orto. What I am saying is that my actions were intended to make people pay more attention to me - not to the exclusion of Orto, mind you, just so people might think "You know, vollkan is angry, so maybe he has a point and we should take another look".

Don mentioned strawmanning and subjectivity. I attacked you on the second, but like I said, I think you could easily have strawmanned. There already I don't say I have found it, but I could believe it.

Congratulations. You just earned my vote:

Unvote, Vote: Mykonian

I haven's checked out the post don mentioned,

but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using strawmanning.

As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

Myk has now admitted that the entire strawmanning thing came out of nothing more than him thinking I *COULD* have strawmanned. He also claims he "could believe it". Just before, however, he said he did believe it because he "felt" that I had strawmanned. Obviously, the "felt" thing is almost as bad.

What we see here though (and I stress, this comes on top of the other criticisms I have made of Myk's latest attempts against me) is him endorsing the use of a powerful label - "strawman" - in relation to a post of mine, declaring his belief in its existence, and then backpedalling once he is placed under fire, rightly, for never even bothering to check.

I used the word strawmanning in the previous post, because you came close to it. I didn't want to fully accuse you of strawmanning, because you could have read it wrong, or you could just have evaded the point I made, but it didn't have big consequenses here. Plus that it is too easily used for someone that doesn't understand what you are saying. With the ad-hominem business this seemed to apply, so I'm quite happy with this weakened statement.
.

But I didn't come close to strawman. Strawmanning is where you take an argument and attack something similar but not the actual argument.

I discussed the accusation of ad hominem, and then I moved on to discuss the "discrediting" point. Right here:

I am not trying to discredit Orto or anything (that's merely one interpretation of my conduct). Emotive language has its place, provided it is for a good reason. Getting across the depth of my opposition to the "case" is a legitimate purpose.

What you accused me of could be either ad hom, or discrediting. (ie. calling Orto names to weaken his arguments would be ad hom; calling Orto names because of his arguments would be, on one view, "discrediting")

[vollkan]

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really? condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself? how would you define that?

Answer the goddamn question.

On a more pleasant note, I am pleased to announce that Death Note Mafia has finally ended with vollkan being confirmed as town (lost, sadly, but I lasted until endgame). I refer to this game for a few reasons:
1) Recent town self-vote (and I received the argument there that "this particular gambit was "inherently flawed" because it is "based on being suspicious of people who question the logic behind a trap or experiment" - just as I did here)
2) I am forced to bang on about subjectivity
3) I get accused of OMGUS for voting the person who gave crappy reasons for suspecting me for self-voting, and make the same argument I did here
4) It might pay for some of those who object to my play style here to have a look there and see if there is actually any difference (especially early game when I was under attack; late game I managed to semi-confirm myself and so things got easier)

[vollkan]

denying proof is the wrong term

I'm noticing a pattern here

I meant giving a statement, and by some construction say that proof is not needed (for example "it should be obvious that vollkan is scum, because he has the longest posts in the game"). You probably have a better word for it. English is not my first language, the above comes from that.

The best English word for it is probably "assertion" or the phrase "unsubstantiated claim"

Anyway, where specifically have I done that?

From the first post where you reacted on vollkan, I have never given any example where you were strawmanning, and I have never given the intention to look for it. You could have known that from the first post you reacted on, but it really had to take this long. Now you have first made my point seem too strong, you attacked me hard on the fact that I used such lables, and now suddenly you get back to that post, and tells everyone my point was easily defendable. "well, myko, why attack with it like it is strong?". When I restate what I posted there: "backpedaling". Vollkan, you are setting me up here.

You endorsed an accusation against me because of a "feeling" saying you believed. I then pressed you and you backflipped saying that you *COULD* believe it, despite admitting you hadn't seen any evidence.

IF you did not have reasons to believe it, you should not have made any endorsing noises at all.

You are cleverly putting me in to the defensive

See, that's an assertion. The word "cleverly" implies some deliberate strategem to my actions.

And

I am now at L-1

. I'll wait for more people to respond to our exchange before claiming.

[vollkan]

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really?

condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself

? how would you define that?

Answer the goddamn question.

see if you can find it...

Yes, I know that is what you meant. You've identified the post, now explain how I was being hypocritical.

(IOW: I am trying to narrow this down from general assertions by forcing you to identify a post and now I want you to explain the accusation in light of that post)

[vollkan]

and just to repeat:

I am at L-1

[vollkan]

Just to restate: I did believe don, just because I felt, and attacked you before, on subjective plays. I wouldn't think you too good for a little manipulation of the opponents argument.

You're making no sense.

Firstly, and most importantly, you believe him. Then you could believe him. And now we are back to believing.

Secondly, strawmanning is not a subjective play. I am getting the distinct impression that you are just labelling everything you don't like in my play as "subjective" in order to make it seem like I am being hypocritical.

And yes, I see a certain pattern: nobody that attacked you wasn't attacked by you. You didn't care about my play throughout the whole game, no big accusations, but now I attacked you, you find a weak point I made, the statement above, and after a few posts, you come to the conclusion that this is not a good point against you, and that I pressed it too hard. It is not more then normal to declare that my case sucks, and see, you have managed to put me in the defensive. This of course with the vote included. I'm not the first, and everytime it happens again, vollkan. Let's see what the others do (although I admit I didn't know you were already at L-1).

Nice drawing of a false equivalence there. I haven't made any major attacks against you, no. I have certainly disputed you a lot throughout the game, but you were never as scummy as SL or Ortolan. That in no way means that I "didn't care" about your pay.

And, yes, I have railed against my attackers a lot. As I have already said, this is because I think the case against me sucks and is scummy.

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really?

condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself

? how would you define that?

Answer the goddamn question.

see if you can find it...

Yes, I know that is what you meant. You've identified the post, now explain how I was being hypocritical.

(IOW: I am trying to narrow this down from general assertions by forcing you to identify a post and now I want you to explain the accusation in light of that post)

am i the only one here who feel that this is an insane request? you have shot your own argument against me in the foot. let me guess your response:

"please explain this more."

there is no accusation here. fact= you are being hypocritical.

You accused me of cherry-picking and hypocrisy. I got you to identify a post: 658. I got you to identify the "hypocrisy" - which was me allegedly cherrypicking after attacking others for it.

Now, I want you to specifically identify the cherry-picking. I don't think that's at all unreasonable of me.

I'm not willing to hammer you.
From what I can tell, neither SpyreX nor Ecto want to do that either.
So, I guess the ball is in orto's court on whether you should claim or not.

--

Ecto: When do you plan to reveal your gambit? I have trouble understanding what it was supposed to achieve.

Probably endgame. I understand where the trouble comes from. If you'll bear with me though, I think it should work out. I might be able to talk about it earlier if it fails. If you want to create a case based upon it, not much I can say except please build your cases on other material. The tree is planted but might not bear fruit, and definitely wont if I tell everyone where the tree is.

Hmm...This is different to the sorts of gambits I run. I do something fairly unfavourable, get reactions, then claim gambit and people can see my reasoning. Here, you have done something unfavourable, gotten reactions, claimed gambit, but refuse to let us see your reasoning. I know that you might well be genuine here, but it really does put the rest of us in an untenable position. You have done something which some have objected to, and claimed it was a gambit, leaving us all in a lurch as to: 1) What your actual opinion is; and 2) What the rationale for your gambit was.

This is what I am going to do for now: I am not going to insist on an explanation, for the simple reason that, by and large, you haven't been suspicious. If things do take a turn for the worse, though, I will push to see full disclosure from you.

@Volk:
You might as well claim. The mountain has pushed against you and, well, we know they're not going to move.

If you are actually scum I still think you played a good game and are getting hung based on nothing. However, I'm pretty damn sure you're town.

I don't think so. Orto unvoted which means I must have had some impact in all those pages of arguing. OP will very likely unvote as well, in keeping with his role as masonic sockpuppet. I don't think SL or DJ will be unvoting. Ixfij might unvote.

We have the numbers to achieve a lynch elsewhere, so there is no need for my claim. I'm not even at L-1 anymore, because Myk unvoted.

did I freakin know that I could have hammered him? I only knew spring, orange and don were on.

If you were aware of Orto's unvote, which I was so I suspect you were probably also, then you would have known that you were putting me at L-1. Ixfij's vote has been on me for some time, so I cannot see how you could have missed it.

I absolutely didn't like how he set me up, after I pointed out the facts I didn't like about him. Pressure was at least needed, that he could not do everything, and so he knew I would look him closely on those kinds of plays. Look how he cleverly uses the fact that I make one weak statement.

It's not "one weak statement". The arguments you made repeatedly misused terminology (OMGUS, strawman, subjective); you repeated the conspiratorial "vollkan insulted orto to manipulate us" line, and then, topping it all off, you flip-flop over the whole strawmanning thing.

This computer is not my friend, so this is gonna be hard, but I'll try)

@DJ

1.) Saying you are lying when you are, in fact, lying isn't namecalling. Sorry.
2.) Your "feelings" changed once one part of it was proven to be indefensible. Instead of clarifying marking the new difference you tried to sweep it under the rug in such a fashion that I appeard to have been attacking you on baseless grounds. That, again, is a form of lying.

this is all subjective. i have swept nothing under the rug. i apologize if your logic frustrated me, but you were(are) attacking me over a weak case, completely diregarding whether or not i voted, the fact that i admitted it was a weak case, and the fact that i produced evidence that the behavior pattern i called you on was also picked up by another player during that same time period in the thread.

There is nothing in Spyrex's post which can be called "subjective". Calling someone a liar is NOT namecalling if they do lie. And his description of your actions is, again, objective - you did backpedal by relying on the word "seems".

The fact you didn't vote and the fact you admitted weakness are immaterial.

not sure what you mean by changing the relevance, but when you say "seem" i am not expecting hard evidence. just like volkans "gut" feeling on fixijj. seem in no way implies factual backing. yes, i may question it, but condemn you for it, no.

No.

Very slippery move here. When I gave a gut feeling on Ixfij, I simply said that I felt something was odd and I repudiated that it was affecting me.

You, in contrast, said that:
"Seems to still be dodging accusations and questions". You detail a specific perception of specific conduct, which it turns out you have no evidence for.
and all indications were that you were not sidelining it as a subjective feeling.

My ixfij point is in no way similar to this point here.

[vollkan]

not unreasonable. entirely scummy. the cherrypicking was evident in the original post. you cherrypicked. you strawmanned. you have already been shown the evidence. this is why i can't see you as town. you simply deny evidence and ask for further explanation.

If it is evident, then show me where I cherry-picked and strawmanned. Quotes please and explanation.

his opinions are subjective. he thinks i lied. i did not backpedal on the word seems. as far as i can tell i did not backpedal at all. i put forth my notes. there was discussion as to what they meant, and i have presented exactly what it is they meant.

No. You said that Spyrex "seemed" to be dodging questions and suspicions. That simply wasn't true. When you were challenged, you flip and say that "seems" is just a weak word and doesn't need evidence. Any person who read that would see you accusing Spyrex of evading, but it gives you an out to say: "OH NO! I Wasn't accusing him of that, I just subjectively felt that was what he was doing."

the word "seems" is extremely relevant here. and it is extremely paralleled to your ixfijj comments. you just choose to dismiss it.

I have dismissed it because, as I showed before, there is no parallel. I like that you don't even quote my argument and just assert I am wrong.

I would prefer if you said "playing badly for town". Using "scummy" in such a general way is not helpful if you could express a more specific meaning (i.e. you are considering the possibility I am indeed a mason but even then you don't think my arguments are correct, or helping town).

I will continue to call them "scummy". My view is that you are most likely bad town, but your arguments themselves, detached from you personally, are scummy.

I will say on the "subjective" point people keep throwing at you and you keep denying, as I was the first to bring it up: I believe I observed in your play a tendency to make arguments, and when people respond to them, repeatedly, deconstruct and re-interpret them, and transform them to fit the archetypes of logical fallacies etc. You have clearly shown an ability to do this ad nauseum. I know from experience that one can do this to any series of words perpetually, "right" or "wrong" as they appear to be. And I really don't feel your positions have been rooted in solid footing any game, or there is any evidence that they come from a townie perspecitve (don_johnson made this observation earlier). Indeed, the fact your posts are long but so far have given us no verifiable evidence either way of your alignment or propensity for catching scum this game, yet you continue to insist you are in the "right" in whatever arguments happen to be being made is somewhat scummy to me. You said yourself of the game in which you were scum that you were happy to rebut arguments against your predecessor because they were extremely poor. However this just strengthens my point that propensity in debating or even supposed use of "logic" makes you no more likely to be town. So what if the town caught scum using "bad logic", they still caught scum. If the town can catch scum consistently using "bad logic", then I would argue in fact it's not bad logic.

Then what you are accusing me of is abusing logic, not subjectivity. And, I'll repeat myself, my play here is not any different to my play elsewhere. I have been forced to be especially theory-explaining here, more so than I can recall in the past, but that's to be expected given that it is my theory perspectives which have come under so much fire.

The town were lucky in that game. I can't put it any more bluntly than that. The case on my predecessor was absolute rot founded on lies and igorance of her meta. Then I got dragged down by baseless suspicions.

2) focus is reasons not results.

Why?

Town can reasonably push the lynch of town. A person on a townie's lynch is by no means necessarily scummy - the question is looking at their reasons for being on the wagon. Thus, the mere result should not be the focus.

There was a lot of discussion between Ecto and vollkan about whether to believe the claims OP and I made. While going into great detail they, surprisingly, seem to have ignored the substantial circumstantial evidence supporting our claims. Contrary to what I believe Ecto suggested earlier, the _only_ explanation of our actions is that we are masons, or we are scum together. We can't simply be vanilla townies- verifying each other would be cheating. Likewise we can't be a team of SKs by definition. Remember that scum can't daytalk. Thus we would have had to have come up with the scheme to claim mason before the game. This patently contradicts the suggestion we "cooked up" the scheme to take the pressure off us in light of badly placed votes. If instead you think we spontaneously decided to claim masons, then you have to explain OP bread-crumbing the role, and me acting perfectly consistently with being a mason in response to TDC's question at the time. So really, I don't see how you can claim the odds of us lying are great enough to justify testing our claim, especially in light of the extreme likelihood our claim will be vindicated by whichever deaths occur.

The breadcrumbing does support your claim. Let me be clear about that.

I didn't "ignore" it, though. All it would take is for, pre-game, the two of you to agree to move to a mason claim when placed under heat/ for you to spot the breadcrumbing and play along. And, of course, if you are day-talk mafia, then it becomes trivially easy.

This is a silly thing to say because our conduct partly results from the fact we are masons to begin with. For the record, as I have already said, OP's minimal posting style is 100% consistent with his town-meta. You argued against "policy lynches" of yourself earlier, but this is exactly what you are advocating in OP's case. Furthermore, in my case, I was Newb at the time of my early play in this game (probably still am). This is evidenced by my registration date. Why does neither of this get factored into Ecto and your own decision theoretic calculation of whether our claim should be tested?

Uh...I have never once advocated a test lynch of either of your, or a policy lynch. The only lynch I have advocated is a potential suspicion lynch in the future, which I have been clear I do not think present evidence justifies.

vollkan; I also don't like how much effort you are going to prove how you're "always this argumentative". Does this mean you bring up your meta in every town game to prove this?

Not in every town game. There's no need for me to meta-justify myself unless my style comes under criticism.

Orto unvoted which means I must have had some impact in all those pages of arguing.

No, as I said, the way you answered my arguments made me want to vote you more. However rather than descend into an infinite regress I decided to move my attention and focus elsewhere.

So, not at all? As in, I was still your no. 1 suspect even when you unvoted?

I don't like how vollkan got away from that lynch without claiming. I bring your attention to him refusing to claim on L-1 in the aforementioned game in which he was scum, again. Even if he is a power role I am almost inclined to think the benefits of actually being able to trust him in light of the claim outweigh the exposure to scum the claim would bring.

I've already explained my position on claiming - they are an "any last words thing".

Do you want me to claim now?

[vollkan]

not unreasonable. entirely scummy. the cherrypicking was evident in the original post. you cherrypicked. you strawmanned. you have already been shown the evidence. this is why i can't see you as town. you simply deny evidence and ask for further explanation.

This is the same load of crap I got from you over and over again. If its so obvious, why not hmm, just maybe, show it?

Give the damn examples.

"Ohh hey other people totally saw it so.." So what? Show it. Give the factual exact reasons for your choices. You refused to do it with me and you're appearing to start the sharade again.

Unvote, Vote: DJ.

[/mech]

<3

[vollkan]

That point being the incessant arguing and attacking of Ortolan after his mason claim.

I don't think my arguing was incessant. So much of the first things I say get challenged that I am forced to explain in detail about things. It's a Catch-22 to then accuse me of incessant arguing when, were I to do otherwise, I would be accused of dodging or evading.

This comes back to the point that I think this is largely a stylistic point. I haven't "over-responded" to things (arguing just to obfuscate), but my verbose style gives that appearance (hence my need for meta to affirm that I am stylistically consistent in argument)

You're starting to break down a little bit in your play. I don't know if this is a result of the accusation and increasing pressure upon you, or a frustrated backlash to play from the rest of us that you deem as unsuitable and poor. Either way could be interpreted as scummy, but is more a nulltell than anything.

Agreed.

To psychoanalyse myself, I put so much effort into arguing my points and trying to explain myself that it really gets to me if I feel like I am being ignored/unreasonably misunderstood.

@Fixfij: Why no consideration of Spyrex in your post?

And no, I've never played with vollkan before. From this whole game, I only played with spring. But then, he may be frustrating, but does that give him an excuse for setting me up? You can clearly see what is happening there. I have a weak point in my analysis on don's post about vollkan, vollkan makes it seems a strong point, and after that he reveals it is a weak point, almost saying nothing. I can do that...

I didn't "set you up". Saying I "set you up" presumes that I deliberately laid a trap and, thus, presumes I am scum. The believed thing was an expressed inconsistency in your own posts which I pointed out.

plus, i am experienceing with volkan what several other players have already in this game, which is his circular logic and frustrating play

Now my logic is "circular"? Pray tell, how?

his constant demand that i explain my explanations and continually repost my evidence is exasperating.

I didn't demand continual reposting.

What I did was simple: I wanted to force you to give evidence for your assertion of cherrypicking so I first forced you to identify a post. Then I demanded you explain where in that post. It's not forcing you to re-explain yourself; it's just forcing you to become more specific.

post 658: italicized is subjective material. these are opinions you present as facts. they are opinions.

Ah, you see, there's your problem. You are equating "opinion" with "subjective", when the two are actually very different. The definition of "subjective" that I used, and which I explained as problematic, was a claim which is unfalsifiable (eg. a claim that I am "ungenuine"). To illustrate:

"George W. Bush was a bad President because he invaded Iraq on a lie" is a subjective opinion (it's

my

opinion). But it is "objective" in the sense I have defined the terms here because it rests on a reason.

In contrast,
"George W. Bush was a bad President because I think he was bad" is "subjective" in the scummy sense of the term. Just like "vollkan is ungenuine because I feel he has an unclear perspective" is also subjective. It cannot be disputed or challenged in any way.

bolded is the statment you "cherrypicked". here is the original post:

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place. yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

by only quoting and responding to the first sentence with subjective opinions you are misrepresenting my point of view. hence: strawmanning.

Well, actually, I quoted the first two sentences.

That wasn't cherrypicking, though. What I was challenging was your assertion that the admission of weakness and the not voting were "evidence". The subsequent sentences don't at all bear upon that. Sentence 3 is you ranting about the way you are being treated, repeating the thing about the "sprex scumhunting", and repeating the prjeudice thing.

I didn't quote everything, because I didn't need to. I didn't in any way misrepresent you or strawman or anything by the quoting you identify.

i never launched a "case" against volkan. i only recently described anything he has done as "scummy". i voted to prove a point and the subsequent discussion has led to me offer "evidence" of his hypocrisy(which i have, if you've been reading). my vote was a gambit. i did it to prove the relevance of votes themselves. heres a little of my theory:

day 1 of a mafia game is full of almost entirely wifom arguments. there is usually nothing but subjective arguments all around. opinions are all we see, and opinions are, by definition, subjective. there are a very few things which can actually be tracked and quantified in the game of mafia. the main one being voting patterns. i believe analyzing voting patterns to be one of the purest forms of scum hunting. you all may think i am dumb, or a newb, for my presentation of my findings, but one of the main reasons i post is to spur discussion. it is my belief that scum expose themselves through voting. spyrex and volkan argued the subjectivity of their comments with me. it is their right to do so and their subsequent frustration is understandable(as mine should be). it does not change the fact that their opinions are just that: opinions. go ahead and look back in this thread to see who has the most suspicious voting patterns and then get back to me.

call it what you will, but fixijj is one of the few who seems to have been paying attention to what has been going on around the central arguments of this game. kudos to him. my stance on voting has been consistent from my first mention of it. unvote.

A gambit? Seriously? Because your opinion about voting patterns is in no way vindicated or anything by your professed "gambit". What the hell did your vote achieve in terms of advancing your claimed position?

I cannot see the point of any such gambit, and ,unless there is one, this really does look like you are just trying to shrug off accountability for the vote.

You know what I think, and don't bother calling this subjective, because it isn't: You've been pushing a BS case (yes, a case) against me (and Spyrex, to a lesser extent) for the past few pages. You've been shot down in flames and haven't convinced anybody and are now under fire yourself. In that context, you backflip and claim the whole thing was an enormous gambit.

I think Spyrex put it excellently:

So.. you voted Volk as part of a growing bandwagon as a gambit?

For spurring discussion?

And everything I've found wrong with your play is just an opinion with no factual backing

You're saying that in looking for the worst voting patterns we will find scum? Based on this, who do you think is scum any why?

i voted volkan to prove a point. he insinuated that my vote was irrelevant. i, in turn, aimed to prove that voting was, and is, an extremely relevant part of this game.

No I didn't.

I said that the ABSENCE of a vote by you didn't in any way excuse your accoutantability. I was even explicit that this in no way precludes voting patterns as relevant:

No, I am not saying that. My position is this:

A person is fully accountable for their reasons whether or not they vote. Thus, the mere fact you voted doesn't in any way excuse craplogic.

The above is in no way inconsistent with voting patterns being relevant.

You are misrepresenting me completely here, and that quote is solid proof of that.

not solely, but yes. as i said, my goal was to prove the point that voting patterns are relevant.

This makes no sense. Nobody challenged that voting pattterns were relevant.

short answer, yes. you have facts which you believe prove your points. same as everyone here. what i am saying is that almost everything each of us has argued is "conjecture". it is your opinion that my weak case indicates that i am scum. opinions are subjective. there are only a few ways to actually prove anything in this game.(i.e. a players death, night investigations, etc.) other than that we must rely on words. weakness does not equal scumminess, though it can be used as an indicator in some instances, it is not a provable theory(hence, why it is called a theory). this is why you want to lynch me. i accept that. it is not necessary to live in order to win this game, and the odds are in favor of a townie being strung up on day 1.

See, you and I are using subjective in differnet senses. You are treating any opinion as subjective. It is, in the colloquial sense of the term. The "subjective" I have attacked and labelled scummy is a special type. Thus, every time you have smugly claimed "vollkan is subjective", you aren't actually in any way indicating any scumminess or inconssitency on my own part.

Weakness does indicate scumminess, because scum are inherently more likely to push unreasonable cases, driven by opportunism and self-interest.

[vollkan]

Let's see,

1) His gambit hasn't proven that voting patterns are relevant; and
2) I never even challenged his claim that voting patterns were relevant. What I challenged was that the lack of a vote somehow weakens accountability for reasons.

So, all in all, the "gambit" makes absolutely no sense. (And yes, DJ, that is my opinion. It is not "subjective" in the bad sense, though, because I backed it up with reasons - see points 1) and 2) nicely laid out above).

His actions do, however, make perfect sense as an attempt by desperate scum to leap off of a sinking hulk of a ship.

[vollkan]

Another thing now that I think of it - in addition to "cherrypicking", "strawmanning" and "subjective", we now have DJ misusing another one of the terms that I brought into this game: "gambit".

Following the above, it makes no sense as a "gambit", but it would make sense for scum-DJ to call it a "gambit", given that I previously showed sensitivity to Ecto's gambit and, moreover, because it would prevent me from attacking him without looking hypocritical unless I voiced the attack carefully.

Let me stress that this post is not presuming that that is what he did, but I cannot see any sensible pro-town basis for the gambit he claims to have employed, and I am merely trying to work out the scum motivations. (I say this because I just

know

that there at least three of you who would leap on me if it even appeared that I wasn't considering alternatives)

[vollkan]

maybe i am misusing the term "gambit", but my vote on Volkan was to prove a point. now we are back to arguing semantics which is not productive.

1) Yes, you misused the term. A feeble attempt to justify the unjustifiable, and now you've only sunk deeper.
2) You vote proved no point (it in no way established that voting patterns were relevant), nor was it necessary for you to prove said point (I accepted from the outset that voting patterns were relevant)
3) We aren't arguing "semantics" (nice try to, as Mykonian would say, put your accusers on the defensive). You tried to defend yourself by labelling your vote as a "gambit", which it was not. It's not "semantics" for people to attack you for defending yourself by lying about the nature of your actions.

you are not getting it. i posted evidence, you denied it. i had to REPOST it. you cherrypicked. you quoted the first two sentences and ignored the rest of the paragraph which explained more of of my point. just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean there isn't one.

You've ignored me completely. I wanted you to back up your accusation, and you pulled out the hackneyed example of that paragraph where I addressed the two sentences. I'm now going to go over that paragraph in detail to show why I didn't cherrypick:
The sentences I addressed are in red font. Comments by me are in bold black.

i guess i can't force you to see the evidence. so i'll try once more: i admitted my case was weak, plus, i NEVER voted in the first place.

In those two sentences, you try and defend yourself by relying on two facts: That you admitted weakness and didn't vote. I challenged the relevance of both those facts

yet here we are six pages later with several players completely off the map

My not addressing this bit has no impact on my attack on the first two

, me finding it extremely difficult to catch up in this thread while fending off these repeated attacks which seem to revolve around the fact that i am supposed to believe that spyrex was scumhunting because he said he was

Nor this; this cuts to the SPyrex point which is a separate matter

, and you saying there is no evidence of spyrex coming at me with a preconceived prejudice when i have presented said evidence and you simply choose not to accept it.

This is the prejudice point

Quite simply, your paragraph contained a number of distinct ideas. My addressing the first two sentences in no way misrepresented you, nor have I ignored the other ideas or anything else that could possibly be labelled "cherrypicking". All I did was quote precisely the material I addressed. The rest wasn't quoted BECAUSE IT WASN'T RELEVANT.

[vollkan]

I indeed think you did that deliberately. The sentence use the word "feel", not think, know, etc. It was already weakened, and showed what my view, based on only my feelings, on you was. The word feel acts as a marker that the sentence given includes a very weak point.

You, however, first say that it is a big point. Not entirely changing my point, but only shifting it in strength (I don't dare to call it strawmanning anymore). Then, after a few posts arguing you say triomphant: That big point in his post is based on almost nothing, therefore myk must be scum!

For just a moment, abandon the presumption that I am scum deliberately out to trap you.

Now, let's look at the first thing you said:

Spyrex´s action (asking for a deadline) was very scummy. And he points out what we all know about vollkan: his post are close to unreadable, and most of it tells nothing about the game. Vollkan uses subjective arguments. I haven's checked out the post don mentioned, but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before. I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using strawmanning. As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

You admit you hadn't looked at the point. If you are town, that means you were prepared in this point to take something which another player (ie. potential scum) had said regarding another player on faith (ie. belief without evidence). You were very clear "I believe him on that".

You then proceed to justify yourself saying you "felt" it before (this is a proper example of subjectivity. How can I possibly be expected to argue against what you

feel

about me?). You then say you don't think voll-scum is too good for strawmanning - well, this much is true. If voll-scum thought he could get away with strawmanning then he would do it. That's hardly a profound insight.

Let's proceed to post number 2, after I push you:

Don mentioned strawmanning and subjectivity. I attacked you on the second, but like I said, I think you could easily have strawmanned. There already I don't say I have found it, but I could believe it.

I used the word strawmanning in the previous post, because you came close to it. I didn't want to fully accuse you of strawmanning, because you could have read it wrong, or you could just have evaded the point I made, but it didn't have big consequenses here. Plus that it is too easily used for someone that doesn't understand what you are saying. With the ad-hominem business this seemed to apply, so I'm quite happy with this weakened statement.

You say here that you "think" I "could" have strawmaned and that you "could believe it". The shift in language is substantial, and not merely semantic. In post 1, you state actual belief, and you go on to assert that you yourself "felt" that I had done it. The fact you would present this as me deliberately trying to entrap you only makes this worse. Town-vollkan's responsibility is to catch scum. What better way to catch scum than to question somebody about a questoinable claim? If that person then demonstrates inconsistency and backpedalling, the only rational response from town-vollkan is to take it as a black mark against that person.

And, of course, we also have the way you retreat from the word "strawmanning"

Now, we move to post number 3:

Just to restate: I did believe don, just because I felt, and attacked you before, on subjective plays. I wouldn't think you too good for a little manipulation of the opponents argument.

Which is basically a restatement of position 1, meaning we have come full circle.

yes, caught up. still trying to sift through a ton of information. my vote was to prove a point. the point was that my voting pattern should be as relevant as anyone elses. THAT VOTING PATTERNS ARE RELEVANT. they are actually some of the ONLY concrete evidence we leave behind as our posts are subject to much more opinion and conjecture.

Again,
1) Nobody had claimed that voting patterns were not relevant
2) How the hell did your professed "gambit" (to bastardise the term) achieve this end? Failing that, how did you intend for it to achieve the end?

i was condemned for bringing a case against spyrex. why? because it was weak and i could not entirely explain my reasoning in terms that spyrex and volkan found acceptable. i found spyrex's play early on in this thread as "dodgy", and in reading his posts i felt like he was dodging questions and accusations while pointing fingers. he calls it scumhunting. i disagreed. in your own experience with him you found it extremely frustrating to get information out of him. i have not once said that i shouldn't be held accountable for a weak case. my point with the voting is that there were other facts in my argument with spyrex that were systematically avoided and decreed as irrelevant.

No. Because it was craplogic and you dodged questions.

As for the Spyrex scumhunting thing, let me repeat things as bluntly as possible:
1) Spyrex made a post containing his opinion on people
2) If Spyrex is town, that opinion is scumhunting. If Spyrex is scum, that opinion is fake scumhunting.
3) Any person who is not within Spyrex's head only has the bare words.
4) You say you "don't believe he is scumhunting" and, thus, he is scummy.
5) However, your logic there is completely circular. The only way Spyrex could not have been scumhunting is if he was scum.

IOW, you're basically saying: "Spyrex is scumy for not scumhunting, and the reason he wasn't scumhunting is because he was scum"

To analogise: "God exists because the Bible is true; and the Bible is true because it is the word of God". Circular bullshit. The Bible can only be "the word of God" if you proceed from a presumption that God exists. Ditto, Spyrex is only scummy for not scumhunting if you proceed from the presumption that he is scum.

volkan further pushed that point on me when i brought it up in my defense, so i felt inclined to see how he would feel if i voted for him. in his subsequent reaction i feel i really got a handle on what i have been referring to as his "circular logic".

For all this talk about my "circular logic", you've yet to actually present an example. It seems to just be your latest "catch-phrase" attack on me, after I showed the others were all BS.

i am not the best talker in this group and do not present my thoughts in a way he finds acceptable, but when i have approached him with evidence, it is summarily dismissed. maybe i'm not using terms correctly, but it doesn't matter how i explain it, volkan and spyrex think i am scum and therefore interpret everything i do as scummy even when its not

If you present weak arguments, craplogic, and BS accusations, what are we meant to think?

there is one major fact which has been summarily dismissed in my defense:

i never voted for spyrex. in fact, my entire reason for posting was to draw attention to the fact that he was asking for a deadline which i felt extremely premature.

how can someone so immersed in mafia theory ignore this fact? you can say you think dj is scum, but to say a hundred percent, based on the fact that he presented one weak case in the face of a deadline? it is illogical. i am accused of backpedaling, but how else is one to react under such an onslaught of insults and dismissal of evidence. heres my take right now

Wow. Good point. You might as well have said:

there is one major fact which has been summarily dismissed in my defense:

i posted in english

I'm not interested in the fact you didn't vote. I am interested in your reasons. Sure, voting patterns are relevant, but the absence of vote doesn't in any exculpate you.

It's not "one weak case". And I am not "a hundred percent" sure you are scum.

How is one meant to react? By defending one's original point and explaining its merits, or by coming out and admitting error straight off the bat.

because scum volkan=scum spyrex and town volkan=town spyrex. if you haven't seen the intense buddying up and hand holding going on between these two then you are not paying any attention. i put volkan ahead of spyrex because i believe him to be scummier due to his circular logic, evidence denial, and scummy behavior(the misplaced post is at the top of my list. i don't buy it.)
.

This is complete crap. I could be scum that has pulled the wool over town-Spyrex's eyes. Spyrex could be scum trying to suck up to me, knowing that if I am lynched he will look good for supporting me. It's actually far more common for scum to distance/bus each other than it is for scum to actively defend each other (not that that makes voll&spyrex scum less likely, given the wifomic nature of that point, but it simply refutes the idea that scum usually look like pals)

Oh and,

@DJ: ANSWER ECTO'S POST 774

[vollkan]

In the interest of moving this game along, and (no offense Vollkan) in an attempt to clear the clutter should this result in a lynch, I'm going to put Vollkan at L-2 and request a claim.

I want vollkan to claim also. I believe he's been tunneling on dj. Holding off on a vote cause I don't know what the count is.

I can see this is not going to go away and I will dispose of it up the top of this post to ensure people see it.

CLAIM TIME

I am the Doc.

I have left a few subtle breadcrumbs:

From isolation post 58:

(

ie..

claims should be a sort of "any last words" thing, not a

"I'm a Doc, leave me alone"

thing)

Note the double fullstop after ie and the bolded claim. The double fullstop is a technique I used in Newbie 514 also in a breadcrumb as my kind of subtle "Note this sentence is special"
More recently, in post 99:

Secondly, what makes you think there isn't an investigative role here? Have you ever played a newbie game? They have just 9 plays and some contain cops AND docs (!).

Exclamation mark in parentheses, people?

I know doc claims are notorious, and I also declare that I recently fakeclaimed doc as scum in Iceman Mafia.

@vollkan

Now we are getting somewhere!

The statement I placed there was not strong: we agree
vollkan could use strawmanning (probably just not enough to get caught):we agree
vollkan uses subjective argumentation, uses sentences with the only use of getting the town to look positive at him: We don't agree. But on that moment, and still, I think I have found them
There is a link between subjectivity (playing with the words you use to tip the discussion in your favor), and strawmanning (playing with the argument of the opponent, to tip the discussion in your favor). I don't know if we agree here.

The last point is the only point you seem to miss in that whole business. I assumed, and still assume, that a person that handles his language well enough to use subjective language and manages to get an positive image (while you don't deserve it, as it is earned by subjective language), would also use strawmanning, maybe not in the clearest way, as he could try to conceal it. This is the problem that is left.

Your use of the word "subjective" is completely different to my own.

I also don't agree with your last two points, because I don't think you've established them.

@DJ: For fuck's sake, I have never said that voting patterns are not relevant. Your entire last post is proving a point which I haven't even contested. Reasons are open to manipulation in debate, sure, but they are invaluable as a source of information in scumhunting. If your logic holds, all scum have to do is simply not vote. They can throw around as much bullshit as they want but, because votes "are one of the only QUANTIFIABLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE" they aren't accountable or anything for that bullshit unless they vote on it.

I cannot state my position any more simply than this: Reasons are important. Votes are important. Absence of a vote doesn't negate the importance of reasons.

volkan has stood behind a wall of logic this entire game. he has attacked more than just me with the accusation of using "craplogic". his posts are logical and he prides himself in his ability to differentiate between what is "real" and what is "crap". he has even agreed that "voting patterns are relevant". so why in this "land of logic" does he dismiss my voting pattern? it doesn't indicate that i am town, and it surely doesn't indicate that i am scum, but for it to be "irrelevant" to a case against me is simply inconsistent with "logical" volkan(i'm sure he has an answer). i cast suspicion on spyrex for "feelings" i had about his play, but all of the logical evidence i have produced in my defense has been "dismissed".

No. I have proven you wrong again and again. Once I prove your reasoning wrong, it becomes "craplogic" to me. Saves me trouble of saying "DJ's logic which I have demonstrated is fundamentally flawed".

I haven't dismissed your voting pattern. What I said is that I am not going to ignore your craplogic on Spyrex simply becasue you didn't vote.

the timing of my entrance into this game, the fact that i did so to prevent a deadline, and the fact that i never voted and admitted almost three posts into the argument that my case was weak and that i actually didn't find evidence to substantiate my suspicions are some pretty damn PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES that are being written off in my defense.

Timing of entrance makes mistakes more likely; doesn't provide an excuse for craplogic.

Ditto for deadline.

I've said my piece on not voting.

Admitting your case is weak is irrelevant. There's a distinction between a point being "weak" and it being "crap". A "weak" argument has a valid reason for seeing something as scummy, but not to a degree as would compel serious suspicion (say, ignoring a single question). A "crap" argument has an invalid reason for seeing something as scummy.

refutes nothing. i am glad that volkan is at least seeing the wifomic nature of this statement, but this is a good example of someone denying the mathematics of probablity. this statement is not quantifiable. in this particular game there is as much chance of scum buddying up as there is of them bussing each other. the only people who would know any different at this point would be scum.

Thus making the entire argument about Spyrex and Vollkan being scumbuddies completely wifomic. The hallmark of a scum relationship is not attacking or defending, but inconsistencies - attacks which seem a little too vigorous, defending which seems off, changes of behaviour that just don't fit, etc.

[vollkan]

If vollkan is a powerrole (say a doctor, or a cop), why should he claim at this point? He is at L-4, and is hardly in danger of being lynched. He shouldn't claim, unless he feels that he has to.

Ecto said he was going to put me at L-2, and Orto said he is only not voting me because he doesn't know the exact count.

If I held off any longer, I risked getting tarred with "refusing to claim", only further inviting a comparison with Iceman mafia.

[vollkan]

Why such aggressive play for a doc?

My playstyle should change when I am a doc?

And why only breadcrumb your role after having been on L-1?

I didn't do it early game. When I realised that I was going to likely be in a position whereby I had to claim, it made sense for me to breadcrumb, so it at least looked less spur of the moment.

If anyone had a scum hypothesis on you I don't think this claim necessarily proves much to the contrary.

No, it doesn't. Having said that, it's not much more dubious than somebody else's claim.

[vollkan]

I've already said that, from what I've witnessed, that I think your playstyle is different this game. Being so amazingly ostentatious and getting into extremely complex arguments, if townie, is a pretty good way to get the mafia to night-kill you (unless by tunneling you were actually trying to mislynch a townie so that the mafia would love to keep you alive and let you stay about your night-time protecting unperturbed).

And I've already said that my playstyle isn't any different. I'm more pissed off here than I usually am, but the reasons for that should be pretty obvious perhaps even more so after my claim.

Secondly, my playstyle is one which tends to get me NKed anyway. If I suddenly abandoned that playstyle, it wouldn't take much for scum to cotton on to that fact. I "hide in the limelight", so to speak.

Wouldn't the reason be "so that hopefully people would pick up the breadcrumb", rather than "so it looked less spur of the moment"?

No. Whenever I breadcrumb, I deliberately do so in ways which won't be easily noticed but, simultaneously, won't risk breaking the "no cryptography" rule. For the same reason I don't like claiming, I don't like hinting at my role through obvious breadcrumbs. Much better to use odd punctuation and so on which I can refer back to.

Why do I so far find your arguments re: your claim to be far less convincing than those you could make when you could fall back on the situation of no-one having any game relevant info?

I don't understand your question.

[vollkan]

In terms of not drawing attention, one thing that springs to mind is for example...not self-voting.

Firstly, I'd place a higher premium on catching scum than on protecting my ass, seeing as the "vollkan is a known good player" thing already makes me at high risk of NK.

Secondly, I really think that tarring myself with self-voting actually makes my NK less likely, not more.

[vollkan]

And why only breadcrumb your role after having been on L-1?

I didn't do it early game. When I realised that I was going to likely be in a position whereby I had to claim, it made sense for me to breadcrumb, so it at least looked less spur of the moment.

Why do breadcrumbs help a true claim vollkan? Because they show you knew way before you got into trouble that you had that role, to show us that it is not something to escape from a lynch.

What you do here, is after you get into trouble, you set up a fakeclaim. Crumbs help for that too, you know... And here those crumbs completely lose there protown use, because you only thought up your role after you got into trouble. After you got into trouble, you suddenly realized we came a bit too close, and hastely tried to make a fakeclaim.

vote vollkan

No, that would be one interpretation of my actions. I've already explained why I breadcrumbed when I did. The great irony here is that I daresay you would have less objection if I had not breadcrumbed than had I breadcrumbed when I did.

But, anyway, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about my vote to see that you dropped DJ like a hot coal once the prospect of leaping onto a less-than-perfect claimed doc presented itself.

[vollkan]

Yes vollkan, I probably would have thought it more normal that you would have claimed without the breadcrumbs. You are trying to show us that you claim is strong then it is. It was a claim, set up after you got into trouble, and now because you have "breadcrumbed" you ask us to believe you. The breadcrumbs make a fakeclaim more likely, as they were posted after you got into trouble, just to save you.

Actually, I've been fairly clear that I know my claim is not strong. So yeah, you're spouting bullshit when you say I am trying to buff it up.

Having said that, whilst it's certainly possible that scum-vollkan might have flipped out and started crumbing doc when I did, it's equally possible that town-vollkan would have decided to do likewise, figuring that some crumbing wouldn't go astray.

Orto: your masonclaim was crumbed a bit better (earlier), and you had OP backing you up. Look at it yourself, you can't compare it to this... You pointed it out yourself: why would vollkan only breadcrumb after L-1? I think this most likely: because he is scum, and suddenly we came to close to his lynch for his comfort, and he had to set up a fakeclaim to fend us off.

1) How much earlier did Orto start crumbing?
2) See above. Town-vollkan has just as much reason to crumb as scum-vollkan.
3) Please explain how the "bit better" of Orto's claim makes his lynch unconscionable, but is enough to prompt you to

change

your vote to me.

[vollkan]

As I said, the utility of my crumbing showed it wasn't a spur-of-the-moment thing. I know it doesn't have the value of a first post breadcrumb, but you should be able to see that it at least has some utility. Put yourself in my position at that point in time: You're a doc, it looks like you might be forced to claim, and you haven't yet crumbed. Do you really think you wouldn't seriously consider crumbing, even if it wouldn't be sure to get you off the hook?

[vollkan]

EBWOP: First sentence of that post should read:

"As I said, the utility of my crumbing [

was that it

] showed it wasn't a spur-of-the-moment thing. "

[vollkan]

Like I said, the breadcrumbing was better. Not only from orto, but also OP began with defending orto. That means scum would have thought it out before the game started. Not an on the moment thing.

With you, you want to tell us it was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. But wasn't it? It was to late to help vollkan. It only helps your claim if we can tell with it that you knew you were that role before. Here you try to push your fakeclaim through with breadcrumbs that have to tell us... what? It makes no sense vollkan.

If you are to late with breadcrumbing, you are too late. It won't help anymore. Why were you late? because you forgot to do it? Or because you only read your role-PM after you got at L-1?

No Vollkan, the likeliest option is here: you made it up then. That's why you must be scum.

How far before Orto came under fire did OP begin the defence?

And again, I repeat the point that my claim would have been taken better had I not bothered to breadcrumb at all.

And answer my question from post 811.

Lets see if scum would rush to that lynch, I would love to see it.

Well, with you, DJ and SL already on the wagon, there's a pretty good chance they don't need to rush onto the wagon at all.

[vollkan]

Yes, without the breadcrumbing, this would have been better. just saying, "sorry people, I forgot", is much better then "look, I must be the doc, because I breadcrumbed", while there are objections to that It is not obvious, and the way you try to get past us there is scummy. Why do you think I vote you?

Except it is complete bullshit on your part to suggest that I have adopted an attitude of "I must be doc because I breadcrumbed" when, in fact, I have been anything but smug about my claim.

All I'm saying is that, whatever reasons you might have for not liking my claim, the breadcrumbing doesn't damage it. Town in my position could reasonably breadcrumb. Your continued non-answering of 811 speaks very loudly on this.

volkan, your last post to me was off the mark. i can go pbp if you want, but it seems to get us nowhere. not sure if you realize, but you have called ALL of my produced evidence in my defense of spyrex' s attack "irrelevant". why is everything irrelevant to my defense? if you read my responses to him you will see that i was trying my best to explain a poorly posted list of early game suspicions. it was my mistake, but all of my responses are reasonable. you yourself say that in the face of "craplogic" you expect someone to either back it up with evidence, or admit that it was weak. i did the latter, yet you call all my reasoning justifying my actions "irrelevant." if you think all of this, why are you not voting for me? is anything i have contributed keeping you from lynching me? if so, what?

Because the basis of my attacks was more reasoning in an attack on Spyrex.

Your reasoning is poor whether or not you voted, replaced, admitted weakness, feared deadline, etc. I also didn't say they were all irrelevant - timing of entrance and deadline can extend grace, but they don't extend to a leave pass.

And I did not say the choices were "back it up" or "admit that it was

weak

". The choices were:

By defending one's original point and explaining its merits, or by coming out and admitting error straight off the bat.

There's a fundamental difference between "weak" and "crap" (ie. error), which I've explained already.

this argument is not completely wifomic. there is a correlation. i will back this up with the math when i get time, but you and spyrex have voted together a significant amount of time. the two seemingly distinct times that you have not voted together are during a) the random phase, and b) after the "deadline" interruption. yet during this second period you vehemently defend spyrex's right to answers and deny any and all evidence i produce in my defense. yet you never vote me. to me this is an inconsistency. not to mention the inconsistencies of your logic which i have previously pointed out.

What's the inconsistency?

The fact I didn't vote for you is just a product of the fact that you weren't my number one suspect, despite being seriously suspected by me.

also, i don't believe ecto actually voted for you. your claim is a bit premature, but unvote, unless we have a counterclaim. the inclusion of a doctor does not seem unreasonable to me at all.

He didn't actually vote, but he stated he was going to do so.

My claim was not a L-1 claim, but I had been requested by two people with expressed intention to put me at L-1. I wasn't going to risk running the gauntlet of "refusing to claim", when it was clear the chips were most definitely down and I wouldn't be able to avoid claiming by any means.

[vollkan]

i understand here, but i am wondering why the post by ecto that i submitted is dismissed in this matter. i wrote in my notes "seems to be dodging questions and accusations". when asked to back it up i clarified it by stating that his play appeared "dodgy" in general. i understand why that looks crappy, but when i back it up with ecto's post i don't see why it's still considered total crap. someone else found it difficult to get something out of spyrex during that time period in the thread. it is a similar gut read to the one i got from reading the thread. i see that as a reasonable defense. should it give me a leave pass? no, but is it unreasonable to offer as evidence? no, its a concurring opinion on spyrex's play during that particular portion of this thread. i believe that makes my reasoning better than simply "poor".

It doesn't make it any better. See, "dodging" is a very specific action; contrast it with SL's accusation that I am "ungenuine". You can pinpoint posts and so on where there is dodging. You can't pinpoint posts where there is "ungenuineness" (as we saw, when SL did try to do that).

It's like saying that you had a gut feeling he was "strawmanning". Strawmanning, like dodging, is something you do that should be clearly visible to others. The fact that you only substantiated this with "gut" is therefore bad, even if you weren't specificallly refering the to one post, a claim which I am skeptical of because it seems bizarre ot make a general observation mid-way through.

votes=concrete evidence. yes they are open to interpretation, but it is a fact that you consistently voted for the same players spyrex was voting, and for an extended period of time. then, you simply agreed with him and backed his reasoning against me. this while denying every shred of evidence i offered while not voting with him. that is a statistical inconsistency and that is the only point i am making. to me this showed you distancing your vote, but still working together for a lynch. your claim temporarily debunks this theory, but i am within my rights to point out this inconsistecy.

And this is why reasons are important.

Spyrex and I have been in agreement in our reasons for a long time now. When I simply agreed with him on you, though, it was because I had greater suspicion of others (SL, and then changed to Myk). It's not an inconsistency, unless you are seriously suggesting that Spyrex and I should always be voting the same way.

Also, the inconsistency in your logic is what i believe to be this denial of evidence. spyrex misinterpreted a post of mine earlier. i called it a lie and you have no comment(thus far). if his excuse of misinterpreting what i said is reasonable, why is my "misinterpretation" of his earlier posting not? like i said, he is pushing for a lynch, so his lie has much more damning potential than my "lie", which i contend he manufactured through his "gameshow" post.

What was your "misinterpretation"? If you mean the thing above, that wasn't "misinterpretation", that was you claiming you wrongly addressed a general remark to a specific post. I can't remember the specific post by Spyrex, but I think my reasoning was that the post was one that was reasonably ambiguous and so his excuse was acceptable.

reasonable, but still results in an inconsistency. how sure are you that spyrex is town? why do you feel this way?

I would give Spyrex about a 40 on my scumdar. Why? Whilst individual instances of agreement in no way make somebody pro-town, a player who consistently reasons well and doesn't show opportunism or inconsistency is more likely town.

Look at that claim yourself, is it that strong? What do I see, what you can't?

The strength of my claim is approximately the same as if I hadn't breadcrumbed. My late-crumbing was reasonable from doc-vollkan as a means of at least partially protecting myself from the charge that I claimed on the spur of the moment. Unless late-crumbing is unreasonable from doc-vollkan, then my claim is really as strong as if I hadn't crumbed.

Thus, whilst my claim is not as good as if I had breadcrumbed from the beginning, I don't think you can reasonably argue that I am now lynchworthy because of that.

What do scum gain by lynching a doc as opposed to lynching someone else (assuming that someone else is not one of them) and then nightkilling the doc? Put any other role in that spot and it makes more sense (because that role might be doc protected at night), but with the doc himself (how many gmaes have two of them? Not many), the only "risk" I can think of is a watcher. But that's kind of a moot point when everybody can see how you're pushing for the doc's lynch at day.

As Spyrex said, lynching a PR is always better than lynching vanilla for scum. If I am lynched today, they don't have to kill me tonight and can go after other targets.

Moreover, go back to where Myk voted me. Orto had attacked my claim. To Scum-Myk, that would reasonably look like an opening to vote me and have the protection of a claimed mason's endorsement.

[vollkan]

I'll address the most important thing first"

Claim time, I'd say.

I see it now. Well, I have to do it anyway, and to scum it is probably already clear.

I'm the doctor. No breadcrumbs, nothing.

Can we lynch vollkan now?

(NB: As TDC says, this confirms the masons.)

Textbook scum last-ditch counterclaim. Please lynch him now.

who do you think is the best lynch and why?

Mykonian.

Why? At the time you asked the question, it would have been Mykonian for the bogus arguments he had made against me, the whole "I could believe" thing being the straw that broke the camel's back.

Right now, though, my vote is on him for that and the fact that his "counter-claim" basically confirms him as scum to me.

i am still not getting why my "gut" feeling on spyrex through the first several pages of this thread is not substantiated by the fact that Ecto not only had a similar read on spyrex, but posted his thoughts on the subject. how is it bizarre to want to post my thoughts when someone is asking for a deadline?

there is no mention of "requesting" a deadline here. this might be a newb error on my part but i found the request peculiar. is it normal in these forums?

It's not "common", but it's also not abnormal.

spyrex's "misinterpretation" was him thinking i had stated that i had evidence against someone. my misinterpretation to which i am referring is my original posting of "spyrex seems to be dodging questions and accusations." when pressed, i clarified this standpoint as spyrex seeming "dodgy" in general. i backed this up with ecto's post, which you have dismissed and still have not explained. is it because i am using another players perspective in the matter to justify my own? i could almost buy that, but i still don't see how my statement is still completely unsubstantiated in your eyes...

You said Spyrex was dodging. I don't give a damn what Ecto said, because that's irrelevant entirely to whether you had justification. If you say something about another player, you have to be able to back it up. I've made myself clear on that. You kept asserting that he was avoiding things without any examples of what he was avoiding. That's my problem.

[vollkan]

i will have to defer to more experienced players on this, but what stands out to me as "scummy" about volkan's claim is the breadcrumbing. why would a doctor breadcrumb at all? especially admitting that he would do it as scum or town(i believe volkan referenced another game where he did it as scum)? i get why an investigative role would breadcrumb(to get doc protection), but even then i don't think this is common or necessary on day 1. so why breadcrumb as a doc? can some of you who have more time in this forum please chime in.

Depends on the type of crumbing.

Some investigative roles might theoreticaly crumb in the hope of getting a protective role's (or a watcher's, etc.) attention. The trouble with that, of course, is that if a power role will spot the crumb, there are strong chances scum will also.

The type of breadcrumbing I do and have done in the past is just designed as a means of adding something to a claim. Crumbing can, of course, be faked by scum very easily - including "first post crumbing" (where the crumbing occurs early on). It doesn't and shouldn't be taken as a means of confirming a claim or anything, but it is worth doing because, at the very least, it shows a claim wasn't a "spur of the moment" thing.

breadcrumbing can be usefull for a doctor. It makes your claim stronger, as it proves you knew you were the doctor before you claimed. However, it also works for a fakeclaim. If you plan to fake a certain claim, you can breadcrumb before it, to make people believe you.

the problem with my breadcrumbing, is that I didn't do it. You'll have to determine my allignment on my play.

the problem with vollkan's breadcrumbing, is that it has no use. He breadcrumbed when he got too close to a lynch for his comfort, and then it can't prove he knew he was a doctor there. He just faked it then, when it was needed. Later, vollkan wants to "prove" his doctorship by providing his "breadcrumbs". Not that there is any use for it, he just wants to push his claim through there. His breadcrumbs tell nothing. His claim is not stronger then a claim without breadcrumbs.

Yet again you repeat this bullshit. I have said the exact opposite of what you accuse me of here. I have in no way at all said that my crumbing "proves" my claim. I even made it clear that my claim is only really as strong as if I hadn't crumbed at all. Again, all my crumbing does is show that I had some time commitment to the claim.

Well, for starters,

unvote

Secondly, This is a bit of a predicament. I am CERTAIN that we don't have two docs. On one hand, vollkan has a reputation for fake claiming doc, as even he admits. On the other hand, he breadcrumbed nicely and mykonian's claim reeks of last minute indecision. Neither has looked particularly protown to me, as I've had my vote on both. However, this is also because it's not in a power role's best interests to lead town.

I'm leaning towards vollkan right now just because of his meta, but I want more discussion before I attack him.

I don't have a "reputation for fake claiming doc". I have done it once before.

I didn't counterclaim, for this simple reason: I have to give up a powerrole.

I can take three ways from the point vollkan claimed.

1. no counterclaim: I make a mess of it, and we are going to loose.
2. counterclaim right away: town gets a fifty-fifty between vollkan and me: I am going to be nightkilled
3. take my chance and try to lynch vollkan without outing my role. If it happens, I have the chance that scum kills a mason, and I have a chance to save a mason. If it doesn't happen, I claim before I get lynched, and we go to way 2.

Now I ask you, would you really want me to play 2? I make the best choice here by taking three, it is just taking an extra chance, thereby increasing the chance. So I try to get you to vote vollkan, and if that doesn't work, I'm going to claim.

Your reasoning here just doesn't stack up.

Delaying a CC only makes it less and less believable, with good reason - increases odds of the CCer being desperate scum. If you had immediately CCed me, there is no way in hell the odds would have been "fifty-fifty" - I would have been lynched asap. In other words, option 2) carried a near-certain chance of me being lynched; the cost being your NK (I am speaking in hypothetical here, obviously).

In contrast, the chance of a claimed doc being lynched D1 without a CC is tiny. Unless a player was absolute obvscum, town would be crazy to go down that path. In other words, option 3) carried little prospect of my lynch. But, moreover, a delayed counterclaim is inherently less believable and, moreover, as it became clearer and clearer that you were at risk of lynch yourself, the believability declined even more. Thus, option 3) carried little hope of achieving my lynch, and the strongest likelihood of your own lynch.

Your actions make no sense coming from town.

In contrast, they are perfectly consistent with doomed scum making a last-ditch effort to achieve my lynch, after a plan of jumping on people's scepticism about my claim went balls-up for you.

I know vollkan is a better player then I am, but don't make him move your vote that easily.

Emotional pull - you're relying on the fear factor here.

what should I have done different then attack vollkan hard after he claimed doc? Why would I do it as scum. Everybody got a feeling I must be scum, because the case on vollkan was weak on its best. Off course it was, I didn't need more evidence, I just didn't want to give all the evidence I had.

But everybody has a feeling that I must be scum, for that action, while it actually was the most protown way of doing things.

Speaking in the hypothetical, an immediate counterclaim was the only sensible protown option.

Lets go to a slightly wifom based argument: Why would I, if I was scum, attack a un-cc'ed doc with some murmuring about weak breadcrumbs? The only reason would be to be lynched fast.

No, that isn't the only reason.

As you've conveniently ignored, at the time you launched those arguments my claim was being subjected to serious scrutiny by Orto and, given the way I had been treated up to that point, opportunistic scum would have leaped onto the chance of getting a claimed doc lynched and being unaccountable for it, by virtue of the meatshield of a claimed mason.

[vollkan]

Why? Just cause of the two doc claims? Doesn't that just prove it's not mountainous?

No. It confirms the masons.

In a ten player game, more than two scum is extremely unlikely.

Thus, one of Mykonian and myself is scum. That also means that neither of the masons can be scum, since both state that they are confirmed as town to each other.

I don't see why people assume myk's claim has no credibility.

mykonian did clearly alter his behaviour as soon as vollkan claimed, consistent with him being the doctor. It was in a way that, as TDC said, has no obvious scum explanation. mykonian could probably have ridden the dj wagon to a lynch then simply nk'ed vollkan. It's a big stretch for vollkan to say:

Textbook scum last-ditch counterclaim. Please lynch him now.

The fact myk didn't immediately counter-claim is a slight point against his case but I think his explanation is reasonably plausible- and once he'd already posted without counter-claiming he'd look suspicious doing so unprompted.

See my previous post. Myk's claim is completely inconsistent with any reasonable assessment of the risks of his options 2 and 3 (I agree with him that option 1 is ridiculous)

If you're the doctor, why would you even play with the thought that there might not actually be a doctor?

This is a really good point.

At the time when he said it, there was no reason at all why he would want to make it seem less likely that he was the doc, which is the natural effect of what he said. Again, makes no sense from doc-myk.

Can I also say that vollkan has stated he's previously used a "claim the doctor" gambit in another game. The odds in any game of him being scum are greater than him being the doctor, so I think this points to him being fakeclaiming. The fact he deliberately cited another game seems more to me to be an assurance in case someone calls him up on his previous usage of this tactic.

The reason I cited the other game is that it would be scummy of me not to have done so (ie. it would suggest I was trying to avoid mentioning it)

[vollkan]

Again, all my crumbing does is show that I had some time commitment to the claim.

Not true actually, because while you did ultimately refer back to the claim, you could equally have simply not done so, and we would have been none the wiser. One could easily, as scum, just leave slight grammatical anomalies which one then has the discretion of referring back to to support a claim later in the game.

Grammatical anomalies are how I have crumbed in the past.

I've been clear that they don't prove anything other than a committment to a doc claim from the time of my posting them. That doesn't prove my claim or anything, but it stops it being said that I only claimed on the spur of the moment.

[vollkan]

You tell us: It could have been so easy, just counterclaim you, and you would have been lynched at once. Nobody would have been sceptical, noooo, they would just have lynched you.

I didn't think that. I think it makes little difference when I would have counterclaimed, when it was at least today. Both times, town would have to decide who they thought towniest, whos claim was the best. I only tried with an attack on you to take the chance of lynching you without a counterclaim. It would be a shame not to have tried it.

Mykonian, you're a smart guy. It stretches credulity to breaking point to suppose that you aren't smart enough to figure out that an immediate counterclaim of me, under the circumstances which I was in (ie. being under suspicion), would result in my immediate lynch.

Also, it makes an enormous difference when a counterclaim occurs. The mere fact you CCed D1 is hardly the point. A CC immediately would have left little doubt in the minds of the others about the virtue of lynching me. By CCing later on, and when you yourself were under peril, your CC was far FAR weaker than it would have been.

Yes, town would have had to decide both times. But an early CC was very clearly going to have much better prospects of success than a later one.

[vollkan]

They don't even prove that, because nothing about your breadcrumb tied you to actually making a doctor claim later.

Voll-Scum could quite plausibly have just left the breadcrumbs alone and claimed cop or something. In that sense, it didn't commit me to a doc claim (though, if anybody had bothered to check for punctuation anomalies, voll-scum would be pretty stupid). What I mean is that they show, from that point in time, the contemplation of a doc-claim. That means nothing in terms of proving the claim.

As I keep saying, all the crumbing does is that it prevents me being accused of immediately claiming doc on the spur of the moment.

As in, it doesn't improve the trustowrthiness of my claim. It simply prevents an attack from being made against it.

[vollkan]

OK, call me smart (thank you!), but this is the first time I even could counterclaim. The first time I got a powerrole except mason. I thought this was the way.

As I already showed above, your reasoning with the 3 options makes no sense. Now you are playing the newbie card, again in a way that streches credulity - there is no way you could reasonably think that delaying a CC would be better than an immediate claim.

[vollkan]

I already explained that.

A delayed counterclaim, especially one made under suspicion, is inherently less believable because there are greater odds of it coming from desperate scum. In contrast, whilst scum could theoretically make an immediate counterclaim, their best bet is to delay and try to play for a lynch (either of the claimee or another townie) and then NK the claimer (this is especially true in the case of a doc claim, where there is no chance of protection).

[vollkan]

I dont agree with the criticism of Mykonian's play surrounding a CC. His play is consistent with someone trying to get scum lynched without being forced to counterclaim.

Which is nonsense play because:
1) Chance of lynch without CC = tiny; and
2) Delayed CC = less believable
3) Risk of CCing under suspicion = WAY less believable

Vollkan: this is the second game I've played with you. This is the second time you've claimed doctor. The first game you were lying. Naturally, that leads me to be suspicious. The fact that you drew attention to your previous doc fakeclaim seems to be very WIFOMic behavior.

1) One past fakeclaim does not a meta make
2) My behaviour is not WIFOMic. Not once have I made the WIFOM argument "I revealed my history which makes it less likely I am scum". As I said, I revealed the history, to my own detriment, to avert the charge of concealment.

Right off the bat, Mykonian was aggressive against the doc claim

Which is exactly what we would expect from Myk-scum when Orto had also been expressing doubts.

Also, the previously mentioned post about "when there is no doc." Common power roles tend to downplay the possibility of them being in the game as a way of taking the spotlight off themselves.

Yes, but he said that AFTER my claim. Why in god's name would doc-Myk say that in a situation where he should very clearly have been able to see the risk of it coming down to a credibility battle between myself and himself. It only makes sense if he hadn't contemplated a doc claim - ie. IF HE WAS SCUM.

As such, suggesting that there is no doc is a massive tell and breadcrumb of BEING the doc to me.

*facepalm*

I had second thoughts of mykonian. I thought for sure he was scum because of the delayed counter claim, and just the weirdness of it, but I am not so sure anymore,

especially with the way vollkan is acting.

The way I am acting? Explain.

Vollan, what are your parting thoughts?

Masons are confirmed town, but should still be taken critically.
Spyrex is very very likely town and every argument presented against him thus far is absolute crap. When I come up dead and am flipped (if I'm not lynched, I am almost certainly going to be NKed), know that I will be turning in my grave if anybody pursues Spyrex based on any of the garbage presented against him so far.
SL and DJ are scummy
TDC and Ixfij I am neutral on, but I worried because I don't have any clear read which suggests a lack of material
Ecto is neutral for me.

[vollkan]

I'm not understanding this new wave of absence of criticism for the play around the CC.

What purpose does it serve to beat around the bush - especially after..ohh.. almost half the town expressed Volkan wasn't going to get lynched without a CC. Even if, at that point, you were hesitant wouldn't the next post be "Fuck it, I'm the doc."

(As an aside, I would have probably lynched Volk even with my pro-town feelings if Myk had immediately CC'd.)

Instead, letting it go until Myk was becoming the lynch choice - it reeks of desperation. I mean, going from probably screwed to a 50-50 chance of surviving the day (and guaranteeing the other scum doesn't get lynched tomorrow AND getting a PR killed to boot) is about the best bet as scum when you think you're boned.

Not immediately CCing when you KNOW someone is lying really, really bothers me - it doesn't make sense, to me, as town behavior.

Spyrex, you're an oasis of sense; you know that?

Can we have more on that? I'm particularly curious about why DJ is scummy and why Ecto, TDC and fixij are neutral.

Meandering accusations against myself and Spyrex: eg. Spyrex as evasive and me as cherrypicking. See my posts for more detail.

Ecto, TDC and Ixfij are neutral because, by and large, they haven't been using much craplogic or anything else especially objectionable to me. That said, I think TDC and Ifxij in particular have flown under the radar more so than Ecto, which makes Ecto somewhat less worrisome for me.

[vollkan]

and who do you think is scummier out of DJ and SL?

Hard to say. I mean, SL hasn't posted in a long while so it's a little hard to gauge a direct comparison. For their behaviour, they would both be good lynches (though obviously Mykonian is the best by far). Forced to choose, I'd pick SL if only because DJ has been able to explain the Spyrex part of his things, albeit with the tawdry excuse about it being general, whereas SL's arguments were subjective puff from beginning to end.

myk was on the block, but i don't remember him being a definite lynch when volkan claimed.

See Spyrex's comments on this.

If my claim was accepted, it was either going to be Mykonian or yourself, and don't forget that I had my vote on Mykonian so that's what I would have been pushing.

volkan: why did you bring up another game? you say you didn't create the wifom, but you actually did. it is as null a tell as the breadcrumbing, but it certainly casts doubt on your motivations.

In the other game (Iceman Mafia) I fakeclaimed doc as scum.

It would be wifomic if I had brought it up and said something like:

vollkan-scum has no motivation to bring up that game, so that should be a towntell

But I didn't do that.

The reason I brought up the other game was because, if I didn't, I knew I would get howls of rage from people accusing me of trying to hide that game.

In other words, my reference to the game is completely a null-tell and I only did it to protect myself against a potential accusation.

also, you were accused of cherrypicking because you did it. there was nothing meandering about the case against you.

You might very well think that, but I've argued my point on this already.

[vollkan]

If my claim was accepted, it was either going to be Mykonian or yourself, and don't forget that I had my vote on Mykonian so that's what I would have been pushing.

why should i not forget this?

Because I suspected both you and Mykonian, but my vote was on him. In other words, he couldn't rely on me going after you on consensus.

[vollkan]

vollkan: Your suspicions do not seem to take into account that the second scum would need to be mykonian's partner.
Is there anything you have noticed about connections between anyone and mykonian?

I haven't been looking for connections, no. That's something I tend to do after I get one scum confirmed, and I haven't had the time to do that sort of analysis since Mykonian claimed.

[vollkan]

Right-o

Basically, an entry for each player re Myk. Kind of PBP-ish, except focussed on relationship rather than on normal scumtells

Mykonian to other players

(I will do the other way around next post)

DJ

Nothing on any of DJ's antecedents. As far as I can see, the first substantive mention of DJ is in post 74, so that's where I am beginning from (I have tried Ctrl+Fing "DJ" and "don", and that's the first I cna find. Anyway,
528: Thinks DJ's Spyrex case is going nowhere (well duh!)
530: Asks DJ to explain his reasons for suspecting Spyrex.
538, 540: wants DJ to reread before continuing
571: Says his "observation on don is way from strong" - not sure what that means. Rejects DJ's Spyrex case, and criticises it for mostly just coming from the first few pages. But no attack or anything on DJ for it. He also accuses Spyrex of OMGUSing DJ for attacking DJ for the attacks. This is the first post that, I think, is supporting of DJ/Myk; reason being that Myk avoids any alignment-based comment on the implications of the crap case, and also makes a dodgy chainsaw defence of Spyrex (note: It is not dodgy because it is chainsaw. It is dodgy becasue of the abuse of "OMGUS" to attack Spyrex's legitimate arguments against DJ's crappy "case")
584: Votes DJ and asks for question answers on the quotes from Spyrex.
Repeats this questoin for the next few posts
671: Says he is on Spyrex's side wrt DJ and that DJ is "completely attacking the wrong person".
673: This comes after I asked Myk: "Do you think DJ is scummy?" He says: "If mrfixij wasn't so obviously hiding, don would be my first choice." This is an intersting answer because, of course, Myk had his vote on DJ at this point and had been fairly critical of DJ. I don't get why Ixfij's "obvious" (was it?) hiding was enough to dislocate this.
679: Hmm...This one is quotable for posterity's sake:

I think don should know that his case is rubbish, while he says now that he actually did. The case against spyrex was a dead one, and it would be very scummy if he had kept it. I've got to reread the situation to see if my vote on don is justified. In case not: mrfixij, you will see my vote back on you.

I note this because I am very interested to see if this stance varies over time.
700: Asks DJ to reread and stop coming up with "caseless" votes. Gives a new top three of: Don, Mrfixij, Ecto.

Important:

Owing to basic distancing norms, this makes it somewhat less likely that TDC and Spyrex are scum. Why? Because scum will very typically, in my experience, include their buddy/s on a list of suspects. It's a form of mild distancing and enables them to flip targets to bus without appearing inconsistent.
711: Now this is interesting. This is the post which contains the point which pulled my Myk suspicion over the line:

Spyrex´s action (asking for a deadline) was very scummy. And he points out what we all know about vollkan: his post are close to unreadable, and most of it tells nothing about the game. Vollkan uses subjective arguments. I haven's checked out the post don mentioned, but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before. I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using strawmanning. As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

What's interesting is that he is so prepared to take DJ's arguments on faith, when DJ is, by all indications, extremely suspected by Mykonian. This is a scumtell in and of itself (opportunistic support). Is it a relationship tell? Harder to say; it makes sense as scum-Myk to town-DJ so I am treating it as a relationship null for now.

733: Apparently, DJ deserves Myk's vote "much more" than me; and, apparently, "He only makes empty statements"; and "it is not like he is close to being as scummy as don". Couldn't agree more.
744: Says DJ is scummiest in the game, mentions that he voted twice and hasn't strung a coherent case.
746: Says DJ was following Ixfij (above distancing thing says this increases likelihood of Myk/DJ or Myk/Ixfij). Repeats the argument against DJ re no case.
761: Votes DJ, for the lack of cases and the whole "gambit" shamozzle
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Conclusions: Two main things consistent with them being buddies:
1) The fact that Myk's professed level of suspicion didn't match his argumentation - Myk consistently had high levels of suspicion on DJ, but never engaged in any leading critical analysis of DJ. It began with just questioning, and even by the end, Myk's "case" was the absence of cases by DJ and the atrocious "gambit" thing. Quite simply, it has the appearance of suspicion without pushing DJ toward a lynch.
2) The dodgy chainsaw (again, I use the word 'dodgy' to indicate that it is not the chainsawing itself which is problematic, but the poor logic)
3) The list of three "suspects" included DJ.

[vollkan]

Good game all; I kept reading throughout.

Including my gut read on ixfij, I had all the scum picked out on D1, and I had Spyrex picked as town.

My lynch was a perfect example of why town shouldn't tolerate subjectivity. I am henceforth blacklisting the phrases "doesn't seem genuine" and "unclear perspective".

As for the misplaced post thing...*vomit*