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

[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.

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 325

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku - 0 ()
orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 0 ()
mykonian - 0 ()

springlullaby - 3 (vollkan, Spyrex, mrfixij)

Ectomancer - 0 ()
vollkan - 2 (ortolan, springlullaby)
SpyreX - 1 (Ectomancer)
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 4 (orangepenguin, mykonian, TDC, Spoilum)

springlullaby is at L-3, 3 votes away from a lynch.

[ortolan]

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?

[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.

[ortolan]

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

[mrfixij]

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.

[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.

[mrfixij]

TBH, I think the gut vollkan is feeling is in morbid disgust to my avatar. That's just my thought though. Some people can't stomach the neckbeard.

[mykonian]

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?

come on, you know that this is not inconsistebt. He is just explaining his thouhtprocess. He doesn´t say he has reasons for a vote on mrfixij, only that he is going to look for reasons that could explain his feeling about mrfixij.

I have no idea what to do with the previous post from vollkan. It tells me nothing...

[mykonian]

wasn´t springs selfvote a protest vote against vollkan?

Springs defense seems right. I still don't really know why there is such a big case against him. Most point boil down to: "you work too much on gut", or "you are inconsistent". I personally don't like the lurking part, because that would mean a big part of this town could be scum.

Spring is actually attacked for his view on the random-voting stage. It was just his personal input to the game, with no consequenses and I really have no idea how that ever could be a scumtell.

Saying that there was an option of ecto and vollkan both were scum also worked against her. Most people here think it unlikely, but when she doesn't continue the point she is thought scummy. Not a scumtell to post possibilities that you think unlikely yourself, actually a little protown in this case.

and the poor spyrex is confused by the selfvote...

after all this, spyrex says "obv lurker scum!" and we have a new bandwagon. Don't expect me on it.

wow, what a post from orto! (324). I'm going to read that closely later.

[ortolan]

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.

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

Also, you still haven't told me what you intended to gain by "trapping" me with such an intricate bait

come on, you know that this is not inconsistebt. He is just explaining his thouhtprocess. He doesn´t say he has reasons for a vote on mrfixij, only that he is going to look for reasons that could explain his feeling about mrfixij.

I think vollkan is very very very very very very scummy and would like him lynched. It's just a gut feeling, I'll come up with some reasons later. Oh damnit, he already pointed the finger at me for doing this to Ecto. Surely he then wouldn't be as hypocritical to do the same thing himself...

[ortolan]

Btw,

Also, you still haven't told me what you intended to gain by "trapping" me with such an intricate bait

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

What I "hoped to gain" was to show this or, alternatively, show that somebody else was using craplogic to attack me.

I still want to know how exactly it was craplogic?

[SpyreX]

1) You're just parroting vollkan's claim here, I already made about 3 posts arguing with him about this, but if you wanted to follow vollkan's "approach" you should come up with your own arguments.

2) Ditto.

3) We haven't gotten very far in 13 pages. vollkan's approach allows him to jump off suspicions on any number of players before we have anything at all concrete to go on. See him attacking Ecto, me, springlullaby (may have been another in between) also in a mainly opportunistic fashion. I was not the first to observe the "muddying of the waters" elicited by vollkan's "gambit".

4) Firstly; this commits the fallacy of argument from majority. I notice vollkan didn't pull you up on this either, another case of his double standards. And this point depends entirely on how you define "valid" anyhow. If you think lynching masons through bandwagons is a form of "valid attack" then obviously you're going to consider that one.

5) Yet it's exactly what you've just done, as I've shown- you're implicitly parasiting from vollkan's arguments.

6) You've totally misread this. I was not referring to the "validity" of my actions but rather the validity of possible hypotheses vollkan could have held about my behaviour.

1.) Regardless of the number of people who mentioned this as scummy, this is still scummy.
2.) Ditto.
3.) I can accept you think it is opportunistic and have clarified what muddying the waters means - even if I dont agree I can still understand.
4.) Sorry, See how many people were voting for you for

different reasons

because of your play. And I sure tried to lynch a mason when I knew you were a mason.
5.) YES MY REASONS FOR VOTING SOMEONE WERE TOTALLY PARASITIC. Wait, thats not true. Further I didn't make the statement that someone else was scummy for saying I was scummy for..doing just that.
6.) Fair enough.

Now I see in post 296 vollkan has completely changed his mind about springlullaby. Good job SpreX, says he: a proper case! I was trying to bandwagon ortolan but he's a mason so let's revisit some aging posts and read scumminess into them that I failed to notice the first time round!

Show me one instance of bandwagoning you after your mason claim.

What purpose did this serve? Voting for someone without giving reasons and promising them in the future is no different to voting for someone without giving reasons simpliciter.

To force myself to make the case the next day? To, perhaps, illicit a response from players one way or the other before the case was presented (see mrfix)?

@ SpyreX: I think it's a bit rich for you to be complaining about lurkers- all your arguments find some way of agreeing with vollkan so when posting you're rarely obliged to respond to his massive attack posts. For others replying to vollkan the volume of text one has to deal with can be very off-putting.

I think its a bit rich you have the tgall to call me out as a lurker this game. Or, I guess, a parrot?

I have a dream. Someday I will play in a game where the masons dont make me want to shed tears of bloodrage. Someday it will happen.

@Mykonian:

wasn´t springs selfvote a protest vote against vollkan?

Springs defense seems right. I still don't really know why there is such a big case against him. Most point boil down to: "you work too much on gut", or "you are inconsistent". I personally don't like the lurking part, because that would mean a big part of this town could be scum.

Spring is actually attacked for his view on the random-voting stage. It was just his personal input to the game, with no consequenses and I really have no idea how that ever could be a scumtell.

Saying that there was an option of ecto and vollkan both were scum also worked against her. Most people here think it unlikely, but when she doesn't continue the point she is thought scummy. Not a scumtell to post possibilities that you think unlikely yourself, actually a little protown in this case.

and the poor spyrex is confused by the selfvote...

after all this, spyrex says "obv lurker scum!" and we have a new bandwagon. Don't expect me on it.

wow, what a post from orto! (324). I'm going to read that closely later.

I am confused by the self-vote. You have caught me. Woe is me, for I have been undermined and my entire case built around the premise of self-voting is now destroyed.

Wait. That's not right.

I would not vote someone because I was "confused" by a part of their play.

1.) SL's self-vote doesn't matter

except for the fact

that it is in direct opposition to her very well known stance on self-voting. In addition, she then pushes on a player (at least in part) for the selfsame activity. This is opportunistic cognitive dissonance.

2.) The statement "Ect and Volk are both scum" doesn't matter

except for the fact

that scenario does not mesh again with the theories presented by her.

3.) Lurking, in and of itself, isn't going to make me make a day 1 case. However, when in conjunction with the other activities (see the majority of my case on her) it is a scum-marker.

The "he is attacking a lurker, when there are many lurkers" statement makes my teeth itch. The fact you summed up my case with emphasis on the lurker part also does.

This is what the cool kids call a strawman. Maybe you're just being festive since its a holiday focused around harvest and to harvest the sweet corn we needed scarecrows which are men made of straw. Doubt it though.

As an aside - we've got a batch of lurkers I want to speak up on the last few days. As it sits we're going to be stuck in molasses without more input.

[mykonian]

You know just as well as I know that I never tried to strawman you, I just not copied the whole of your case, I reacted on the points where I don't agree with you. You know just like me, that the case is mainly build on theory discussion, the use of gut. SL has given to little reasons (or bad ones) for her voting. that is scummy. However, giving a possibility and not following it is not scummy, and that selfvote is not a contradiction. You say: SL said selfvoting is antitown
SL selfvotes

SL must be scum.

It doesn't work that way. SL's selfvote can't be compared with vollkans, as it was a reaction. Now that I pointed that out, you throw some words at me, do cynical, but there is no way that this is scummy. This is a null-tell, and a clear one. That you missed that once can be forgiven, but that you want to defend it is bad, and that you say that I shifted your point is a lie. I never said SL's lurking was your main point, you used it only as support. What I said was, that when you leave the theory discussion and the selfvote out and other contradictions in her play (the vollkan-ecto scum thing) you are only left with the weak reasons for her vote and her lurking. That is not a strawman, that is my opinion of your case, and if you don't like it, so be it.

[SpyreX]

You know just as well as I know that I never tried to strawman you, I just not copied the whole of your case, I reacted on the points where I don't agree with you. You know just like me, that the case is mainly build on theory discussion, the use of gut. SL has given to little reasons (or bad ones) for her voting. that is scummy. However, giving a possibility and not following it is not scummy, and that selfvote is not a contradiction. You say: SL said selfvoting is antitown
SL selfvotes

SL must be scum.

It doesn't work that way. SL's selfvote can't be compared with vollkans, as it was a reaction. Now that I pointed that out, you throw some words at me, do cynical, but there is no way that this is scummy. This is a null-tell, and a clear one. That you missed that once can be forgiven, but that you want to defend it is bad, and that you say that I shifted your point is a lie. I never said SL's lurking was your main point, you used it only as support. What I said was, that when you leave the theory discussion and the selfvote out and other contradictions in her play (the vollkan-ecto scum thing) you are only left with the weak reasons for her vote and her lurking. That is not a strawman, that is my opinion of your case, and if you don't like it, so be it.

You're missing a key point in your first conjecture:

1.) SL says selfvoting is anti-town.
2.) SL selfvotes.
3.) SL attacks another player bringing up the self-vote as part of the reason for it.

3 is the one that kicks it into gear.

I do like the "take away the key points in your case and you are still left with something scummy but...".

And yes how could I ever in a million years think that you were strawmanning my case by this statement alone:

after all this, spyrex says "obv lurker scum!" and we have a new bandwagon. Don't expect me on it.

What point is the empasis?
What point is the final part of your thesis on why my case is bad?
What point do you bring up as "others are doing it too"?
What is a classic strawman?

[mykonian]

ok. I can see how you read that as a strawman. It was not the intention. I told you what I thought of that argument in isolation. That its support to your case couldn't be big.

there is no final part. The lurking and the weak reasons for her votes are there. However, you come up with a really big case, where I think a lot of points are null-tells used as scumtells, and I don't agree. Lurking, the selfvoting (vollkan's really is something different then springs), maybe more. I think you really believe spring to be scum, and when you think that you are going to see scumtells everywhere. You are not my main target in this. mrfixij is. He jumped on spring in a very ugly manner. Voted after you, provided his reasons after you. Copied most of your case, and added his own weak scumtells to it.

I can't see scum be that obvious, so if mrfixij is scum, you are probably not.

unvote vote mrfixij

[mrfixij]

ok. I can see how you read that as a strawman. It was not the intention. I told you what I thought of that argument in isolation. That its support to your case couldn't be big.

there is no final part. The lurking and the weak reasons for her votes are there. However, you come up with a really big case, where I think a lot of points are null-tells used as scumtells, and I don't agree. Lurking, the selfvoting (vollkan's really is something different then springs), maybe more. I think you really believe spring to be scum, and when you think that you are going to see scumtells everywhere. You are not my main target in this. mrfixij is. He jumped on spring in a very ugly manner. Voted after you, provided his reasons after you. Copied most of your case, and added his own weak scumtells to it.

I can't see scum be that obvious, so if mrfixij is scum, you are probably not.

unvote vote mrfixij

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.

Also, to address the response to my statements of the downsides of spyre's case, he stated that a series of things had to be right for his case to be valid. I pointed out situations that could have slipped his mind. I personally think that timing is a valid scumtell, especially when it comes to vote position. If you don't think that is, then you're using what you consider a weak scumtell as your own justification.

[mykonian]

about mrfixij.

post 291: spyrex votes spring, tells us something big is coming.
post 292/293: mrfixij votes spring for voting reasons, quite random from that post. Same reasons would have counted for spyrex, yet he says he'll stop going after spyrex. mrfixij waits for spyrex's case.
post 294: spyrex his big case
some talking about it.
post 304: mrfixij likes spyrex's case (we could guess that...)
post 307: I state that I don't like mrfixij's play around the case of spyrex.
post 313: finally mrfixij's reasons for his vote. partly copied from spyrex, following him, mrfixij added: inventing new words for bad reasons, springs nonchalange, timing of mid day voting (if vollkan had been lynched, spring would have been on a scummy place...), another "shocking contradiction". After that he comes up with some points against spyrex.

Now you say: you can't vote me for bad timing, as springs was bad too.

Guess what, I can. Spring would be in the middle of a bandwagon, if vollkan had been lynched. Too many possibilities. You hopped on a wagon, that didn't need to be logical for you, and you tried to go with the flow, and follow spyrex until I told you I didn't like it. After that, you come with your "reasons" that consist mostly out of spyrex's case, and the weak reasons stated above.

[mrfixij]

about mrfixij.

post 291: spyrex votes spring, tells us something big is coming.
post 292/293: mrfixij votes spring for voting reasons, quite random from that post. Same reasons would have counted for spyrex, yet he says he'll stop going after spyrex. mrfixij waits for spyrex's case.
post 294: spyrex his big case
some talking about it.
post 304: mrfixij likes spyrex's case (we could guess that...)
post 307: I state that I don't like mrfixij's play around the case of spyrex.
post 313: finally mrfixij's reasons for his vote. partly copied from spyrex, following him, mrfixij added: inventing new words for bad reasons, springs nonchalange, timing of mid day voting (if vollkan had been lynched, spring would have been on a scummy place...), another "shocking contradiction". After that he comes up with some points against spyrex.

Now you say: you can't vote me for bad timing, as springs was bad too.

Guess what, I can. Spring would be in the middle of a bandwagon, if vollkan had been lynched. Too many possibilities. You hopped on a wagon, that didn't need to be logical for you, and you tried to go with the flow, and follow spyrex until I told you I didn't like it. After that, you come with your "reasons" that consist mostly out of spyrex's case, and the weak reasons stated above.

First off, the word is nonchalance. As in casual attitude and uncaring state.

With that pet peeve out of the way, right before I take off for thanksgiving dinner, let me address some things.

Also, you're twisting the words of my quick defense. I don't say that you can't vote me, I'm saying that you're using the same logic that you're accusing me of using. You're converting my statement into a childish, minimalistic OMGUS statement.

Secondly, I had a lot more material to read Spyre from. He looks townier than Spring by far. I had my vote there before because I wasn't too big on Vollkan or Ecto, and Spyre's wagon wasn't even built at any point. There was no better case at the moment, since the scummiest player was a claimed mason. Ort is still making ridiculous logical jumps and unstable statements.

And finally, give me something to defend against please. I can't defend myself against phantoms, generalizations, and overly broad statements. I understand my timing was scummy. Spring's was twice scummy. So can you give us some solid evidence that everyone else can mill over and that I can put up a defense against?

[mykonian]

I'm sorry, I got the word, misspelled it.

your quick defense was indeed not good. The timing of spring is something different then your hopping on spyrex's case, without giving any reason, until you were pointed at that. Then, the reasons you presented, looked a lot like spyrex his, added a few weak tell (I think I addressed them shortly in the previous post). On the moment you vote, you give one reason, the fact that you

assume

makes you conclude that one of vollkan, spyrex or spring must be scum.

Don't blame me for thinking it is weird that you said:

I think after Vollkan's point about the subjective logic for her vote on Ort, it's good enough for me to abandon my vote on Spyre and at least see what comes from Spyre.

and I know your timing isn't defendable, so would hammering a claimed cop be. It is something that has been done, and it is something that scum would do. I'm sorry to disappoint you here...

[springlullaby]

1) Yes I think self-voting in general is always antitown and should never be viewed otherwise, I also do believe that the symbolic of self-vote is to indicate one's willingness to catch scum. However I never said that self-vote meant automatically scum, nor that one is scummy for doing it alone. If your question here is 'why have self-voted when you think badly of self-vote' my answer is: because I wanted to see what Vollkan would say to it.

2) I did not intentionally parrot anything but yes it is a sentiment I agree with.

3) No, this is untrue, iirc you reproached Ectomancer his aggresiveness, I have nothing against agressiveness, what I didn't like in Ectomancer's play was that he was pushing Vollkan but never crossed to overt aggression - hence 'toeing the line'.

1.) You're saying something in general is always anti-town. Yet, you do it - to provoke a response? What response were you expecting? You are saying the difference is in the character of the players - that Volk would do it whereas you would not.?

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.

2.) Intentionally of course can not be proven - however the similarity is apparent.

Again, the only point that could be said to be true is for the thing with Ecto.

3.) So you were not concerned with the aggressive tones, but that Ecto was pushing without being aggressive?

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.

Yes I did that, and I feel it was justified since as the time I posted it there were people who had commented to nothing at all.

What I am getting at is, aside from the post above, you were lurking. Calling lurkers out is a method to push for a lynch.

I had nothing to comment on beside my desire for people who hadn't said anything at all to express something. Push for what lynch?

1) This is as superficial a contradiction as it gets. Please acquaint yourself with the meaning of ritual and symbolics and them tell me about 'denying my own postulate'. Note here that my expressing my stance on self-votes in general was in direct response to Volkan's inquiry.

2) I feel I'm repeating myself.
a)It is not backward or whatever, consider the following statement: lurking is antitown, yet lurkers are not always scum. Then consider the correctness of the following: most people know perfectly well that lurking is antitown, yet they may lurk as town. Then apply this to self-voting.
b) I already repeated many time that I did not vote Vollkan for selfvoting, the quote you are looking for is above, bolded, in red.

3)Again, untrue, my view on Ecto was pretty much opposed to yours. I do not know what 'Ecto was not mentioned aside from this in any of her posts' is supposed to mean.

1) You made, and have repeated the stance "Self-voting is always anti-town" further, you said it was because it showed a willingness to look for scum. You then self-voted. This is not a superficial contradiction.

I have explained this in good faith several times now and you are repeating yoursef, I think I have made myself clear but I recognize that I may have been prickly about it so I will make the effort to explain this point again, but this is

the last time

I will. (Consider yourself lucky that you're not getting an educational leaflet because I haven't got the time.)

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

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.

Note here that contradiction you describe is ineherently linear and works only on paper, it doesn't describe anything real as it assumes that if someone acknowledge that X is antitown, they would never do X as town.

Furthermore it doesn't even work as far as linear logic go as you are totally missing out the fact that I do believe that self-vote can generate value, not by the inherent quality of the self-vote, but by going against custom, and stated it.

2.) Again, you have said self-voting is anti-town. Unless you do not think anti-town behavior is "bad" then you did something anti-town. You then condemn Volkan FOR it (you're still saying the vote itself is an anti-town sentiment because of the 'you cant catch me' attitude which of course requires the self-vote to exist) yet you then say it is not even always anti-town (your vote).

I never voted Vollkan 'FOR it'. You saying that I did because my reason for voting Vollkan then required the self-vote to exist in the first place is plain bad faith and fallacious: the very same action can be scummy or not depending on the circumstances.

3.) So you are saying you thought Ecto was a suspect for not being aggressive. The latter is simple: You, aside from this, mentioned Ecto once in the above post.

I answered this above. I don't see what you are implying with the rest.

Untrue, I think I explain why I think Orto's votes sucked ok in my vote post, furthermore I have explained my vote further in my reply to Orto's question that you have omitted to post in its entirety.
Here: http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 27#1352227

The post later that I say was omitted? Yea.

Again, you are saying "Your votes suck" but that != "You are scummy because of X".

This is untrue, I explained why I thought orto's post was scummy. Just read my damn post.

I don't understand this, what accusation are you making exactly?

You are deriding ort for voting what is clearly, as he mentioned more than once, your self-vote / voting Volkan. His reasons are clear and, once again, you are pish-poshing it away as though it is a non-issue.

I may be prickly sometime but I never deride people maliciously. Plus, I distincly remember that I wasn't in the least mocking in the passage you are refering to. And maybe I was uncooperative on this but I thought that I made myself clear the first time, still think I did, but it is apparently not others people opinion.

I don't see where you are getting at with the number difference here, if anything I had lurked for even longer streches of time before.

You lurked pretty much through the entire fiasco and yes, this is notice that you are lurking.

Quantify lurking. I responded to orto meantime the 'fiasco'.

A) My agreement is with ortolan, I'm expressing it because I have criticized him before.

B) I expressed my opinion on the players I had an opinion about at the time. I still have not formed an opinion on the three others you mentionned.

C)Please explain what you mean by 'hedged'.

A.) Huh. I can accept that.
B.) In your thoughts on the game (including calling out lurkers) you have no opinion on 30% of the game?

Yes I had no formed opinion pertaining to their scumminess or townishness that I wished to express at the time. What are you accusing me of here exactly?

C.) You are giving yourself outs if/when wagons form on either Ecto or I.

This is your interpretation.

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.

A)
a)I think the way Vollkan presented his post is indeed scummy because if you look at it in context it appears to flow from the huge post, whereas it could have been said in a one-liner.

b) It is further scummy because Vollkan later said that he voted Ecto only because Ecto's case on Spyrex was based on the assumption that Vollkan was town: it is not the impression I got.

I read this as the emphasis being put on Ecto making 'assertion and innuendo without basis' in general, which conforms to his displayed attitude toward good play (not that I agree with it), not with the emphasis on Ecto assuming that Voll is town, which is an entirely different argument altogether.

The former is akin to a policy vote, putting suspicion on whoever do not conform to his line of play.

The latter forms an assumption that scum is more likely to assume another person is town because they have that knowledge.

c) Not that you have formulated a proper suspicion or indeed understood me, I do think that Vollkan not recognizing the merit in Ecto's argument is scummy. And I think it is further scummy in light of the good sentiment he displayed toward my case on orto, because there too can be said to have made 'assumption without basis' in the orto case in his own approach/system, hence discrepancy.

I put Ecto's up there for all the playa's in the house.

A.) I did look at it in context and had no issue separating the different parts of the discussion from it. That aside, how is that scummy?

I already explained why I think it was scummy, you either agree or disagree.

B.) Looking at what Ecto said (and the first line of what Volk said) are you holding to Volk's alignment being a key part in Ecto's statements? If you are saying this was policy... why wouldn't he have done it earlier?

Your are missing the fact that I highly doubt Vollkan is town.

--- You did not address my issue of you saying Volk and Ecto being scum together and that not meshing with your other theories.

It does, read me again. Lol, I should really stop this whole antagonistic thing shouldn't I. But I think you don't know how to read.

C.) I haven't formulated proper suspicion? Also, I am taking it this is the statment of good sentiment?

Man are you doing this on purpose? What are you even talking about?

Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective. You (and Ecto Razz) 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.

One of my point is that I think Vollk stated reason for voting for Ecto is imo streching and ungenuine.

Give the reasons why. "Stretching" and "ungenuine" are the kinds of words that need explanations.

Yes, and I did explain.

Yes, and see how he dropped each so very easily. Although I do not blame him for the orto unvote, my opinion is that Voll has been at his most vocal and determined when expressing his opinion on good play, but in contrast is I cannot detect a focused train of thought in his scumhunting. Case in point, I do wonder what he thinks of Ecto now.

Each? He dropped Ecto as I did when Ort did some very scummy things. He dropped Ort when he claimed mason. I did both these things. Am I scum?

Bad faith.

Where did anyone say that his outlook on game was scummy in itself? Please quote.

Outlook? You said he purposefully misplaced a post to further his ends in this game.

Yes. And how is that relevant to your original line of questionning to which I responded to? In the future please quote yourself when you make reply, else you misrepresent me as the one who is answering beside the point.

As for the outlook on the game? You have said he's using rhetoric to hide his play. Ort has said he can't be meta'd. Even some of the Ecto debate has this same sentiment (this has nothing to do with my point but I cant help myself).

My point has some ovelapping with their views yes, but I it is also distinct as my reason for thinking him scummy is his confidence in arguing theory vs his feeble and text book scumhunting. I actually reread the only game I played with him, and in that game his townplay's scumhunting feels a lot more flexible and genuine.

No it is not a weak justification, and it is a more thoughfull case than your case against me so far.

OHH ICE BURN.

Dismissal of a case.... scum or town? YOU BE THE JUDGE.

Yeah, you be.

Simple paraphrase and ellipses don't make for a case. If you have something to reproach me, formulate it properly.

Well I must have paraphrased it right since you didn't say anything about it. You are making the statment(s) - Ecto is scummy now (she was town earlier and hadn't posted too much between) because she didn't like muddying the waters. You are saying they are both scum and didn't plan this but naturally flowed into it - which has no bearing on absolutely anything.

You are now not only trying to tighten weak strings on Volk, but trying to imply a chain lynch.

Bad faith. It has a bearing on what I can envisage two scum doing. What do you mean 'imply a chain lynch?

I post when I have something to say, and that's it.

Or you post just enough to not get modprodded and obviously lurk. Unless you have something to say 2-3 days apart consistently.

Here I think you are being very bad faith because you are making it out as if I didn't post anything relevant.

SL is scum:
1.) Inconsistent play. Not true. See above.
2.) Lurking. True to an extent, but like I said I don't post when I have nothing to say.
3.) Parroting. The only instance it can be conceived to be true is my having the same opinion than Ectomancer on Vollkan possibly playing on the 'can't lynch me'. Beside I think I have expressed my fare share of controversial opinions.
4.) Bandwagon Jumping. Define scummy bandwagon jumping. Then define how it applies to me.

1.) I did. Still inconsistent. Opportunistically inconsistent.

Not true, see above. Quantify 'opportunistically'.

2.) Admitted to lurking? Noice.

Nice what?

3.) Assuming you mean that your vote for Ecto wasn't the same as mine (in fact the opposite meaning that he wasn't aggressive) - sureish. However, the myriad of Ecto is scum/not scum is its own dance.

Yes, and I change my mind a lot too, sue me.

4.) Why was ort worth the vote over Volkan? Why did you wait until Volkan had other votes on him?

Because he did something very scummy. The second question is bad faith and loaded, I didn't wait for anything.

I'm also noting that you say 'town has been devouring itself', whereas I was the first to vote ortolan.

For the rest, I do hope you have good reason to be saying what you are saying.

Killing, not devouring.

Yes you were the first to vote a mason. No, your vote had nothing to do with my vote. As should be blindlingly obvious from what I said - I was talking about Ecto/Volk, Ecto/SpyreX and Ort/Volk.

No it wasn't blindlingly obvious.

Good reason? I'm sold on you being scum. If I said I didn't what would you do, night kill me?

Or are you going to come out and say I'm scum?

Loaded, taunting.

[springlullaby]

Next mrfixij

[Ectomancer]

Just a quick section pulled out of SL's post:

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.

I believe Vollkan and I were

both

very aggressive in our debate, and we

did

take clearly defined positions. This attracted other players into making their own opinions, basically forcing them to take sides.
Do you really think you should vote for anyone who you have a disagreement with in game? A simple bit of advice for you. Disagreement /= scum. You place a vote when you think you've found scum, or are close enough to merit ratcheting up pressure.
I never found Vollkan scummy during our head to head exchanges, nor did he need more pressure. Pressure enough was being applied.

You say passive/aggressive, I say measured and deliberate.

[SpyreX]

On a different note, as this has went to "I dont know how to read" I'm out of this whole "discussion". I'm only going to give this - a previous dismissal + now a dismissal of my ability to play.. town move or scum move?

My vote is staying barring some huge change in play. I suggest people read this discussion and make a call on it.

If other people have questions about my case I'll be more than happy to answer/debate.

SL is as good as already lynched as far as I'm concerned.

[Ectomancer]

And the wheels grind to a halt...

It's time for some lynching. If nobody has much to say, I'll give my top 3 lynch list and we can go from there.