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

[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....)

[TDC]

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.

Where has orangepenguin "represented the progression of Ecto's argument", and why does it make you vote Ecto?
Kind of funny how you advise people not to put another vote on him without "(very) strong justification", when your own justification is poor.

How high do you rate the chances of Ecto being scum?


-------

orangepengiun: I guess you'll not come around quoting him a bit. Where is the craplogic?

Are you going to address this?


------

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.

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

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

[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.

[ortolan]

So it's not just enough for me to cite others arguments, I have to put it in my owns words as well? I'll try my best, sorry if I'm still not convincing.

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.

Also, originally, I posted orangepenguin's summary in post 136 as a reason for voting for Ectomancer. Please explain what was wrong with it and why it was not worthy of citing as a reason for voting Ectomancer.

[mykonian]

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")

I should vote Ortolan if I want to be consistent, but

FoS Ortolan

, I don't like people saying: "I agree, but I don't understand all that happens. Vote". Yet I have to agree with you, it is hard to find anything usefull in this.

[Ectomancer]

I dont have time to answer all of this right now. Do me a favor Vollkan and unvote if it gets too close to lynch. (Though Im thinking I probably wont be quick lynched, but just in case) I'll be back to give detailed responses. Busy day today though, might be tonight or tomorrow.

[TDC]

Also, originally, I posted orangepenguin's summary in post 136 as a reason for voting for Ectomancer. Please explain what was wrong with it and why it was not worthy of citing as a reason for voting Ectomancer.

Because it doesn't contain any reason for voting Ecto. orangepenguin has said as much himself. (And as you see, he's asked to provide better reasoning, too).

[mrfixij]

I honestly can't make a read one way or the other on ecto, but I can say that Ort's "case" is using other peoples' logic and is hardly a case at all. I'm going to leave an

FOS: Ort

If you have one more post of craplogic, my vote goes to you. Policy or just general scummyness, please be a little more sensical and use your own logic, even if it just building off someone else's case, bring MORE to the table.

[Ectomancer]

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.

[ortolan]

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.

[Ectomancer]

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.

Well, this response just might. What we need to know is, what were you thinking? What reasoning did you go through to arrive at your vote? Simply acknowleding that your "case" wasnt strong enough isn't good enough (and I think the problem is that you didnt have one of your own and referenced someone who didnt either).
Blaming Vollkan is not an excuse by the way, and is a bit of an emotional appeal isn't it? If you are blaming Vollkan, are you saying he is scummy? What exactly is it about his 'gambit' that you are blaming for your action?

[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.

Thus I do not think the discussion has had much use for town. 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.

[ortolan]

And you can look back over my posts if you'd like, they're all consistent with not being able to read much into the debate.

[SpyreX]

Hmm, interesting developments.

Oro is definitely bringing up some severe concerns.

Lay down some opinions. You've read like you're hedging your bets more and more as this has went on.

You latched on with the oddest of rationales you possibly could - the OP "case" that he himself said wasn't a case.

In your reread you're citing that this is "gut" on your side. You've said that Ecto is indulging in

mid-game

theory discussion?

You're creating a false dichotomy between Ecto and I.

You're pre-emptively saying that your play is going to cause suspicion. You're also blaming Volk for this.

There's too many things going on here that are scummy.

Unvote, Vote: Ortolan.

I also find it amusing as an aside that his business warranted FoS's from so many people but, as far as I can tell, not a single vote. FoS's aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

[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).

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 165

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku

Juls

- 0 ()
orangepenguin - 0 ()

ortolan - 3 (vollkan, Spyrex, springlullaby)

mykonian

RealityFan

- 0 ()
springlullaby - 0 ()
Ectomancer - 2 (ortolan, orangepenguin)
vollkan - 0 ()

SpyreX - 3 (mykonian, mrfixij, Ectomancer)

mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 2 (Mana_Ku

Juls

, TDC)

[SpyreX]

I don't care, I'll scream my feelings for the whole world to hear. <3 Volk

I'd also like to address that oro has been very good at using a lot of words in his responses to mask the fact that, ultimately, he isn't saying anything.

Although I am still very suspicious of Ecto I -could- see it on some level being bull-headed townism.

This, really, the more I read it is anything but.

As an aside, I'd still really like some Q&A with the other two voters on me. Ecto and I are not going to come to any kind of consensus.

However, I'd still really like to see what it is I've done thats soo scummy.

[orangepenguin]

I am not liking this ortalon wagon. =/

[SpyreX]

Reasons?

[orangepenguin]

It just came out of left field. I understand the reasoning and everything, and they make sense, but.. it just doesn't feel it to me.

[orangepenguin]

"but..it just doesn't feel it"

but...it just doesn't feel right**

[SpyreX]

Well, we come back to "gut" versus "what's happened in the game"

[orangepenguin]

Well, if you think it's just gut..

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. He is a newbie, but I think his reasoning was pretty okay, except for him liking my PBPA, which was just a quick analysis - analysis not even the proper word in this case, since I didn't really analyze, just summarize. Maybe it was a PBPS. 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.

[SpyreX]

And the implied it has to be either me or Ecto?