Mini 707: Cops and Robbers Mafia (Game Over)

[Green Crayons]

FoS: GC

He strawmanned the original argument.

Hardly.

I pointed out the logical steps one would need to take to claim that Ether was acting scummish becaused she was attempting to convince people she was town. The most obvious way: by acting town. You actually go for the absurd second option, as I originally detailed, with, "By all means, explain to me what non-townie things she is doing to make us think that she is town and thereby fooling us all into thinking she is town when really she is scum doing non-townie but not-suspicious and actually really convincing seeming-like-town (but really aren't pro-town) actions." The very fact that I left this door wide open in the first place knocks the feet from out under your strawmanning claim, since I was saying if I was getting your idea wrong feel free to correct me.

But, let's recap this absurd second option that you decided to correct me with. And when I say absurd, I do mean absolutely ridiculous. The not-townie action that is none the less not suspicious and even seems townie because it's somehow an attempt to convince people that it's an inherently townie action (even though it apparently isn't) is this: that simply by saying something - regardless of the context, environment and how it was said - makes it an attempt to convince everyone it's the truth.

Why don't you ask Ether whether or not she's pro-town?

But he can't do that! If he does, he'll start planting the idea that she is protown, which is really suspicious.

[Empking]

It isn't a null tell. Trying to appear townie without helping the town, is what scum want to do.

What didn't I answer in post 342?

"
...Did I convince you yet? I'm curious, does this logic extend to other players? Could I ask if you think Patrick is town or not town, and then expect you to be convinced that he must be town? "

Straw man.

[Ether]

Typing before a class. Rushed.

Crywolf strikes me as town who realized deep in her heart that I was telling the truth but is too proud to admit it. I can try to defend her more later, but long story short, I'm just not feeling it.

Like I said, the power role sentiment seems vaguely familiar but I'm not sure where from. But it wasn't in question form, and no one could possibly expect me to react to it in a way that betrayed my role at all. Simpor's question could have been harmful, because it both encouraged Crywolf to look, and could have said something about

her

role.

The bit about there being more going on in her subconscious than she's willing to say also explains the change of heart on Simpor. Meh.

Technically

that

wasn't a "too townie" fallacy, though I'm sure I've myself up for some of those as well with my brilliant blazing towniness. (The fallacy wouldn't be "Ether's calling herself town," but instead "Ether is scumhunting and inhibiting lurking and actively participating in the discussion and she is totally awesome and it's fairly obvious that she's trying to lull us into a false sense of security.")

And Simpor's most recent posts are super weak. I don't blame her for her vote at all.



First off, I don't think Crywolf was actually fishing; second, this doesn't cover why it's okay for him to ask. (But you agree later that the fact he asked was scummy, so fair enough.)

I do see what he did there. But I was perfectly polite about Ped, so the correct abrasive response would be, "I could ask you, why the hell do you care if I care if Crywolf thinks I have a power role?" Instead, he tried to make my soft question seem ridiculous, and not draw any more attention to his bad one than he had to. He

knew

it was bad.

The fact that it was a general statement that is, generally, true is what

makes

it a scummy strawman when he tries to play that card in an instance when it isn't true, instead of following the actual case.

You've also missed other cases against Simpor. Additional cases can be found here, here, and by filtering all his posts. (God dammit education. I could have found out how to link to that if I'd had time.)

This doesn't answer your scumbuddies question. Um, Tisp and Fuzzyman are good places to start. I don't think Empking's scum with him unless Simpor's scum role is really really cool; there's something I'm going off of memory with this that I'll check back on later. Independently, sure. Your own post defending Simpor bothers me a bit, actually.

Empking is funny. He will also most likely be totally useless, so why do I feel like I've won some kind of bet? I just hope Patrick appreciates the humor as much as I do. Wherever he is.

[Mizzy]

It isn't a null tell. Trying to appear townie without helping the town, is what scum want to do.

What didn't I answer in post 342?

"
...Did I convince you yet? I'm curious, does this logic extend to other players? Could I ask if you think Patrick is town or not town, and then expect you to be convinced that he must be town? "

Straw man.

Yes, it is, because she HAS been helping, a great deal in fact. Did you bother reading the thread?

And no, that's not strawmanning, it's called debating. Do you have an answer for it or do you prefer to continue being unhelpfully defensive?

[Empking]

My argument was "this post is scummy"

He argued against. "asking somebody whether or not your town is scummy" Strawman.

GC - I didn't see your post.

I said scum trying to convince people their town.
You argued against the too townie fallacy.

Strawmanning.

[Fuzzyman]

My argument was "this post is scummy"

He argued against. "asking somebody whether or not your town is scummy" Strawman.

That was what the post was.

GC - I didn't see your post.

Not an excuse to ignore it now.

I said scum trying to convince people their town.
You argued against the too townie fallacy.

GC dealt with this in 350. You should read it.

[Green Crayons]

My argument was "this post is scummy"

He argued against. "asking somebody whether or not your town is scummy" Strawman.

GC - I didn't see your post.

I said scum trying to convince people their town.
You argued against the too townie fallacy.

Strawmanning.

You said scum (specifically, Ether) trying to convince people they're town.
I said it relied on too townie fallacy. Pointed out how I came to that conclusion. Also

left door open for you to correct my misconception

. Not strawmanning.
You correct my misconception with something resembling logic.
I said it's bad logic. Pointed out how I came to that conclusion. Also

asked questions as to how far your bad logic extends

. Not strawmanning.
You don't attempt to explain any of my criticisms. You just say "strawmanning" as if simply saying it makes it true. Bogus.


Reading Ether's latest post, rereading all of Simpor's posts and re-rereading Ether's earlier posts against Simpor, I can firmly get behind suspecting Simpor for 1. fishing and 2. deflecting any sort of explanation as to why he was fishing. The other points Ether makes against him I think are either a disconnect between how the two of them are interpreting the tone of what was being said or weak because they aren't necessarily true (such as the claim that he was attempting to make Ether's vote look purely OMGUS when he had just addressed another of Ether's points in a crossed-wires sort of way).

However, the fishing and then deflection of that fishing is a glaring action and I find that I have been so concerned with the scum vibe I get coming from crywolf that I haven't been giving its proper weight.

unvote, vote: Simpor

.

[Patrick]

Dashing off for dinner now, but I'll just note that I think that's lynch-1. I'll have some thoughts on all this later.

[Empking]

My argument was "this post is scummy"

He argued against. "asking somebody whether or not your town is scummy" Strawman.

That was what the post was.

GC - I didn't see your post.

Not an excuse to ignore it now.

I said scum trying to convince people their town.
You argued against the too townie fallacy.

Weird, I said I didn't see his post and then discussed what his post was about. I wasn't ignoring it.
GC dealt with this in 350. You should read it.

[Empking]

My argument was "this post is scummy"

He argued against. "asking somebody whether or not your town is scummy" Strawman.

That was what the post was.

GC - I didn't see your post.

Not an excuse to ignore it now.

I said scum trying to convince people their town.
You argued against the too townie fallacy.

GC dealt with this in 350. You should read it.

EBWOP
Weird, I said I didn't see his post and then discussed what his post was about. I wasn't ignoring it.

GC - What is your definition of "strawman"

Arguing against your own made up argument rather than the argument presented is basically my definition, regardless of how you want to dress up your post.

[Empking]

And empking takes the cake for supporting this stupid idea that acting like a townie makes someone suspicious because they are acting a townie. He managed to flop onto that horrible logic train wreck in his first post!

I'm still blaming crywolf for infecting this game with that psedu-logic.

GC was lying about him "left door open for you to correct my misconception"

[Fuzzyman]

Your 354 was referring to GC's 350? I guess it was just so arrogant and ignorant that I couldn't tell.

[Empking]

How was it ignorant?

Quotes please.

[Fuzzyman]

It was ignorant in its failure to have any regard for GC's guess as to what your train of logic was, much less his open ears to any misconception that he may have had. It was so ignorant, that I would have to quote your entire 43-word post to display that quality!

[Ether]

Curious. Canary, are you at all convinced by my defense of Crywolf, or did Simpor overtake her purely on his own merit?

Simpor, claim.

[Empking]

And empking takes the cake for supporting this stupid idea that acting like a townie makes someone suspicious because they are acting a townie. He managed to flop onto that horrible logic train wreck in his first post!

I'm still blaming crywolf for infecting this game with that psedu-logic.

Fuzzyman - Please bold where he had open ears or GC's guess for my train of logic.

[Fuzzyman]

Just curious, but who is this, "Canary", person you keep talking to? Is that a nickname for Mister Lolipedo-Kun or something?

Also, Simpor, if you just sit there, waiting for a replacement to cover your backside, I WILL hammer him or her.

[Ether]

Oh. Canary is a reference to Green Crayons' AIM screen name.

Mister Lolipedo-kun is Ped.

[Fuzzyman]

Put it all together: By acting in the only way that would convince us someone is town - that is, by acting town - you are saying that she is scum.

Unless if I'm sorely mistaken. By all means, explain to me what non-townie things she is doing to make us think that she is town and thereby fooling us all into thinking she is town when really she is scum doing non-townie but not-suspicious and actually really convincing seeming-like-town (but really aren't pro-town) actions.

[Green Crayons]

GC - What is your definition of "strawman"

A "Straw man" argument (also called "setting up a straw man") involves mischracterizing your opponent's position in order to present a weaker argument than they have actually given, thereby allowing you to defeat it.

In part. I find this to be most relevant to the actual conversation.

And empking takes the cake for supporting this stupid idea that acting like a townie makes someone suspicious because they are acting a townie. He managed to flop onto that horrible logic train wreck in his first post!

I'm still blaming crywolf for infecting this game with that psedu-logic.

GC was lying about him "left door open for you to correct my misconception"

That's pretty funny. And by "that," I mean how you keep shifting what I'm saying is the strawman. And by "funny," I mean annoying. Your original assertion in 345 was that I strawmanned the "original argument." My original argument was in 339 (as opposed to your above quotation of my post 337 which was my original statement of belief with no argument supporting it) where I did leave a door open for you. Then in 351 you say my strawmanning is not my 339 but instead my 342 which wasn't my original argument but a criticism of your horrible reasoning as to your thoughts. You even underline this new spotlight on my 342 in your 354 were you clarify that your strawman argument is against 342 and then add in that it's also against 339 (my original argument).

Your blender of strawman claims is confusing to say the least, so to come and suggest that I'm lying because I'm pointing to a post where I make an actual argument (339) as opposed to one where I make a statement (337), even though both are prior to your original Strawman criticism (345) and one is specifically built off the other is a load of crap.

are you at all convinced by my defense of Crywolf

No, but I figure we'll get into that tomorrow.

did Simpor overtake her purely on his own merit?

Yes, because his fishing is much more pronounced than cry's own weird role fascination and his deflection leads me to think the cause behind his fishing leads more to scummish than crywolf's.

[Empking]

Now do it with the post I quoted.

The thing I quoted was his response to the first argument.

Tha post was a reaction to me pointing out his lack of evidence.

[Ether]

Hey, Empking. Could I get a full List?

[Fuzzyman]

I would, but I'm not arguing with your post 338. It was sound. It's when you state that your arguments continue being valid past 339 that they become unsound. Just tell GC what his misconception about your case was, and let us move on.

[charter]

Vote Count:

Fuzzyman - 1 (q21)

Simpor - 5 (Ether, Patrick, corporate, crywolf20084, Green Crayons)

corporate - 2 (Tisp, Fuzzyman)
Ether - 1 (Empking)

Not Voting: (2)

Simpor
Mizzy

With 11 alive, it takes 6 to lynch!

Gonna ask q21 if his job will leave him unable to post during the week every week, or just this one. If every I think I'll have to replace him.

[Mizzy]

Where the heck is Simpor? He's at -1L, please no one hammer until we hear from him again.