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

[SpyreX]

I've got no problem logically arguing this case.

However, I want you to go back and look at what you've said about it and show me the logical dismissal of my key points. Copy and paste them in one spot and I'll address it.

I think in the process of copying and pasting you'll see what I'm talking about as far as them being dismissed versus logically dismissed.

[springlullaby]

Two replies to Vollkan to go.

At this point I want however TDC and mana-ku to express who they are suspicious of and Ectomancer to comment on the case against me.

I have no feeling on what mykonian said lately, could go either way I guess, but there are earlier post of his that had impressed me as town, and I'm going to stick with that.

[mrfixij]

spyrex, could you point out where I dismiss a major point, just like that? If I remember well, I have looked at the individual points and given my opinion of it. You should be able to tell where I went wrong.

And mrfixij: I didn't see any possibility for a gambit not that experienced as you are I guess. But anyway, why did it take so long for you to post reasons for your vote? why did you wait for someone to point out that you hadn't given any?

Take a look at my timestamps please. I know it's a weak defense to use my outside life, but there was about 26 hours between my initial vote and my followup monster post.

During that time, I corrected my vote, went to work until midnight, came back and made a short post because I didn't have the energy to go through and analyze everything with the same vigor I did in my case. From there I had to sleep for class in the morning, and I finally got back to state my case.

Also, to address spring, I do not claim to be at all versed in the French language, I caught the expression elsewhere where it was most likely misused, and began misusing it in the most pretentious manner possible. Since the rest of your rebuttal was a parrotting of "already answered this", that's all that happened to catch my eye. Well, except this.

1) I have explained this. 2) So you don't expect rational coherence from scum? 3) Personally, one of my favourite scumtell is excess of obivous logic, because what scum want is to be beyond criticisms.

2) Scum can look like town by being rational. Eventually they'll start kicking at a dead horse because there's nothing left to attack, but a lynch must go on. Obv town players are big targets for scum, but a mislynch is more dangerous than a scum NK imo. 3) All proper logic is obvious. When you start nesting assumptions, it becomes poor logic. When you base assumptions on false or made up information, it's craplogic. So your favorite scumtell is players establishing themselves with safe logic?

You do realize that my self-vote was my first post in this game, don't you? So tell me, what are you trying to say here?

I've played a game where someone's first post was a hammer vote. Scum or town do you think? Regardless, the irony is too much to bear.

[mykonian]

I was a bit vague I see. Too little words, to many generalisations. Let's do it better now. I can see why I look bad, now let's see if I can make you see my point.

You start with the selfvoting business. Spring selfvotes, and later accuses vollkan of starting with a selfvote.

You are confused by it. I say the selfvote of spring had an other purpose then that of vollkan, and there is little contradiction in this.

next in your quote of post 114 you find the above "contradiction" again. However, in this post spring weakens her own point against selfvoting. (I never brought this up before)

quote of post 144. We agreed on this one. Spring doesn't give enough reasons for his vote.

after that, spring feels the "contradiction" thing is over, but you think not.

Spring seems to be accusing orto for a weak vote from orto on spring. Anyway, even if this wouldn't be true, would you make this a scumtell?

279 is mostly a gut-vote, (maybe some problems reading vollkan, but it is not me to tell that), a few lines about his thoughts on some other players. Spring proposes a ecto-vollkan scumpair.

287. In none of his options, the ecto-vollkan scumpair exists, and we have found our second "contradiction". Further this post of spring is mostly a continuation of the previous quote. He comes with semireasons, and some feelings about vollkan. (unclear perspective, ungeniune).

289 spring talks a bit about the ecto vollkan scumpair. Spyrex sees his "contradiction"

Do you agree I won't talk about the lurking part?

So what is left is weak following of opinion at the start (not in this case, must have been somewhere else), and two weak votes. Both more gut, and shoddy reasons. And the lurking, of course, if you want to count that.

I generalized this as: mostly based on small contradictions, with some weak votes and lurking. You answered on the contradiction part, that you expected logical coherent players. We aren't all vollkans. I find it hard to explain, but do you think the selfvote of spring and his accusation of a selfvoter are connected?

Most of the direct reaction further we agree. Those votes weren't the strongest. Mainly poor worded, gut based.

[springlullaby]

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.

I have made further reply to this.

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.

No I have never taken issue with your voting for 'going against ritualistic activity', I voted you based on my assessement of your character.

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 a s 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.

1) Your disdain does not concerns me, I play the way I think is good and so far I think my own method of scumhunting is pretty good so I see no reason to change it.

2) If anything my vote against you stands firmly in the 'theory' zone of your scale. And I think you are very scummy for trying to represent my vote as totally disconnected from elements of this game: I have explained why I think you are being 'ungenuine' based on evidences in your play this game, and the same goes for what I describe as 'unclear perspective. Go ahead and quote me. The only thing that can be said to be 'conjecture' in your own scale is my opinion on your misplaced post, and I take full responsibility for it.

3) I never avoided acountability, I have expressed my opinions in this game and I stand by them.

a) Furthermore, your thing about argument which cannot be refuted is I think pure BS. The only way it could be said to be scummy would be basing it off the assumption that only town could refute theories, and scum would ultimately fail to refute them. Or even that town would never make these calls. I do not believe for one second that someone with your experience can really believe that.

b) Do quantify 'play the offensive without actually having to find evidence of scuminess'. I found what I consider evidence of scuminess in your play, and I think you are entirely sidestepping the issue by repeating continually saying 'no evidence' 'no evidence'.

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.

Just because you say it is nonsense doesn't make it so. I don't get why you are referrencing that game here, I get that it is where the misplaced post was supposed to be destined to, but so what?

And you know, the strangest thing here is that I'm starting to think that I may have been wrong about you misplacing your post intentionally, but I still think you are very high chance of being scum based on your response. Your first response to it, and indeed to my entire case on you was pretty much on the appeasing side, now you are blurring the lines and saying that I'm scummy because of my reasons to think you so.

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.

Okay, yet to fail to demonstrate how anything I say is craplogic. Please quote.

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?)

I don't believe that, and I think you are backpedalling here: it is written '@Vollkan' at the beginning of that, and my post prior to that was my saying 'before I answer you, let me ask a question'.

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"

Huh, that's not the impression I got from the post at all. I do not believe that if you had an objection to what I said then you would have let it drop, wasn't it your stated motivation of your self-vote manoeuvre?

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.

You prove me that my explanation is LESS reasonnable than yours. Man do you have a point? This is going into BS arguing land hardcore.

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.

Am I missing something or are you recognizing your own contradiction? What is the point of what you quoting yourself here? You said in you last post that you objected to my point, I pointed out that was not the case and now you are saying...what?

You know what, I think what you are doing here is acutally sidestepping the issue.

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.

BS strawman. I emitted the hypothesis that it may have been shirking responsibility, I distincly remember putting my accusation of orto in the form of a question.

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.

This is something new and your stated opinion about what one should do, like I said, it does not concerns me. Beside, I think you have played enough mafia to know that's BS.

[springlullaby]

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.

It is only dismissal if there is a possibility of truth in what you are saying.

Here quoted for you since the obvious thing to do when someone tells you that you are wrong is not to verify your facts but go into 'lalalala I'm not listening to you' land.

You say:

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

I say, you don't know how to read:

Alternatively I can also conceived it as a soft vote for distancing purpose, because you dropped it pretty fast when the ortolan case surfaced.

You know, I've been stepping into a lot of ego-fights lately, so obviously I must be doing something wrong. But man, you are the one to talk about dismissal when you reply to my hour long post with a one liners and 'lalala'.

[springlullaby]

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.

So, in essence, you self-voted for a reason that was essentially the same as mine - to provoke reaction.

I love that when

you

do it is pristinely pro-town but when

I

do it you seem to object to it becasue you can "very well imagine" me doing it for nefarious purposes. Your hypocrisy is truly astounding.

Misrepresentation, I never said that I was 'pristinely pro-town' for anything, people throw crap contradiction my way, I point out how they are talking crap.

And here you are representing me as an hypocrite when you gloss over the fact that the reason I voted you at the begininng of this game is totally different from what people have been reproaching me.

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.

"no clearly stated game relevant opinion opposite"? Say what you will about the viability of Ecto's arguments, but it is absurd to say that he had no clearly stated opinion. Backing a point up with a vote does nothing to alter whether or not there are clear opinions - the two exist independently of one another.

The term is 'game relevant opinion' with the emphasis on 'game relevant'. You know, who think whom is scum and why.

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

Uh, this is very relevant to this game - because it was a basis of your argument against an action of mine. You've essentially just made your own assertion about the point of random-voting and now expect us not to debate the viability of it. Again, as I keep saying, the random voting stage is just to kick off the game. There is no symbolic point to it.

1)It is not the basis of any of my votes against you, how many times have I demonstrated that already? Do you think you repeating yourself is gonna make it true?

2)Oh so since you say it has no symbolic to it it must be the truth, is it? And you have clearly by your sole statement eradicated any possible viability of my opinion. Next time you say the earth is round, I will say 'no, there is no vialibility to what you are saying - because I keep saying it is flat'.

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.

FFS. By that logic, being an accountant is inherently bad because, if everybody were accountants, there would be no food. Just like self-voting, accountancy is only viable as a profession because not everybody does it.

What does FFS mean. Strawman, reductio ad absurdum.

Lurking is inherently bad, yet it is not indicative of alignment. Agree/disagree?

I think the same applies to self-vote.

Are you really missing this?

I think people should seriously consider Vollkan, I think my point in 287 still stands true. You are at liberty to have you own opinion on the misplaced post thing, but consider also the points in my replies to him.

[SpyreX]

@Mykonian:

You start with the selfvoting business. Spring selfvotes, and later accuses vollkan of starting with a selfvote.

You are confused by it. I say the selfvote of spring had an other purpose then that of vollkan, and there is little contradiction in this.

Firstly, I'm not "confused". I am saying setting a hardline stance (which was then later quantified) and then doing the action is bad. Attacking another player for it is opportunistic. It is not simply a contradiction - it is a contradiction that is being pushed as a reason for lynch.

The purpose, ultimately, doesn't matter - its based soley on what SL said in regards to it.
Spring seems to be accusing orto for a weak vote from orto on spring.

Anyway, even if this wouldn't be true, would you make this a scumtell?

Contextually, yes. It fits part of the larger puzzle. As a generality - no, but few things are.

279 is mostly a gut-vote, (maybe some problems reading vollkan, but it is not me to tell that), a few lines about his thoughts on some other players. Spring proposes a ecto-vollkan scumpair.

Its a little more complicated than that (the last line). SL in the same breath says Ecto is ok, but if Volk is scum than Ecto is more likely to be scum.

I generalized this as: mostly based on small contradictions, with some weak votes and lurking. You answered on the contradiction part, that you expected logical coherent players. We aren't all vollkans. I find it hard to explain, but do you think the selfvote of spring and his accusation of a selfvoter are connected?

I dont expect a lot of Volkans (the server couldn't hold all the words). However, I do expect

consistancy

. Right or wrong, agree or not it is normally fairly simple to follow someones logical process (for example your and I's disagreement on the self-vote issue). That is normal because on some level it has to move past gut to legitimate reasons - now, when the reasons presented conflict with

ones own actions

there is a problem (my cognative dissonance). Hence, the main issue with multiple small contradictions (which I dont agree they are small, but) is how they play out in the larger picture - these contradictions are being used to further an agenda, and a scummy one at that.

There's a new example of this I'll bring to light, just to maybe clarify why they are so alarming:

You do realize that my self-vote was my first post in this game, don't you? So tell me, what are you trying to say here?

Lets look at her first post:

Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?

That said, I also don't like Ectomancer, there is something muffled in his toeing the line of aggression with Vollkan.

So, on one hand mrfix is bad for making a "character judgement" from SL's first post. On the other hand Volkan is scum because of a "character judgement" of his, in fact, first post.

See the issue? This compounds further when you look at the self-vote dichotomy as well. And the votes. And the lurking. And the personal attacks. And the dismissal. etc, etc.

No, no single thing is a "SLAM DUNK" but all the pieces together lead me to definitively believe that SL is scum.

[springlullaby]

You do realize that my self-vote was my first post in this game, don't you? So tell me, what are you trying to say here?

Lets look at her first post:

Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?

That said, I also don't like Ectomancer, there is something muffled in his toeing the line of aggression with Vollkan.

So, on one hand mrfix is bad for making a "character judgement" from SL's first post. On the other hand Volkan is scum because of a "character judgement" of his, in fact, first post.
[/quote]

You are putting words in my mouth, and this point is, again, BS.

I pointed out that the self-vote was my first post in this game (which means well prior to my expressing my stance on self-voting) in reply to mrfixij saying something along the line of my self-vote 'ringing the bell of irony' or something to that effect, which is indeed not a judgment that he could have made because to my knowledge mrfixij has no knowledge of my stance on the issue prior to this game.

On the other hand, my judgment of Vollkan came after he stated his opinion on the self-vote issue, plus I have cardflipped game experience on Vollkan.

You know, I'd appreciate it if you stopped selectively replying to what I say, and using loaded words repeatedly without even refuting my replies.

[springlullaby]

Messed up tags. Ignore above correct as follow.

You do realize that my self-vote was my first post in this game, don't you? So tell me, what are you trying to say here?

Lets look at her first post:

Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?

That said, I also don't like Ectomancer, there is something muffled in his toeing the line of aggression with Vollkan.

So, on one hand mrfix is bad for making a "character judgement" from SL's first post. On the other hand Volkan is scum because of a "character judgement" of his, in fact, first post.

You are putting words in my mouth, and this point is, again, BS.

I pointed out that the self-vote was my first post in this game (which means well prior to my expressing my stance on self-voting) in reply to mrfixij saying something along the line of my self-vote 'ringing the bell of irony' or something to that effect, which is indeed not a judgment that he could have made because to my knowledge mrfixij has no knowledge of my stance on the issue prior to this game.

On the other hand, my judgment of Vollkan came after he stated his opinion on the self-vote issue, plus I have cardflipped game experience on Vollkan.

You know, I'd appreciate it if you stopped selectively replying to what I say, and using loaded words repeatedly without even refuting my replies.

[springlullaby]

2) Scum can look like town by being rational. Eventually they'll start kicking at a dead horse because there's nothing left to attack, but a lynch must go on. Obv town players are big targets for scum, but a mislynch is more dangerous than a scum NK imo.

Please explain how this reply is in any way relevant.

3) All proper logic is obvious. When you start nesting assumptions, it becomes poor logic. When you base assumptions on false or made up information, it's craplogic. So your favorite scumtell is players establishing themselves with safe logic?

I take issue with your 'all proper logic is obvious', but I'll pass on this one because unfortunately I do know that there are people who actually believes that while as the same time being oblivious to all evidence to the contrary. Now, where did I ever use false or made up information. And yes it is one of my fav scumtell.

You do realize that my self-vote was my first post in this game, don't you? So tell me, what are you trying to say here?

I've played a game where someone's first post was a hammer vote. Scum or town do you think? Regardless, the irony is too much to bear.

What is the meaning of your reply here? What irony?

You say that my self-vote ringed the bell of something something, I'm pointing out to you the fact that you could not have that judgment because my self-vote was my first post in this game.

[TDC]

At this point I want however TDC and mana-ku to express who they are suspicious of and Ectomancer to comment on the case against me.

If only I knew, but I'll try anyway.

vollkan I have a bad feeling about, but I can't quantify where I actually got it, and the case on him is not particularly enforcing it. Still don't like how he kept his vote on the claimed mason for policy reasons instead of just asking them about it.

I agree with myk's sentiment that the sl-case is not as good as some make it out to be (Spyrex in particular is unreasonably sure of her alignment and that this game is "in the bag"). I still don't see the point in the self-vote "contradiction". Her vollkan case, however, is reaching at times (misplaced post, the vollkan-ecto connection, ..) and rather vague. It doesn't make me want to vote vollkan despite my bad feeling about him.

Still think the timing's off about fixij's sl vote, but as I already said, that he relativated that with his case.

--

It could be argued either way. If SL is town, I would say that the case would not be as strong unless you argue that Myk's initial vote was weak and now he is defending hard in order to be vindicated if SL should turn up town. (Of course for Myk, it would be when SL turns up town)

A better question I think TDC, would be if that turnaround is a 'natural' or 'contrived'. That's probably an opinion based question.

Let's say it this way, SL's alignment is not dependent upon Myk's, but if SL were to turn up scum, I would expect that Myk is also scum.

Reads more natural than contrived to me, I wouldn't look his way if sl turns up town.
I think it's quite understandable that he was (and as far as I can tell still is) somewhat suspicious of her, but thinks the case is blown out of proportion (or even scum-fueled?).

[Ectomancer]

Those big posts with the red in them are killing me to have to read. It makes it hard for me to figure out who you are talking to, and I think sometimes you forget to put in the [red]red[/red] and so then I have to try to figure out who is talking in that section.
There are some good points I think you have, from what I was able to discern of it.

I wanted to restate that you are correct, there is nothing that could prevent myself and Vollkan from being scumbuddies. Just because we had a big argument doesnt mean anything in terms of our alignment. Alot of it was just theory talk anyhow. But, there is also nothing that could prevent us both from being town, or just one of us being scum.
I realize that you were just trying to make sure that players did not get into the mind set that Vollkan and I could not be partners, but I also dont want them to get into the mindset that we

must

be partners, or that either one of us should be lynched from simple fear of that possible scenario.

[SpyreX]

I agree with myk's sentiment that the sl-case is not as good as some make it out to be (Spyrex in particular is unreasonably sure of her alignment and that this game is "in the bag"). I still don't see the point in the self-vote "contradiction". Her vollkan case, however, is reaching at times (misplaced post, the vollkan-ecto connection, ..) and rather vague. It doesn't make me want to vote vollkan despite my bad feeling about him.

Woah now.

I'm confident that

if I am right

then the game is afoot. I'm confident that

if I am right

AND

my assumptions are correct

the game is "in the bag" based on raw numbers.

From the play, I'm the most confident in SL being scum.

However, if someone else were to present a case on someone I could evaluate I would. I think its pretty clear I'm not buying the volkan case as it stands - I've found his play to be very coherent and pro-town thus far.

If you've got iffy feelings, lay them out and I'll look at it. I'm not going to get behind "iffy feelings" though.

I will agree with you on Ecto's play of late though.

[mykonian]

If I summarise the vollkan and spring posts like below, have I understood it?

Spring votes not on strong reasons (maybe a bit gut), but thinks vollkan must be scum for that reasons, vollkans says that spring has no reasons.
talking about the "contradiction"
theory discussion, how you should play.

On the mrfixij case: It still stays a very weird move of mrfixij, but 26 hours is not that long. Still I had to ask for a case, before it came. Would it also have come if I didn't?

Talking about that: Ecto, I have still not heard why you think spring and mrfix scummy. Could you please do something about that?

@spyrex.

selfvoters are scum.

unvote vote mykonian

. Would you vote me for it? Does this selfvote have the same use as that of vollkan? Would I see my selfvote as scummy? would it be part of the point I'm making. Would it be a joke? And slightly wifom, would scum be this way, putting such an obvious contradiction in play?

Quote:
Anyway, even if this wouldn't be true, would you make this a scumtell?


Contextually, yes. It fits part of the larger puzzle. As a generality - no, but few things are.

That would give easy to make cases. Find a slight scumtell, find a bunch of nulltells, put them together and you have your mislynch. This is my problem with your case the whole time. You have two slight scumtells, and a bunch of things that are mainly nulltells and you tell me you have found scum.

[mykonian]

unvote

before people think they have caught scum...

[SpyreX]

@Mykonian

Lets make it a little more apt a comparison.

Mykonian: Vote: Mykonian
SpyreX: Vote: SpyreX
...
SpyreX: Selfvoting is scummy. Vote: Mykonian.

That would give easy to make cases. Find a slight scumtell, find a bunch of nulltells, put them together and you have your mislynch. This is my problem with your case the whole time. You have two slight scumtells, and a bunch of things that are mainly nulltells and you tell me you have found scum.

Ok, present me with a different option. What is your case and why?

[mykonian]

still my best shot would be mrfixij.

The way he jumped on your case, so fast, and then 26 hours later, after he is asked, He posts his reasons, and those reasons consist mostly out of your case, and 2 extra null-tells, and a discussion on your case. Little input, I think.

You believe your case is true, and that is fine, but why are there within a few posts 3 votes on spring. Was everybody suddenly convinced? If mrfix was so convinced, why came the reasons so late?

That is everything, I guess. I forgot to vote again

vote mrfixij

and spyrex, if you made that selfvote, would you have considered yourself scummy? What would be your explanation?

[SpyreX]

and spyrex, if you made that selfvote, would you have considered yourself scummy? What would be your explanation?

Thats the thing I'm getting at.

If I

honestly

believed that self-voting was anti-town (and even had reasons for thinking so)

I wouldn't do it

.

That is the cognitive dissonance I am talking about.

You either don't honestly believe your own sentiments and are attacking another player on flimsy ground or you believe it and are undertaking an anti-town action (and also condemning another for it).

You believe your case is true, and that is fine, but why are there within a few posts 3 votes on spring. Was everybody suddenly convinced? If mrfix was so convinced, why came the reasons so late?

I'm still trying to decide what I think about that (mrfix). Volkan's reasoning in his reply / vote makes sense. Mrfix however is more of an issue - the fact he softclaimed however makes me shy away from him as a day 1 candidate on the grounds he, if lying, will be found out one way or another.

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1

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 - 1 (mykonian)
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 3 (orangepenguin, TDC, Spoilum)

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

[mykonian]

I missed the softclaim.

on the self-vote, what my problem is with the whole theory, it is not that black/white as you say it is. I've been quite clear in one of my first posts that I thought self-voting antitown. I still think it is. Yet you saw me do it a few posts ago. However, would I, or should you, consider this selfvote the same selfvote I said was antitown? I think not.

Now I'm busy writing this, something is wrong here. If spring knows this, why go after vollkan? the same applies... And I know spring that you have other reasons, but if I'm right, this was your starting point for research, wasn't it?

[SpyreX]

Did you try to push a case on a different player for the self-same action in some fashion?

[Ectomancer]

Talking about that: Ecto, I have still not heard why you think spring and mrfix scummy. Could you please do something about that?

I think I already explained why I chose the 3 names that I did.

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.

At this point I'd just like to see it move. So, if that sparks something, go for it.

Let's string up Springlullaby, Mykonian, or mrfixij today.

Game slowed to a near halt. Ectomancer says 'Im gonna grease the wheels", Spyrex says "go for it". The wheels got greased.

I wouldn't call it a lie, but sometimes you do things to see what happens. I needed to see what would happen if I put those 3 names together on a list. I didnt know what reaction I would get, but Im content with the results.

[SpyreX]

Now the thing Ecto, which I was going to talk about before I digressed - why myko over SL? I see the potential connection, but isn't SL the stronger half?

[vollkan]

vollkan, ecto and mrfixij just see a big post, with lot of argument, and they hop on the bandwagon. Is it so hard just to check out how valid the points against spring are? Yes, his votes haven't been that strong, but really, is selfvoting to make a point and accusing vollkan of starting with a selfvote such a contradiction? I can't see town people make a point of it.

It's really rather a mischaracterisation to say that Ecto, Ixfij and myself just hopped on a wagon after seeing a "big post". I went through the reasons (many of which I had expressed previously myself), and found they added up.

you know I don't agree with the adding up part . But anyway, you did the best job of the people I named. How mrfixij hopped on was really ugly, and until ecto explains why he is doing it now also, it is the same.

That's essentially what I meant Ixfij and Ecto are in a different situation to me, but you tried to tar me with the same brush - hence why I called it a mischaracterisation.

And tell me, why would I vote Spyrex? because he makes a case? because he believes he is right? I would think it very unlikely that both Spyrex and Mrfixij were scum, Mrfixij is very scummy in my eyes, so Spyrex is not very suspected. Also, Spyrex got this town alive again, posted a big case (doesn't matter if I don't agree with him), clear pro-town behaviour.

By that same logic, why vote people who agree with Spyrex? Because they agree with his case? Because they believe he is right? There's nothing

innately

scummy about agreement.

And Spyrex posting a big case in no way constitutes "clear pro-town behaviour".

No I have never taken issue with your voting for 'going against ritualistic activity', I voted you based on my assessement of your character.

Here is your voting post:

Your voting post:

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

I wasn't suggesting that you voted me purely for violating ritual. But you did take issue with my vote because of its violation of ritual.

The reason this is important is because of the "character" argument you proceed to make.

In a nutshell (to make myself a bit clearer), the point I make below is thus

: SL's character argument is pure bollocks but the ritualistic argument serves to give it emotional clout.

There are an infinite number of possible actions people could do in this game. Consider something as absurd as making a post consisting entirely of:

Poop poop a doop

Now, stupid and pointless as that might be, Person X should not be suspected for it. If Person Y did decide to vote Person for that action, then Person X would be perfectly entitled to demand that some explanation be proferred as to why said action is at all warranting of suspicion. My point, in a nutshell, is that the "you need proof" mindset is perfectly legitimate.

The idea that people are scummy for demanding justification for votes is completely ridiculous, but it's precisely what your "character" argument posits. If you had posted your two points (That is, 1) The ritual argument; and 2) The character argument) separately, it would have been clear that the character argument was a load of complete rot.

But, the character argument almost has some (superficial) appeal when used in relation to something deemed "anti-town" (ie. violating a custom). The reason is that it allows a conflation of "demanding proof of likely scumminess" (reasonable) with "demanding proof of scummy motivations" (unreasonable).

It's unreasonable to require proof that something was done for scummy reasons, because obviously you cannot get inside somebody's head. But it is perfectly reason to argue for proof that something is objectively scummy (ie. by insisting on an explanation as to why a theory that holds action X being done for scummy reasons is reasonably probable as to warrant suspicion).

Where conduct is made out to be inherently anti-town (ie. as SL did with my self-voting), it becomes easier to make a demand for proof appear to be a slippery demand for proof of motivation.

Thus, the ritual argument is effectively used by SL to season a craplogic argument.

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 a s 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.

2) If anything my vote against you stands firmly in the 'theory' zone of your scale. And I think you are very scummy for trying to represent my vote as totally disconnected from elements of this game: I have explained why I think you are being 'ungenuine' based on evidences in your play this game, and the same goes for what I describe as 'unclear perspective. Go ahead and quote me. The only thing that can be said to be 'conjecture' in your own scale is my opinion on your misplaced post, and I take full responsibility for it.

Well, to begin with the justifiactions for your vote I cover above, the "character" argument is "theory" (falsifiable). The problem with the argument, however, is the presumption that underpins it (the claim that any use of "you need proof" is scummy). My "poop poop a doop" argument above thoroughly falsifies this point. The "character" argument, therefore, is theory but scummy, because it relies on craplogic dressed up with emotional rhetoric.

So, what about the accusations of 1) Ungenuine; 2) Unclear perspective?

You say that you have given evidential explanations. Well, let's have a look shall we?

There are a number of things that sounds ungenuine

Examples and explanations?

1. I think your first vote on Ectomancer is unclear and is wrapped up in excess of rhetoric to make it look more solid than it is.

Here is your vote:
http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=275

The reason of your vote for Ectomancer is at the bottom of this post and is in fact isolated from everything that you have been arguing about. But what's more, the reason of your vote seems coherent with your rhetoric and displayed attitude toward mafia play, but I feel it is not genuine because I think Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex has merit even thought his construction does not fit in your systematic approach. This is scummy I think because I would think that you have enough experience to recognize this as town.

You see, I think there is a certain quality of tension building up between yourself and Ectomancer during the earlier phase of the game, and I think what you did there was voting first so you could stay ahead in the event Ecto were to vote you, and the 'streching' nature of your vote maybe the symptom of that.

Alternatively I can also conceived it as a soft vote for distancing purpose, because you dropped it pretty fast when the ortolan case surfaced.

I'm not decided between the two atm, but I'd like to put both theories out there.

The point about my vote for Ecto being isolated is garbage for two reasons. Firstly, you haven't explained at all what the significance of it being isolated would be if it were isolated. More importantly, though, it comes at the end of a post largely consisting of my argument with Ecto. I then diverge from this to attack his Spyrex vote. It's the climax of a substantially anti-Ecto post. You've basically just made up a conjecture about me putting a vote out in isolation, which is not only untrue, but you don't even explain what it means.

I also particular love this combination of sentencese: "but I feel it is not genuine because I think Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex has merit even thought his construction does not fit in your systematic approach. This is scummy I think because I would think that you have enough experience to recognize this as town." The language of my vote was very clear. You construe it as me simply voting Ecto for not sitting in my approach, but his vote actually went to the absurd end of assuming MY alignment.

You then proceed to make up one explanation for your made up account of my actions (that I was trying to "stay ahead") and then give an equally contrived alternative.

Evidential? Hardly.

2. I do perceive the double standard ortolan is talking aobut. At several occasion your post seemed to indicate 'good sentiment' toward me, and imo for no good reason whatsoever.

Right now I am too lazy to go fish them up, but from memory you exemplified my case against ortolan as a 'good example'. Only I think it was as much 'without any basis' as any case in mafia, and I think equally justifiable in your own system than Ectomancer's vote on Spyrex.

At another occasion you said something along the line of 'good catch' to my asking ortolan if he had isolated my post on purpose. I do not believe what I said merited such attention because I think it was a minor point.

And you see, I think that that 'double standard' is most significant in light of the fact that Ecto and I were the most affirmative in our diverging opinions concerning your selfvote. And I think this artificiality is pretty scummy because I think that what you did there was 'compensate' by casting me in a relatively good light for you going after Ectomancer to make you look less OMGUS-y.

This I have already addressed. There's absolutely no truth in the claim that I held your Orto vote up as a "good example" simpliciter - I raised it as a "good example of an objective argument". Anyway, this doesn't substantiate your accusation I am being "ungenuine"

I cannot find the "good catch" point you make. Firstly, if I said something you found was good, it just means I agree with your point, and there is nothing wrong with agreement. It's a huge leap for you to then say this constitutes a "double standard"

Finally, without specific examples of where I may have cast you in a better light, you are just divorcing my actions of the reasons I give.

And then we get to the "unclear perspective" point.

Your only "evidence" given for this was:

Well, I think you've been arguing a lot with lot of people and you seem to be pretty strong in your convictions when it comes to what you apparently think is good play, but I do not discern clear train of thought when the discussion is out of theorical grounds and when it comes to scumhunting.

Purely subjective twaddle about a "clear train of thought". This has no tying to anything I have done and is just an unfalsifiable claim - how can I possibly prove that I have a clear train of thought?

a) Furthermore, your thing about argument which cannot be refuted is I think pure BS. The only way it could be said to be scummy would be basing it off the assumption that only town could refute theories, and scum would ultimately fail to refute them. Or even that town would never make these calls. I do not believe for one second that someone with your experience can really believe that.

I make no pretence my strategy works flawlessly - scum can refute theories (often rightly so. Remember, just because somebody makes an argument for somebody being scum and that person turns out scum doesn't vindicate the argument. Anybody who has been lynched as scum for a crappy case knows what I mean). The question is what is most reasonable. Conjecture dodges accountability because it prevents a person having reasoning analysed. You just concoct a feeling and nobody can argue with you.

b) Do quantify 'play the offensive without actually having to find evidence of scuminess'. I found what I consider evidence of scuminess in your play, and I think you are entirely sidestepping the issue by repeating continually saying 'no evidence' 'no evidence'.

But what you have presented is not saying "Vollkan did X. X is scummy because it is most reasonable that scum would do X, because of reason Y". Instead, your arguments have followed this formla: "Vollkan did X. X is scummy because Vollkan-scum could have done X because of reason Y". You never attempt to give any objective credibility to your arguments. It seems that the mere

possibility

that, say, I deliberately inserted a misplaced post, or that I may have been trying to keep ahead of Ecto for scummy reasons is enough for you.

Just because you say it is nonsense doesn't make it so. I don't get why you are referrencing that game here, I get that it is where the misplaced post was supposed to be destined to, but so what?

Well, it kind of shoots down any objective credibility to your argument.

Simple challenge: Prove to me that your explanation of my misplaced post is more reasonable than the explanation that I just made a mistake with my tabbed browser.

I don't need numerical proof of the number of times I or others have made said mistakes (though that would be acceptable). I just want you to explain why that theory is more reasonable than my explanation of mistake.

And you know, the strangest thing here is that I'm starting to think that I may have been wrong about you misplacing your post intentionally, but I still think you are very high chance of being scum based on your response. Your first response to it, and indeed to my entire case on you was pretty much on the appeasing side, now you are blurring the lines and saying that I'm scummy because of my reasons to think you so.

Sorry? Where was I appeasing? And why would a change in attitude on further reflection be scummy?

Okay, yet to fail to demonstrate how anything I say is craplogic. Please quote.

Please see my sustained criticism of your arguments against me.

You asked me to explain why you were scummy, and I did so. "Craplogic" is an umbrella term that covers bad theory (theory based on crap assumptions) and conjecture.

I don't believe that, and I think you are backpedalling here: it is written '@Vollkan' at the beginning of that, and my post prior to that was my saying 'before I answer you, let me ask a question'.

No it doesn't.

This is the post it links to:

Vollkan - I'm not going into another quote pyramid to restate the position we are both taking, which is, "I'm right and you are wrong."

Ecto, I am not simply posting for your benefit. I am not arguing against you to persuade you - I am doing so to show others the faults I see in your arguments against me (and now against Spyrex). I don't expect we will reach any sort of accord.

What I find ironic in this is that I took the early position that 'gut feelings" are a perfectly acceptable manner of playing mafia. Both Vollkan and Spyrex took opposition to that form of play. But when pressed, the actual reasons they give are what boils down to "gut feelings".

"It wasn't what he did, it was how he did it".

Argue otherwise if you would like, but when others do not agree with your assessment there, what it comes down to is that your gut doesn't agree with how I did what I did. I know it galls you to hear it, but your assessment of my alignment comes down to an entirely debatable "gut feeling". As I said, they can be valid, so I dont discount it as a reasoning at all. I just find it funny that you would discount it if it were coming from someone else.

You're completely wrong here. My attack on your "How" was an attack upon the way that you presented your case - strong rhetoric which ends up being just hollow rhetoric. That isn't scummy for "gut" reasons. It's scummy because it reflects a lack of sincere critical analysis on your own part about possible motivations for my actions.

In a game of incomplete information, there is always going to be a need for inferences to be drawn (nobody can ever prove that a certain action is definitely scummy). As I have done in my argument against you. The point is, however, that inferences have to be based on a genuine analysis of various possible explanations and likelihoods and so on. That's in stark contrast to a suspicion based purely on "gut". Maybe the "gut" has gone through the inferring process - and maybe it hasn't. That's the problem with basing a case on "like", "feeling", "gut" etc.

Right here, its all questions on whether he still considers his move a valid one after the mod made a clarification on the mechanics of the game. No 'strongly attacking' at all here. The "Why would you.." came from Vollkans original post on this topic.. Those were the exact words he used. In fact, to flip it around, Vollkan himself is the one that implied that there was a justification there to be had. My parroting his own question to himself in his own words does not then make myself the originator of the question in that manner.. He then attempts to blame the introduction of the "Why would you..." on me in order to attack me, supporting my earlier assertion that he was simply waiting for the first person to respond so that he could go on the attack.

So, basically, you think that you are exculpated because your question was mere parroting? As I said above, the whole point of that question was to set up a pit for the uncritical in order that a debate may begin. You're in control of your own language; you wrote "Why would you...".

I searched "@vollkan" to try and find what you may have meant, and I found this:

I'll get the answers out of the way first because I behind.

@Vollkan on random voting.

It is my pet view that the random voting stage is a form of greeting ritual custom to forum mafia and that its symbolic is to indicates one's willingness to scumhunt and lynch - I'm sure that this view is debatable, however I'm not interested in adding another theoretical topic to the discussion.

What I think everyone can agree on is that the random voting stage serves a function which is to generate discussion.

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.

@Vollkan and Spyrex on 'contradiction'

1. I see no contradiction in my play. See above.

2. Actually you guys seem to think that I have voted Vollkan because 'I think self voting is inherently bad'. I don't like this because it is not the case.

@Mykonian

1. I did state why I didn't like ecto's play. I don't see where I'm following spyrex.

2. Your point about my 'keeping my options open' irritates me.

See my answer to it from another game:

Link removed:

Do not talk outside the game thread about an ongoing game except where allowed to do so by your role.

---------------

Next I'll examine people post more closely and give my opinion.

In that case, my presumption would be that your justification is that you were trying to prove in practice your point about how it would fail if everybody did it. Needless to say, that's a bollocks argument.

Huh, that's not the impression I got from the post at all. I do not believe that if you had an objection to what I said then you would have let it drop, wasn't it your stated motivation of your self-vote manoeuvre?

Well your impression was wrong, frankly.

I didn't let it "drop". I rebutted your point, in the very post you identify. What more did you want?

You prove me that my explanation is LESS reasonnable than yours. Man do you have a point? This is going into BS arguing land hardcore.

You were the one accusing Orto of being scum. It's for you to prove your argument. This isn't BS - it's basic principles of argument. You made one assertion for Orto's motivations, and I expect you to explain why it is more valid than contrary non-scum interpretations.

Am I missing something or are you recognizing your own contradiction? What is the point of what you quoting yourself here? You said in you last post that you objected to my point, I pointed out that was not the case and now you are saying...what?

You know what, I think what you are doing here is acutally sidestepping the issue.

To clarify,
You said I had "no qualm" with it. I didn't attack your point, but the reason I quoted was that I was showing that I also did not express any agreement with you - I was just attacking somebody else who completely misrepresented what you said.

BS strawman. I emitted the hypothesis that it may have been shirking responsibility, I distincly remember putting my accusation of orto in the form of a question.

Well, that's probably why I didn't attack your point at the time. It was a long time ago, so forgive me for not knowing that that is what you said at the time. I only raised it now because I was showing that I didn't agree with an inherent argument against agreement. In posting that, I didn't read any posts by you at that time, only what my post said.

Misrepresentation, I never said that I was 'pristinely pro-town' for anything, people throw crap contradiction my way, I point out how they are talking crap.

I self-voted to provoke reaction. How is your purpose qualitatively different? (and would you please state with clarity exactly what your purpose was?)

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.

"no clearly stated game relevant opinion opposite"? Say what you will about the viability of Ecto's arguments, but it is absurd to say that he had no clearly stated opinion. Backing a point up with a vote does nothing to alter whether or not there are clear opinions - the two exist independently of one another.

The term is 'game relevant opinion' with the emphasis on 'game relevant'. You know, who think whom is scum and why.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Ecto was debating me on the scumminess and anti-townnes of my self-vote. I was in a defensive position, but I had a clear sense of his opinion. The mere fact Ecto hadn't outright accused me of being scum is irrelevant, as his opinions were pretty much manifest. There was no need for a vote to "back it up"

vollkan I have a bad feeling about, but I can't quantify where I actually got it, and the case on him is not particularly enforcing it. Still don't like how he kept his vote on the claimed mason for policy reasons instead of just asking them about it.

Uh...my policy reason was the reason I didn't ask. I thought it was premature for a claim, and claims should only occur explicitly.