DrippingGoofball wrote:vollkan wrote:Right...but if that is what you meant, why is DGB pro-town for it?
I mean, stirring up reactions is something that scum has an enormous motivation to do - it serves as a means of triggering town errors.
Triggering TOWN errors??? Ugh? Townies don't have to make things up, they are far far less likely to trip on their own shoelaces than scumbags.
Speaking of trying to confuse people.
You're scum.
It doesn't logically follow from the fact that townies are "less likely to trip up on their own shoelaces" (I agree with you on this, btw) that scum don't have a motivation for trying. Scum win by mislynches, and mislynches can be achieved by causing town to trip up.
Korts wrote: That's a stance that I can understand. I still hold that town is slightly more motivated to provoke reactions. I guess it comes down to a difference in ideology.
Right, but:
Korts wrote:Ok, let me elaborate on that gut feel after all.
DGBscum doesn't have any motive to be elbows deep in shit
while she mimes scumhunting. DGB's actions so far have been pro-town, therefore I have no reason to suspect her. Why are you trying to dig any deeper when what we're discussing is a town read on someone? I'm thinking rofl has a point here; you are either trying to dissuade me from my read on DGB because you don't like town eliminating other town as suspects, or the other possibility, you are trying to figure out how to appear more pro-town in my eyes (although this second possibility assumes that you give a shit about my opinion).
Then RR asks:
RR wrote: Where are you seeing DGB elbows deep in shit? Are we even reading the same game? She's under no pressure at all...
You reply:
Korts wrote: You misunderstand me. When I said "elbows deep in shit" I was saying that she's not afraid to stir up shit with her bare hands, as in fishing for emotions, reactions etc.
Me:
vollkan wrote: Right...but if that is what you meant, why is DGB pro-town for it?
I mean, stirring up reactions is something that scum has an enormous motivation to do - it serves as a means of triggering town errors. Town can do it also, of course, so it's ultimately a nulltell.
And then your post quoted at top.
What's my point? We go from the very strong point of "DGBscum doesn't have any motive to be elbows deep in shit" to "Town is slightly more motivated to provoke reactions". When I pressed you to explain yourself, you directly contradicted your earlier point.
Yos wrote:
What problems with my initial vote?
It being a gut L-1 vote.
Yos wrote:
Do you really have a problem with me voting for someone and not explaining all the reason why I did so right away? Because that's a common tactic I use to get the most useful reactions. Usually, I wait for the person I voted for to respond to the initial vote, and then I go into more details. And as of the time of your attack on me, he had not yet responded to my initial vote. (Unless you count "voting for himself" as a response.)
I don't have a problem with delaying for sake of generating reactions in principle, but you should see the difficulty here - if we take it at face value that people can justify a non-reasoned vote by simply saying "Oh, I was waiting to see", then that would be bad from a policy perspective.
In light of this, let me try a different tact: What did you hope to achieve by not explaining your vote?
Yos wrote:
Go back and show me the post where you think Destructor was in some way trying to put pressure on me to get me to explain my CKD post, or where he was putting pressure on me for "gut voting" in order to get me to explain my vote, or whatever, and quote it. Because as far as I can see, there wasn't one.
The first time was here:
Des wrote: More to the point, I still find it inconsistent that you're saying one thing of all of rofl's play makes him second most worthy of your vote. By the standards you've explained to us, isn't Yos' gut vote on ckd worse? rofl made a perceptibly casual mention of Sens as a suspect but Yos voted for a player without an explanation that went further than gut, saying he was happy to leave him at L-1. Why aren't you asking Yos to quantify his read of ckd as you're asking rofl to do of Sens?
That was addressed to me, but his perspective on your vote becomes clear. That said, it's an odd way to broach the subject - Des doesn't directly challenge your CKD vote, instead he almost challenges me to challenge your vote.
Yos wrote: Why do you keep bringing up the lynch -1 thing here?
There seems to be a running theme here that people are insisting that if someone gets to lynch -1, everyone should suddenly unvote him and abandon the bandwagon. If my vote was legitimate when I cast it (and you didn't have any problem with it then, and neither did destuctor; in fact, you both agreed with me at the time that he looked scummy and were both voting for him), then I'm not going to unvote while he's lurking, and I'm not going to unvote while he's voting himself.
Are you really buying into this whole "if someone gets to lynch -1 you should unvote him" garbage Destructor is pushing here? I was voting CKD because I thought he was more likely to be scum then anyone else, and I expect to keep voting him until he or someone else changes my mind about him, until someone else looks scummier, or unless he dies. Him being at lynch -1 changes nothing.
I certainly don't think wagons should be necessarily abandoned at L-1. My problem with L-1 here is basically that you cast a vote which wasn't apparently based on anything at all other than gut. By your precedent, there is nothing then stopping a hammer occurring with the same lack of detailed explanation.
Yos wrote:
[quote"V"] In any event, that point needn't be contested here, because it's a huge leap in logic to say that, just because some gut agreement can be a towntell that some gut disagreement is a scumtell. Smart, reasonable people do disagree as town. OMGUS is a logical fallacy for this very reason - townies can disagree about what is scummy, so the fact that somebody finds your actions scummy doesn't necessarily make them scum.
Oh, I often disagree with people about who looks scummy, but that's not what I said. I said that when a pro-town person says they find someone scummy, I can usually at least UNDERSTAND why they might think that, no matter if I agree with it or not. So, yes; the "gut" vote he made there on ROFL at a time when he looked very pro-town to me was a big part of the reason I had a weird feeling about him.
[/quote]
I still don't see how that makes CKD scummy. In essence, you had a gut disagreement with him on ROFL. Different players; different perspectives. From your position, it might well have looked "weird" that you two would disagree so much but, again, without knowing the reasons why CKD disagreed I find it difficult to see how you can then presume that CKD is disagreeing with you because he is scum.
Yos wrote:
You can attack me for my reasons if you want. But you haven't, in any way that makes sense. You seem to understand why a change in playstyle can be a scumtell; you seem to understand how I would think he wasn't really scumhunting. All you're really attacking me for is that you seem to think my reasons are "too weak" to constitue a vote, which is an absurd argument unless you can present a logically stronger case on someone else. (Hint: you haven't.)
I'm not attacking you for any quantitative weakness in your reasons.
Disagreement on ROFL and a change in playstyle both "could" be reasons to justify suspicion. The problem I have with your case is that the logic is basically:
1) Player X does Y
2) Y can sometimes be scummy
3) Thus, Player X is scummy
(As an example, consider the application of this logic to OMGUS:
1) Player X does Y, where Y = "Attacks me"
2) People who "attack me" can sometimes be scummy
3) Thus, Player X is scummy)
You've pointed to "Ys" (the ROFL disagreement and the style shift), but nothing you've presented really explains how either is scummy.
Yos wrote:
Well, the biggest difference between a pro-town person and a scum at the early stage of the game is that a pro-town person is really looking for scum, and a scum is not. And fundimentally, CKD's posts there made me think he was not. It even sounds like you agree with my conclusion there, that it didn't look like he was actually scumhunting in any real way (although I'm not sure why you think he "thought it was legit"). So, I'm not sure how you can agree with that but then not understand how that is a scumtell.
I agree with the conclusion that CKD was doing weak scumhunting, but as I said, that seemed to be the norm at that stage. When I voted CKD, it was because he drew a double-standard by saying that he could hunt weakly, but others couldn't.
(And the reason I say he "thought it was legit" was his rebuttal post to me, where he argued that he was simply making an early game case)
Yos wrote:
I "cast" a L-1 vote? Um, no, I did not. When I cast my vote, it was not lynch -1. And I'm sure as hell never ever under any circumstances going to unvote someone just because he self voted.
Again, this is the thing you keep coming back to, and it makes zero sense. How does him putting himself at lynch -1 change anything? Are we now required to strech day 1 out to make it last a full month these days no matter what happens, or what?
Sorry, I completely misworded there. What I meant was that you had your vote on CKD when he was at L-1.
Him putting himself at L-1 changes things because it opens the way for a hammer (see my precedent point above). At that point, there should have either been unvote or elaboration from you.
Yos wrote:
"No means of discerning my alignment"? Really? Just because I didn't go into detail about all the reasons for my vote the instant I voted?
Yeah. Townies can disagree about people being scummy, so reasons become the lynchpin of determining alignment. If no reasons are provided, your alignment is shrouded.
