StrangerCoug 2 - (Jazzmyn, Cephrir)
Apothecary 3 - (StrangerCoug, Ythill, MacavityLock)
Ythill 1 - (LLamaFluff)
Not voting 5 - (Apothecary, Atlas, Corvuus, Elmo, MiteyMouse)
With eleven players alive, it takes six votes to lynch.
I wasn't questioning why you didn't pick a post, you know. I just wanted you to choose another.Ythill wrote:Asking you to choose was an effort to narrow the discussion without manipulating it. I was trying to be fair.
Being paranoid doesn't mean refuting every defense and never agreeing with a player because they might be scum. If you see me write off a player as town because I agree with them, then you can claim that I'm not paranoid enough to be a townie. I do realize that I am not overly suspicious of a few players that I have agreed with, but that is based on their logic and whether I get to post before them.Ythill wrote:Good scum will always have a reason. It's the number of instances that is most alarming. It belies a townie's level of paranoia.
I'm not shifting, I thought this entire time that "you had convenient suspicions" meant "you had suspicions when it would be easy to get everyone to agree with you and lynch Primate", which directly relates to what everyone thought rather than how Primate was acting.Ythill wrote:Shifting again. You're barking up too many trees.
Isn't insisting something does not matter basically dismissing it? I get what you are saying though, but I still think it's a bit unfair.Ythill wrote:I just insisted that something you said later does not change the weight of what you said in #157.
I think so too. I'll start with the general concept; at the time I believed that Primate's main goal was to convince the town that his PR was real, a feat that you agree would make him less likely to be lynched. In theory I wouldn't expect a player to be able to convince the town that he actually had a PR, but that obviously changed when several players believed he had a PR, couldn't make up their mind, or did not find him anti-town either way. Whatever.Ythill wrote:I believe this may be the most important point of our debate. I need to understand how you came to the conclusion that the PR was scummy, rather than just anti-town.
You know, I wasn't talking to anyone in particular. When typing #386 I recalled several (or at least, it seemed like several) players saying that they would give their input in this around the time that Ythill replaced in. Ofc I didn't remember seeing any input so I just threw that out there. Thanks for confessing though.Macavity wrote:I admit it, you got me. I've been busy wrapping up work in time for my Thanksgiving vacation. Between that and the WoW between you two, I'm having a hard time going through all this. (I didn't know the term either, but it certainly applies in this case.) I'm going to try to dig in to this when I'm home, and I promise I'll get to it eventually.
And I thought pronouncing it 'why-thill' was weird...Cougar wrote:(I missed the part about the pronunciation of Ythill's name, as if it's relevant. I've always pronounced the Y and the T individually in my head, e.g. "why-tee-hill".)
But you used the term "you lot" instead of just the word "you", so you said that we as a group, and not I alone, are grasping at straws. In addition, as far as I am aware, grasping at straws = straw man (but again, someone needs to correct me if I am wrong).Apothecary wrote:When I made that statement about grasping straws, I was saying that you're going for an easy way out of today. I wasn't making any reference to, ah, "Strawmen". I was merely being a little bit defiant and angry. I think if you breathe to much into that SC, then I think that's a sign of desperation, trying to keep me as the prime suspect.
see, you seriously aren't even trying since your above suggestions are silly.StrangerCoug wrote:Kokusho's gambit was presented as the only pro-town fakeclaim I could think of. Since it does not apply, of course I brought it up so I could knock it down, but it was part of my case against him.Corvuus wrote:This is so utter lose. Kokusho's gambit (or whatever) has nothing to do with this. You bringing it up when it doesn't relate and then knocking it down is utterly pointless and I don't count crap as contributing originality.
The rest of this part of my post is on you than Apothecary, but it's more "you should have told me earlier" than scummy. Here goes:
I could only think of pro-town fakeclaiming as town pulling Kokusho's gambit.
The only way someone can think of ≠ the only way period.
Therefore, pro-town fakeclaiming ≠ town pulling Kokusho's gambit per se.
Furthermore, I was not aware of any pro-town reasons to fakeclaim other than Kokusho.
You should have specifically brought up your explanation of why it would be pro-town for town to fakeclaim doc below the moment you saw me vote Apothecary for the same.
See above.Corvuus wrote:It also presents a false dilemma in that YOU think that a vanilla townie would never fake claim doc in order to save himself.
I understand that. I also understand that town would much rather be nightkilled than lynched, but at the same time they should not be worrying about self-preservation.Corvuus wrote:If you claimed Vanilla, we would almost 80% guaranteed be lynching you right now. The only way to prevent your lynch today is to claim a power role, i.e. doc, regardless of whether you are town, scum or real doc.
See above.Corvuus wrote:I could craft a sane hypothetical with a sane townie claiming doc when there was a real doc in the game and it 'working'.
The hypothetical is completely based on whether the real doc *knows* he shouldn't counterclaim, and he should know based on it being D1.
The townie fake claiming would survive an extra day but probably get NK'ed later that night since mafia would take his claim at face-value. Go town.
If it is scum fake claiming and they survived, then suspicion will come back later, and if the real doc died then they will almost certainly be gg'ed right there. It could be the scum fake claiming to also net the doc with his death, etc.
What other option do I have as a doc at L-1, claiming something else? To sit there or claim vanilla is tantamount to suicide. The only other role I can think of claiming is jailkeeper, and for that to work the doctor would have to be paranoid. You rarely know your sanity if you're starting on Day 1, and even in night starts, figuring out you're paranoid takes awhile.Corvuus wrote:Either way, a D1 doc claim is the weakest, laziest claim but there is no reason to lynch you now since you will 100% die before the end of the game.
OK, point understood and case dismissed.Corvuus wrote:It is D1. There is no need for a counterclaim by real doc. Whether you are town, doc or scum, you will not die this day but you will die eventually. If you were cc'ed then you would and real doc would both die and that would be fairly pointless.
If you know a townie knows this and think others know it (or can insinutate it before real doc counterclaims) then your 'get out of jail free card' doc claim is just postponing your execution which may be good for town.
OK, which of the following three do you find scummiest?Corvuus wrote:as above, lame. you really aren't trying.StrangerCoug wrote:Apothecary proposed the idea of vanilla faking doctor, and my suspicions of Ythill and Zeppo007 are minor anymore.Atlas wrote:Cougar can you summarize your top suspects in one sentence?
A.) Suggesting that vanilla would fakeclaim
B.) Rushing the game
C.) Asking about someone's role
Or, by some chance, are all of the above equally scummy to you, even if none of the above are scummy?
Asking people to mindlessly bandwagon someone.Corvuus wrote:Second of all, what is your definition of rushing the game?
Ythill already shot down my rushing argument against him by saying he was the only vote on Atlas, but given the situations you talk about here I'm having a hard time why you don't think rushing is scummy, especially when you mention otherwise.Corvuus wrote:Just because we vote and get someone near L-1, L-2 doesn't mean we *want* the day to end with quicklynch. We can just get information out of it and move on. If the vote actually ended with a lynch on the first person to get to L-1 in the very few pages, then it is suspicious and rushing. If the vote gets to L-1, L-2 and pressure, discussion, etc. and the day moves on then it is fine.
What I was trying to get at has nothing to do with my being asked to claim. That was supposed to a reference to Zeppo007 asking about Primate's role. You imply here that his doing so is horrible, so why are you attacking it being scummy as nonsense?Corvuus wrote:Third, you say asking about someone's role. Asking for a role without any reason at all is horrible. soft claiming, etc. is horrible. Asking you to claim at L-1 and discussing it is a null-tell to me since "everyone" does it.
Exactly; more specifically, if he thinks we're guilty of straw man arguments. I won't drop it at that; it's a statement I still plan on working with after he answers what I asked.[/quote]Corvuus wrote:That is what you think your question is doing? getting to know what he's thinking by asking about straw men?StrangerCoug wrote:I am trying to probe exactly what made Apothecary make that statement. I'm not attacking this specific post; I just want to know what he's thinking.Corvuus wrote:What does the above, "straw men the main reason we've bankrupted our own credibility if that's how we're going to look at it?" really mean?StrangerCoug wrote:Are the straw men the main reason we've bankrupted our own credibility if that's how we're going to look at it?Apothecary wrote:Ha! I'm bankrupting my credibility! Most of us have done that already in this game! Right now you lot are just grasping at straws for quicklynches! That's pretty self destructive in itself.
First of all, no. "Grasping at straws" means something to the effect of "this person is coming up with the flimsiest possible excuses to save him/herself." "Strawmanning" is the act of tearing down a case that looks very similar to your opponent's actual case, but that is not equivalent and far easier to attack.StrangerCoug wrote:In addition, as far as I am aware, grasping at straws = straw man (but again, someone needs to correct me if I am wrong).
This exact point was brought up by Zeppo on page 3, and was pretty well shot down as a good argument by page 4. I get the feeling that Apoth is barely paying attention to this game, and when he is, he's using arguments that are superficial at best.Apothecary, page 13 wrote:Well, on page 3 he [Cephrir] tried to pull a quicklynch on Evilgorrilaz (when he was playing), and when prompted to give a reason, he simply said "later".
Oh. That wasn't me dismissing it. It was me admitting that thereLlama wrote:You called it null but at the same time can easily change it laterYthill wrote:Atlas has been slinging lots of mud, trying to find a place where it will stick. Itcouldbe an aspect of his early game play and therefore null, but time will tell.
I don't buy this. In #157, Atlas said. "Assuming it is voluntary I see Primate's play style as both anti-town and scummy." This means that, no matter how subjective the difference between anti-town and scummy is, Atlas had differentiated between them and found PrimateLlama wrote:I think its partially an anti-town vs scummy debate.
I didn’t know that, actually. Thanks for clarifying. I choose #24 (iso). You dismissed Corvus’ overplay offhand, though you agreed it existed. You then demonstrated your displeasure with the argument, stopping just short of suggesting that the subject be dropped.Atlas wrote:I wasn't questioning why you didn't pick a post, you know. I just wanted you to choose another.
You’re still taking me out of context. I didn’t dismiss anythingAtlas wrote:Isn't insisting something does not matter basically dismissing it?
Quote fixed. You’re a tricky one, Atlas, and I want to say that I really enjoy arguing with you.Atlas wrote:I'm not shifting, I thought this entire time that "you had convenient suspicions" meant "you had suspicions when it would be easy to get everyone toagree with you andlynch Primate", which directly relates to what everyone thought rather than how Primate was acting.
Quote fixed. There is a big difference.Atlas wrote:I think so too. I'll start with the general concept; at the time I believed that Primate's main goal was to convince the town that his PR was real, a feat that you agreewouldcouldmake him less likely to be lynched.
I don’t want to get too deep into theory here, but you’ve got me wrong. I believe that the worth of an empty meta, to those players who favor it, is that it gives them an unreliable meta defense when they are scum but also provides excellent late-game information to their allies when they are town.Atlas wrote:Why would Primate risk doing this, while not knowing how the town would react? That is something you brought up; for meta-game purposes. You said yourself that he may have been trying to "attain the best win ratio over multiple games" (actually I have no idea why you said this, because a townie is more likely to lose if he fakes a PR) which could be applied to town or scum.
I have a special place in my heart for correcting people when they are wrong, but Mac beat me to it in a way that only leaves QFT.SC wrote:In addition, as far as I am aware, grasping at straws = straw man (but again, someone needs to correct me if I am wrong).
See below.Corvus wrote:Apoth never used straw man arguments or said that.
Ythill wrote:Fail. Strawman. You are not being attacked for voicing an alternate viewpoint. You are being attacked for...Rx wrote:I simply offered an alternate viewpoint. I don't see why this is arousing this much angst and suspicion. If we all jumped on someone when they offered an alternate view, we'd never get past day 1.
Rx, if someone accuses you of something and shows evidence of how you did said thing, responding withRx wrote:Okay. After reading the wiki article, I would just like to say I was not "Strawmanning".
You still seemed to present it in the sense of you wanted it mentioned but called it weak. Even with the italicised could, it showed more of a "there also might be this" attitude. When you make a case you dont defend the person or add filler, that just makes the case weaker so it wasnt for either of those reasons. When you add in conditional parts to the case like that, especially when the "could" was never greatly elaborated on, they just seem like ways to necro a dying case later.Ythill wrote:Oh. That wasn't me dismissing it. It was me admitting that thereLlama wrote:You called it null but at the same time can easily change it laterYthill wrote:Atlas has been slinging lots of mud, trying to find a place where it will stick. Itcouldbe an aspect of his early game play and therefore null, but time will tell.mightbe another explanation. Note how I put “might” in italics... same way I did with “could” in the original quote.
I was talking about possibilities, not conclusions. Fact is, I could be wrong about Atlas, so I try to look for holes in my own evidence.
I just think your overall case and even inital reason for voting him is scummy and a bit off. In your post that you initally voted you saidYthill wrote:I don't buy this. In #157, Atlas said. "Assuming it is voluntary I see Primate's play style as both anti-town and scummy." This means that, no matter how subjective the difference between anti-town and scummy is, Atlas had differentiated between them and found PrimateLlama wrote:I think its partially an anti-town vs scummy debate.scummy.
It seems like the main reasoning was the stance on SCs claim (which you claimed wasnt a reason before), and that his suspicions were ingenuous. Firstly, I really dont understand what you mean by ingenuous suspicions here so I may be partially lost. The bringing up his stance on SC though is what makes me think that you voted him partially on him calling SC "town fakeclaiming".Ythill wrote:Wait... I'm supposed to vote based on your beliefs, not mine? How does differing from the pack make me scummy? Chances are, if there's a D1 majority, there's scum in it.Rx wrote:I am however concerned with Ythill concentrating on Atlas. It just seems to be a bit odd how he wants more people to vote him, when I believe there are people who need more pressure.
Your suspicion seems ingenuous and your stance on SC's claim is just plain wrong.
unvote; vote ApothecaryLet's see where this leads...
Cephrir wrote:Fixed.MacavityLock wrote:SC-Corvuus makes me want to stranglesomeoneSC.
Here's something to keep in mind: Regardless of alignment (or situation, Mafia or not), I will not necessarily get something that requires a sense of humor. You've already given your opinion; MacavityLock was giving his.Cephrir wrote:Way to take me too seriouslyand blow it way out of proportion.
We've agreed that Zeppo007 was not rolefishing; why are you worried about Jazzmyn being bandwagoned?Elmo wrote:I also feel the rumblings of a Jazzmyn wagon deep in my stomach.
How do you know what I do? You know how you play the game. I make my cases the way I do toLlama wrote:When you make a case you dont defend the person or add filler, that just makes the case weaker so it wasnt for either of those reasons.
There's the "s" word again. So, when I say something isLlama wrote:It seems like the main reasoning was the stance on SCs claim (which you claimed wasnt a reason before), and that his suspicions were ingenuous.
I never paid attention to it in his post, but now that you bring it up, I can see how the word "seem" is being abused. There's a big difference, mentally and otherwise, between "heYthill wrote:How do you know what I do? You know how you play the game. I make my cases the way I do toLlama wrote:When you make a case you dont defend the person or add filler, that just makes the case weaker so it wasnt for either of those reasons.help me determineif someone is scum, not to craft an airtight argument that neither scum nor town would prevail against.
As for the rest of the case, look how often you used "seem"... my favorite one was where you were trying to accuse me of preparing to do something that hasn't been done by anyone, because I "seem" like I'mgoing todo it. Seeming is made up of (my) action and (your) projection, and your PoVseemsto be skewed.
There's the "s" word again. So, when I say something isLlama wrote:It seems like the main reasoning was the stance on SCs claim (which you claimed wasnt a reason before), and that his suspicions were ingenuous.just plain wrong, as opposed to disingenuous, wouldn't most people think of those two things as opposites. Thing A is a lie, thing B isjustwrong.