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

[mykonian]

making yourself usefull to the game gives you towny points in my eyes... And if spyrex is scum, it is much easier to find if he posts a lot, then if he lurks.

And what about agreement with a case that is not that obvious? Personally, I would discuss it first, let spring defend, and look what I could do then. But it is easier to just hop on the bandwagon.

[SpyreX]

Who is this in reference to?

I could read Volk posts all day.

[mykonian]

to volkann, the last post.

[vollkan]

making yourself usefull to the game gives you towny points in my eyes... And if spyrex is scum, it is much easier to find if he posts a lot, then if he lurks.

Yeah, long-term use of goodlogic (verging on the Orwellian...) is more

likely

to come from town. Though, Spyrex posting one single big case doesn't meet that benchmark.

And what about agreement with a case that is not that obvious? Personally, I would discuss it first, let spring defend, and look what I could do then. But it is easier to just hop on the bandwagon.

You dodge the main point of my question here. True, it would also be possible to agree more subtly, but the question is not "What alternatives exist to express agreement?". The question is "

Why is explicit agreement problematic

?"

I could read Volk posts all day.

Was that a compliment, or a jab at the size of my posts?

[ortolan]

I am still sensing hypocrisy from vollkan

The craplogic proceeds thus:
1) Vollkan thinks gut is scummy when used to justify votes/decs of suspicion
2) Vollkan said he had a gut feeling that something was weird with Ixfij
3) Combining 1 and 2, Vollkan is inconsistent and therefore scummy

Mafia is as much about what is not said (or rather, what is said implicitly), as what is said. You had no valid reason for announcing your gut suspicion beyond *wanting* to imply something in this way, yet deny it has any meaning. It's also amusing you think my response in some way demonstrates I am "prejudiced". You still haven't answered what you intended to achieve by "trapping" me either. If you simply meant you thought it somehow demonstrated I was prejudiced, I don't accept this at all, so you haven't achieved much. And in your use of "prejudiced", you earn +1 scumpoint for use of emotive language, +1 scumpoint for an entirely subjective judgement, +10 scumpoints for your hypocrisy in the following criticism of sl in your recent post:

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?

Furthermore you are being entirely disingenuous on this point anyhow, as you appear to be interpreting SL's argument as deductive (premises clearly follow from the conclusion) rather than inductive argument (premises support conclusion), which it clearly is. I happen to agree with her claim that your discussion is not at all helpful in regards to scumhunting in this game, and am equally skeptical of the inconsistencies and opportunism which you've demonstrated (and which I've continually attempted to draw attention to).

Furthermore the vast majority of your arguments (and indeed, everyone's) are inductive and so your criticism of the unclear perspective point on the basis they are not valid deductively is little more than opportunistic posturing.

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.

Funny, here sl has to "prove" her interpretation of your misplaced post was correct. Again you are deliberately equivocating obligations in deductive vs. inductive logic, but that's not the worst part.

Start with post 177 where you accuse me of hedging my arguments. I reply in post 189 that this amounted to:

speculation about my motives rather than any coherent and internally consistent case for me being mafia.

I could say for example "vollkan's gambit was intended purely so he would have a device for continually launching suspicion on different people- firstly he could launch suspicion on those who called him on his self-vote, then he could launch suspicion on those who called the caller on his self-vote etc., basically a mafia's dream". However this is just an interpretation.

In reply:

See my rant at the top of this post. Every attack has to rely on a specific interpretation because town doesn't have complete information. This is no defence and is simply a means of using a poor theory argument to justify any sort of behaviour.

...

Your logic here is absurd, because ANY action can be spun as something that either town or scum could so. If we didn't hold people culpable for any actions which might possibly be "poor voting choices", town wouldn't ever win. A scumbag quick-hammers: "Oopsie! Poor voting choice". Somebody fakeclaims cop: "Oopsie! Poor claiming choice". Etc. etc. This is a game of incomplete information for town and, as such, town HAS to rely upon drawing reasonable inferences as to the likely motivations of certain actions. By this logic, the only time it is ever possible to lynch somebody is if they are confirmed by the mod to be scum - which, needless to say, doesn't happen in mafia until after death.

So, when you're attacking me, it's alright to use a specific subjective interpretation of my actions which is no more likely than any other, but sl's interpretation of your actions has to be "proved" to be more valid than the alternative you provide. One standard for vollk, different standard for everyone else.

TDC, OP, Spolium it would nice to hear you each put a case against someone or multiple people, that way we may be able to break the essential stalemate we have currently. vollkan's recent posts have only made me think him more likely to be scum.

Spolium has asked and is currently in the process of being replaced - Rage

[TDC]

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.

The end result is the same: You kept your vote on him and it was caused by policy.

Let's say you are working for the police and someone on the streets mumbles something that somewhat indicates he needs your help.
You have a policy of not helping him, until he explicitly asks you for help.

I say you haven't helped him for a policy reason.
You say you haven't asked whether he needed help of a policy reason.

How is that any different?

[vollkan]

*sigh* What you are ignoring is that my policy reason was specifically a policy reason

for requiring explicit claims

(ie. for ignoring implicit pseudo-claims).

The analogy you've provided is a false one because nothing suggests that the policeman has a good reason for not helping. Suppose, for instance, that there had been attacks on police officers by persons pretending to seek help. In that case, there would be a valid policy reason for not answering implicit, muffled requests on the streets.

Stupid alteration of the analogy, I know, but my point is that I have, as I have explained, good reasons for not allowing soft claims.

[TDC]

Yeah, and all I'm saying is that I don't get why that also means there is no good reason to ask for clarification in such cases instead of just ignoring them.

[vollkan]

Because I considered it premature for a claim. I didn't want it clarified; I wanted it swept away.

[vollkan]

Just noticed Orto's post. Will respond now.

[vollkan]

Mafia is as much about what is not said (or rather, what is said implicitly), as what is said. You had no valid reason for announcing your gut suspicion beyond *wanting* to imply something in this way, yet deny it has any meaning.

I didn't *want* to imply anything; I've already been clear about that. I was just saying the way I felt. Maybe someone else felt similarly; maybe the day would end and it could serve as a note to myself or another; maybe it would set in motion a train of discussion about Ixfiij. I don't know. Enough with your bullshit conspiracies about my intentions. It's as though you won't be satisfied unless I specifically give some specific outcome that I sought. If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

It's also amusing you think my response in some way demonstrates I am "prejudiced". You still haven't answered what you intended to achieve by "trapping" me either. If you simply meant you thought it somehow demonstrated I was prejudiced, I don't accept this at all, so you haven't achieved much. And in your use of "prejudiced", you earn +1 scumpoint for use of emotive language, +1 scumpoint for an entirely subjective judgement, +10 scumpoints for your hypocrisy in the following criticism of sl in your recent post:

Emotive language is only problematic if unjustified. "prejudiced" can be emotive, but in the context I am using it, it is justified. My judgment is not "subjective". I've already said that I wanted to see whether and how you would react to me saying something which I knew would provoke charges of hypocrisy from a careless or judgmental observer, into which category I predicted you would fall.

Furthermore you are being entirely disingenuous on this point anyhow, as you appear to be interpreting SL's argument as deductive (premises clearly follow from the conclusion) rather than inductive argument (premises support conclusion), which it clearly is.

Sorry? I have no clue what you are trying to get at here. Her arguments are conspiracy (premises pulled out arse to justify conclusions)

I happen to agree with her claim that your discussion is not at all helpful in regards to scumhunting in this game, and am equally skeptical of the inconsistencies and opportunism which you've demonstrated (and which I've continually attempted to draw attention to).

I happen to think that I've done a damn good job of rebutting the attacks that SL and yourself have made against me.

Furthermore the vast majority of your arguments (and indeed, everyone's) are inductive and so your criticism of the unclear perspective point on the basis they are not valid deductively is little more than opportunistic posturing.
..Funny, here sl has to "prove" her interpretation of your misplaced post was correct. Again you are deliberately equivocating obligations in deductive vs. inductive logic, but that's not the worst part.

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

So, when you're attacking me, it's alright to use a specific subjective interpretation of my actions which is no more likely than any other, but sl's interpretation of your actions has to be "proved" to be more valid than the alternative you provide. One standard for vollk, different standard for everyone else.

No. Because when requested I can and do justify my premises (the assumptions of why scumminess is most reasonable).

[SpyreX]

Was that a compliment, or a jab at the size of my posts?

Compliment.

Yeah, long-term use of goodlogic (verging on the Orwellian...) is more likely to come from town. Though, Spyrex posting one single big case doesn't meet that benchmark.

Of course not. I hope no one thinks that my one case makes me town. However, I hope that it at least shows that I am trying to find scum.

[ortolan]

Mafia is as much about what is not said (or rather, what is said implicitly), as what is said. You had no valid reason for announcing your gut suspicion beyond *wanting* to imply something in this way, yet deny it has any meaning.

I didn't *want* to imply anything; I've already been clear about that. I was just saying the way I felt. Maybe someone else felt similarly; maybe the day would end and it could serve as a note to myself or another; maybe it would set in motion a train of discussion about Ixfiij. I don't know. Enough with your bullshit conspiracies about my intentions. It's as though you won't be satisfied unless I specifically give some specific outcome that I sought. If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

What we reason to be scummy is a product of reason (what would scum be most likely to do?) and experience (what do scum typically do?). For some people, they may be able to make those judgments by "gut" (know something is scummy just when they see it). BUT they still have reasons and, if asked, they ought to be able to explain them. If a person cannot explain their suspicion, then it is essentially just emotional or subconcious and, since they have no way of distinguishing, basic pricniples of precuation say that they shouldn't proceed in their suspicion.

You have clearly stated you intended to voice an "opinion" on mrfixij, but have given no reasons for it. This means you are relying on gut- which you've given us an incredible song and dance routine over because of how much you supposedly detest it. Basically, you're being very, very hypocritical.

It's also amusing you think my response in some way demonstrates I am "prejudiced". You still haven't answered what you intended to achieve by "trapping" me either. If you simply meant you thought it somehow demonstrated I was prejudiced, I don't accept this at all, so you haven't achieved much. And in your use of "prejudiced", you earn +1 scumpoint for use of emotive language, +1 scumpoint for an entirely subjective judgement, +10 scumpoints for your hypocrisy in the following criticism of sl in your recent post:

Emotive language is only problematic if unjustified. "prejudiced" can be emotive, but in the context I am using it, it is justified. My judgment is not "subjective". I've already said that I wanted to see whether and how you would react to me saying something which I knew would provoke charges of hypocrisy from a careless or judgmental observer, into which category I predicted you would fall.

You may have proven to yourself I am "prejudiced" (your argument is terrible though- apparently because I pulled you up on something you wrongly claim is objective this proves I am "prejudiced"), but I'm afraid you'll need to convince other people also to have accomplished anything.

Furthermore you are being entirely disingenuous on this point anyhow, as you appear to be interpreting SL's argument as deductive (premises clearly follow from the conclusion) rather than inductive argument (premises support conclusion), which it clearly is.

Sorry? I have no clue what you are trying to get at here. Her arguments are conspiracy (premises pulled out arse to justify conclusions)

I entirely agree with her that your arguments show an "unclear perspective" i.e. the positions you adopt are inconsistent and opportunistic. Not only has she provided evidence of this but so have I. I fail to see how you can think this point is somehow derived from nothing.

I happen to agree with her claim that your discussion is not at all helpful in regards to scumhunting in this game, and am equally skeptical of the inconsistencies and opportunism which you've demonstrated (and which I've continually attempted to draw attention to).

I happen to think that I've done a damn good job of rebutting the attacks that SL and yourself have made against me.

I disagree completely. Your attempted rebuttals only make you look more scummy in my eyes. Unfortunately this only further supports the notion that we are at a stalemate and need input from a third party to progress.

Furthermore the vast majority of your arguments (and indeed, everyone's) are inductive and so your criticism of the unclear perspective point on the basis they are not valid deductively is little more than opportunistic posturing.
..Funny, here sl has to "prove" her interpretation of your misplaced post was correct. Again you are deliberately equivocating obligations in deductive vs. inductive logic, but that's not the worst part.

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

Well there's your first mistake- inductive arguments don't need to be "valid". You asked her to prove her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid. Firstly; this is unnecessary- inductive arguments are good just in case the premises give decent reason to believe the conclusion. Secondly, it flies in the face of what happened earlier when I questioned interpretations of my "dangling point" and "hedging my arguments". You argued that you and sl's interpretation of my actions was perfectly valid, and made no such mention of an obligation to prove your interpretations were more valid than mine. Again, you're being hypocritical.

So, when you're attacking me, it's alright to use a specific subjective interpretation of my actions which is no more likely than any other, but sl's interpretation of your actions has to be "proved" to be more valid than the alternative you provide. One standard for vollk, different standard for everyone else.

No. Because when requested I can and do justify my premises (the assumptions of why scumminess is most reasonable).

You've missed the point here, see above. And, again, you did not provide any reasons for your pointing of the finger at mrfixij so this is untrue anyhow.

[vollkan]

You have clearly stated you intended to voice an "opinion" on mrfixij, but have given no reasons for it. This means you are relying on gut- which you've given us an incredible song and dance routine over because of how much you supposedly detest it. Basically, you're being very, very hypocritical.

The paragraph I quote above by Orto is pure falderal for one simple reason: I didn't express an "opinion" on mrfixij, so it is absurd that he would suggest I need to give "reasons". Here is what I said:

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.

I've neither done nor said anything relating to Ixfij which requires justification.

In any event, this pretty much confirms you aren't a Freemason; they have a requirement that members be of sound mind.

You may have proven to yourself I am "prejudiced" (your argument is terrible though- apparently because I pulled you up on something you wrongly claim is objective this proves I am "prejudiced"), but I'm afraid you'll need to convince other people also to have accomplished anything.

You pulled me up on something where, if a person was taking a sobre and unbiased attitude to my actions, they wouldn't have leaped to the conclusion that I was being contradictory.

(I'd couple this with the fact that the rest of your attacks against me have all been "big swing, no ding"

I entirely agree with her that your arguments show an "unclear perspective" i.e. the positions you adopt are inconsistent and opportunistic. Not only has she provided evidence of this but so have I. I fail to see how you can think this point is somehow derived from nothing.

I think I have refuted every single example either you have brought up.

Please, if you sincerely suspect me, list (and categorise) every example of me being inconsistent and opportunistic (neither of which, by the way, means "unclear perspective". By using those terms, you are shifting the goal posts for yourselves, but your argument is still bullshit so I'll play along with it)

I disagree completely. Your attempted rebuttals only make you look more scummy in my eyes. Unfortunately this only further supports the notion that we are at a stalemate and need input from a third party to progress.

None of my rebuttals have been refuted, though. This entire debate is basically you and SL calling me a list of emotional labels and then coming up with contrived non-evidence to support those conclusions.

Well there's your first mistake- inductive arguments don't need to be "valid".

That's nice to know. Arguments that don't need to be valid are just super

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

You asked her to prove her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid. Firstly; this is unnecessary- inductive arguments are good just in case the premises give decent reason to believe the conclusion.

Yes, I know the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

But, what I was trying to get at is that I don't think that SL's logic even is valid inductively.

I mean, a classic inductive argument is something like:
1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

Now, take the "misplaced post" example. The logic as advanced by SL is basically:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Scum would benefit from showing meta-consistency (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was scummy (conclusion)

Both premises are sound. The trouble is that there is a competing inductive argument that I have advanced:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Vollkan of any alignment could have made the post by mistake (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was a nulltell (conclusion)

Are we to shrug our shoulders and adopt an "anything goes" agnosticism? No. This game is all about lynching the people most likely to be scum. You can make inductive arguments to prove just about anything about any action in this game. It's NOT enough to simply show that something could be scummy; you also

need to show

that that is a reasonable conclusion relative to the other possibilities. I underline "need to show" for the simple reason that we shouldn't forget that the onus is on the person deeming something scummy or towny (the base presumption being all things are nulltells unless proven otherwise).

Returning to our friend Socrates for a moment, consider the following argument:
1. Socrates was a genius. (premise)
2. Most geniuses don't eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates did not eat fish. (conclusion)

If we are interested in the question of whether Socrates ate fish, it's not enough to simply say that he ate fish because he was a Greek. That inductive argument is necessarily impacted upon by the one I just made up. If we are to learn anything about Socrates's eating habits, we need to look at other factors which impact upon that question. SL's inductive logic is internally sound, therefore, but is completely invalid in terms of this game (which is the important thing).

Quantitative proof that, say, more mis-posts end up being by scum would be great - but it would be absurd to expect that. What is needed, though, is for it to be demonstrated that it would make less sense for a townie acting reasonably to do something than for scum to do it.

Secondly, it flies in the face of what happened earlier when I questioned interpretations of my "dangling point" and "hedging my arguments". You argued that you and sl's interpretation of my actions was perfectly valid, and made no such mention of an obligation to prove your interpretations were more valid than mine. Again, you're being hypocritical.

It was a fact that you had hedged your arguments - the question was what to make of it. The question is then whether it is more reasonable to think you did it for scummy reasons (a leave-pass to avoid accountability) than as a mistake. A reasonable townie wouldn't cast a vote based on admittedly weak reasons outside exceptional circumstances. Scum, on the other hand, has every reason to want to downplay the strength of their opinions. The prospect that a reasonable townie could have done it, of course, is not at all ridiculous, but that doesn't make it a nulltell - it just means that it isn't an auto-lynchable offence.

And, again, you did not provide any reasons for your

pointing of the finger at mrfixij

so this is untrue anyhow.

See my first point in this post. I not only never expressed suspicion of ixfij, but I expressly denied it.

[ortolan]

Unfortunately your replies to my arguments are mostly one-step-behind.

You have clearly stated you intended to voice an "opinion" on mrfixij, but have given no reasons for it. This means you are relying on gut- which you've given us an incredible song and dance routine over because of how much you supposedly detest it. Basically, you're being very, very hypocritical.

The paragraph I quote above by Orto is pure falderal for one simple reason: I didn't express an "opinion" on mrfixij, so it is absurd that he would suggest I need to give "reasons".

You did express an opinion on mrfixij. You even acknowledged such:

If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

There's no getting out of that I'm afraid.

In any event, this pretty much confirms you aren't a Freemason; they have a requirement that members be of sound mind.

ad hominem

You may have proven to yourself I am "prejudiced" (your argument is terrible though- apparently because I pulled you up on something you wrongly claim is objective this proves I am "prejudiced"), but I'm afraid you'll need to convince other people also to have accomplished anything.

You pulled me up on something where, if a person was taking a sobre and unbiased attitude to my actions, they wouldn't have leaped to the conclusion that I was being contradictory.

You assert this, and I disagree. Furthermore you offer no proof.

(I'd couple this with the fact that the rest of your attacks against me have all been "big swing, no ding"

I entirely agree with her that your arguments show an "unclear perspective" i.e. the positions you adopt are inconsistent and opportunistic. Not only has she provided evidence of this but so have I. I fail to see how you can think this point is somehow derived from nothing.

I think I have refuted every single example either you have brought up.

Perhaps in your own mind. If anything I've felt the gist of my attacks have been validated by your replies.

Well there's your first mistake- inductive arguments don't need to be "valid".

That's nice to know. Arguments that don't need to be valid are just super

As I already said, the vast majority of arguments are inductive. And yes, this entails them necessarily not being "deductively valid". You're vastly over-emphasising deductive validity.

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

You asked her to prove her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid. Firstly; this is unnecessary- inductive arguments are good just in case the premises give decent reason to believe the conclusion.

Yes, I know the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

But, what I was trying to get at is that I don't think that SL's logic even is valid inductively.

I mean, a classic inductive argument is something like:
1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

Now, take the "misplaced post" example. The logic as advanced by SL is basically:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Scum would benefit from showing meta-consistency (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was scummy (conclusion)

Both premises are sound. The trouble is that there is a competing inductive argument that I have advanced:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Vollkan of any alignment could have made the post by mistake (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was a nulltell (conclusion)

Are we to shrug our shoulders and adopt an "anything goes" agnosticism? No. This game is all about lynching the people most likely to be scum. You can make inductive arguments to prove just about anything about any action in this game. It's NOT enough to simply show that something could be scummy; you also

need to show

that that is a reasonable conclusion relative to the other possibilities. I underline "need to show" for the simple reason that we shouldn't forget that the onus is on the person deeming something scummy or towny (the base presumption being all things are nulltells unless proven otherwise).

Returning to our friend Socrates for a moment, consider the following argument:
1. Socrates was a genius. (premise)
2. Most geniuses don't eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates did not eat fish. (conclusion)

If we are interested in the question of whether Socrates ate fish, it's not enough to simply say that he ate fish because he was a Greek. That inductive argument is necessarily impacted upon by the one I just made up. If we are to learn anything about Socrates's eating habits, we need to look at other factors which impact upon that question. SL's inductive logic is internally sound, therefore, but is completely invalid in terms of this game (which is the important thing).

Quantitative proof that, say, more mis-posts end up being by scum would be great - but it would be absurd to expect that. What is needed, though, is for it to be demonstrated that it would make less sense for a townie acting reasonably to do something than for scum to do it.

Secondly, it flies in the face of what happened earlier when I questioned interpretations of my "dangling point" and "hedging my arguments". You argued that you and sl's interpretation of my actions was perfectly valid, and made no such mention of an obligation to prove your interpretations were more valid than mine. Again, you're being hypocritical.

It was a fact that you had hedged your arguments - the question was what to make of it. The question is then whether it is more reasonable to think you did it for scummy reasons (a leave-pass to avoid accountability) than as a mistake. A reasonable townie wouldn't cast a vote based on admittedly weak reasons outside exceptional circumstances. Scum, on the other hand, has every reason to want to downplay the strength of their opinions. The prospect that a reasonable townie could have done it, of course, is not at all ridiculous, but that doesn't make it a nulltell - it just means that it isn't an auto-lynchable offence.

I dispute this because using the phrase "hedging your arguments" implies a deliberate act, especially in the context of a game of mafia where everyone is under suspicion. Thus in using the phrase "hedging your arguments" you precluded the explanation that my unclear and qualified opinions could be a "mistake", and implied I was scum. Thus it was still equivalent as a "biased interpretation" to sl's interpretation of your misplaced post, and thus the point stands.

[ortolan]

sorry, this:

(I'd couple this with the fact that the rest of your attacks against me have all been "big swing, no ding"

shouldn't be in there.

[vollkan]

Unfortunately your replies to my arguments are mostly one-step-behind.

You have clearly stated you intended to voice an "opinion" on mrfixij, but have given no reasons for it. This means you are relying on gut- which you've given us an incredible song and dance routine over because of how much you supposedly detest it. Basically, you're being very, very hypocritical.

The paragraph I quote above by Orto is pure falderal for one simple reason: I didn't express an "opinion" on mrfixij, so it is absurd that he would suggest I need to give "reasons".

You did express an opinion on mrfixij. You even acknowledged such:

If it weren't damn obvious already, I didn't act seeking anything specific - just to voice my opinion and see what flowed.

There's no getting out of that I'm afraid.

You're playing semantics. I used the word "opinion" to describe it, but what I was describing was very clearly not an "opinion" in the sense of the term that you are portraying it.

In any event, this pretty much confirms you aren't a Freemason; they have a requirement that members be of sound mind.

ad hominem

No, it was an insult. It would be ad hominem if I used it to justify an argument (which I didn't). It is simply a conclusion I have reached after arguing with you.

You may have proven to yourself I am "prejudiced" (your argument is terrible though- apparently because I pulled you up on something you wrongly claim is objective this proves I am "prejudiced"), but I'm afraid you'll need to convince other people also to have accomplished anything.

You pulled me up on something where, if a person was taking a sobre and unbiased attitude to my actions, they wouldn't have leaped to the conclusion that I was being contradictory.

You assert this, and I disagree. Furthermore you offer no proof.

My proof is in the very fact that there was no contradiction. If you had stopped and read what I said with any degree of care or caution you would have seen that.

I entirely agree with her that your arguments show an "unclear perspective" i.e. the positions you adopt are inconsistent and opportunistic. Not only has she provided evidence of this but so have I. I fail to see how you can think this point is somehow derived from nothing.

I think I have refuted every single example either you have brought up.

Perhaps in your own mind. If anything I've felt the gist of my attacks have been validated by your replies.

You're really dodging the question here.

Have I, or have I not rebutted your initial attacks? And what is the "gist" which you feel my replies have validated? And how have they validated it?

Okay, I think this whole inductive v deductive thing is irrelevant.

Explain to me, please, how from an inductive perspective SL's logic is valid.

You asked her to prove her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid. Firstly; this is unnecessary- inductive arguments are good just in case the premises give decent reason to believe the conclusion.

Yes, I know the difference between inductive and deductive logic.

But, what I was trying to get at is that I don't think that SL's logic even is valid inductively.

I mean, a classic inductive argument is something like:
1. Socrates was Greek. (premise)
2. Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)

Now, take the "misplaced post" example. The logic as advanced by SL is basically:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Scum would benefit from showing meta-consistency (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was scummy (conclusion)

Both premises are sound. The trouble is that there is a competing inductive argument that I have advanced:
1. Vollkan posted from another game, and the post happened to show meta-consistency (premise)
2. Vollkan of any alignment could have made the post by mistake (premise)
3. Vollkan's action was a nulltell (conclusion)

Are we to shrug our shoulders and adopt an "anything goes" agnosticism? No. This game is all about lynching the people most likely to be scum. You can make inductive arguments to prove just about anything about any action in this game. It's NOT enough to simply show that something could be scummy; you also

need to show

that that is a reasonable conclusion relative to the other possibilities. I underline "need to show" for the simple reason that we shouldn't forget that the onus is on the person deeming something scummy or towny (the base presumption being all things are nulltells unless proven otherwise).

Returning to our friend Socrates for a moment, consider the following argument:
1. Socrates was a genius. (premise)
2. Most geniuses don't eat fish. (premise)
3. Socrates did not eat fish. (conclusion)

If we are interested in the question of whether Socrates ate fish, it's not enough to simply say that he ate fish because he was a Greek. That inductive argument is necessarily impacted upon by the one I just made up. If we are to learn anything about Socrates's eating habits, we need to look at other factors which impact upon that question. SL's inductive logic is internally sound, therefore, but is completely invalid in terms of this game (which is the important thing).

Quantitative proof that, say, more mis-posts end up being by scum would be great - but it would be absurd to expect that. What is needed, though, is for it to be demonstrated that it would make less sense for a townie acting reasonably to do something than for scum to do it.

Secondly, it flies in the face of what happened earlier when I questioned interpretations of my "dangling point" and "hedging my arguments". You argued that you and sl's interpretation of my actions was perfectly valid, and made no such mention of an obligation to prove your interpretations were more valid than mine. Again, you're being hypocritical.

It was a fact that you had hedged your arguments - the question was what to make of it. The question is then whether it is more reasonable to think you did it for scummy reasons (a leave-pass to avoid accountability) than as a mistake. A reasonable townie wouldn't cast a vote based on admittedly weak reasons outside exceptional circumstances. Scum, on the other hand, has every reason to want to downplay the strength of their opinions. The prospect that a reasonable townie could have done it, of course, is not at all ridiculous, but that doesn't make it a nulltell - it just means that it isn't an auto-lynchable offence.

I dispute this because using the phrase "hedging your arguments" implies a deliberate act, especially in the context of a game of mafia where everyone is under suspicion. Thus in using the phrase "hedging your arguments" you precluded the explanation that my unclear and qualified opinions could be a "mistake", and implied I was scum. Thus it was still equivalent as a "biased interpretation" to sl's interpretation of your misplaced post, and thus the point stands.

Let the record show that tut of that entire piece I wrote repudiating Orto and SL's craplogic, Orto only addressed the bit about hedging.

To respond on the hedging point:
"Hedging" implies that you downplayed the strength of your argument. It's a fact that you did that and, since you typed it, we can presume it wasn't mere accident. As I said, there is a question about the motives, but I have already explained why I think the scummy explanation is most reasonable

There is no equivalence with SL's misplaced post point. She has made no effort to explain why her interpretation is most reasonable and has even admitted it is just conjecture on her own part:

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

.

[vollkan]

Missed this.

As I already said, the vast majority of arguments are inductive. And yes, this entails them necessarily not being "deductively valid". You're vastly over-emphasising deductive validity.

I'm not over-emphasising deductive validity.

As my last post shows, all I am emphasising is that inductive logic has to give due consideration to competing hypotheses. It's not enough for a person to spin one narrative and run with it.

[vollkan]

EBWOP:

As my last post shows, all I am emphasising is that inductive logic has to give due consideration to competing hypotheses. It's not enough for a person to spin one narrative and run with it.

The "last post" referred to is 413 not 416

[ortolan]

As my last post shows, all I am emphasising is that inductive logic has to give due consideration to competing hypotheses. It's not enough for a person to spin one narrative and run with it.

And, as I have already said, this is inconsistent with the way you attacked me for "hedging my arguments"- you implicitly privileged your interpretation of my behaviour and refused to explain why it was superior to my alternative hypothesis that it was mistaken, impulsive behaviour.

Let the record show that tut of that entire piece I wrote repudiating Orto and SL's craplogic, Orto only addressed the bit about hedging.

That was all I needed to do to refute your argument, because your response hinged on your incorrect claim that it was an objective fact that I was "hedging my arguments". In fact it was still your interpretation, because it implies I tried deliberately to pre-empt accusations of my case being wrong by distancing myself from it. This is simply not an objective fact- I know that this wasn't my intention in writing the post. Thus you are still open to the drawing of an equivalence between your interpretation of my vote on Ecto and sl's interpretation of your misplaced post.

[vollkan]

As my last post shows, all I am emphasising is that inductive logic has to give due consideration to competing hypotheses. It's not enough for a person to spin one narrative and run with it.

And, as I have already said, this is inconsistent with the way you attacked me for "hedging my arguments"- you implicitly privileged your interpretation of my behaviour and refused to explain why it was superior to my alternative hypothesis that it was mistaken, impulsive behaviour.

I've let this run for long enough now, so it's time for me to quote what I actually said at the time, to demonstrate just how stupid your argument is:

]

I don't think what ortolan did was that scummy. He basically agreed with what you and vollkan said. Instead of introducing new things, which there weren't, he just went along with what you guys said.

Being a newbie is no excuse for "sheepishness". If a townie doesn't understand something, they shouldn't vote. Ortolan has the opportunity to explain himself, and we are right to demand answers.

According to Ecto, my summaries were off. Well, considering they were giant paragraphs, it's not going to be 100% on. But I think ecto's behavior in this game has shown scumminess. ort's show sheepiness.

There's a happy medium between doing a meaningless summary that gives no reasoning of your own, and going into pbp overkill. You fell well short of that medium.

vollk, I don't really believe in your clear delineation of objectivity and subjectivity

I'm not delineating objectivity and subjectivity in any philosophical sense.

What I am saying is that giving an inference with explanation is fundamentally different to saying "my gut says he is scum". Obviously, there is always subjectivity involved (eg. different people will weight things differently). The point is, though, that the reasons for suspicion should be objectively ascertainable, even if there is disagreement.

Going to spring's point as an example (BTW - I notice a typo in post 165. "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective" should read "Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is

objective

"). I don't agree with her reason - her subjective weighting of one interpretation is one I don't agree with, but I can see her reasoning process.

"Gut" or "feeling" are wholly subjective. They don't refer to any reasoning process that leads to a conclusion. By definition, I cannot attack somebody's "gut" reasons, because there are no reasons. In the case of spring, however, I can see her process of thinking and, even if I do have a theory disagreement, the important point is that

there are reasons for me to disagree with

.

I suppose the litmus test for "subjective" / "objective" in the sense I am using those terms would be this:

Is the argument capable of being rebutted?

"Gut" cannot be rebutted - other than by pointing out the stupidity of relying on gut in this game from a policy perspective. Spring's style of reasoning can. I'll do it now:
@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

I have acknowledged there was insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I no longer see sufficient reasons for voting for him. Why, then, would I try to convince you of something I don't believe? That itself would be illogical and hardly town-ish. I had insufficient justification for voting for him in the first place, I have acknowledged this. Also, how can you possibly try to characterise my withdrawn vote as "slinking away and hoping no-one notices"? I openly drew attention to the fact that when I withdrew my vote it would likely simply lead to more suspicion placed on me, as it did in another game.

Ha! Nice try.
Let's have a looksie over what you actually said post-vote:

...
I believe there is a mild case against him, but that this case is stronger than the one against SpyreX
...
To support, this I started that all it had given me were various hypotheses, none of which have particularly more support than any other (but obviously, I have a slight leaning towards Ectomancer). ..

From the get-go, you are hedging your arguments.

If my post expressed this (that I had gleaned little), then this was partly the point. It also hardly seems contentless to me- it contains a vote for Ectomancer based on orangepenguin/spyrex's arguments, and it asks springlullaby for an explanation.

You are explicitly acknowledging here that your vote had a basis in their arguments.

I'll be honest. I did read through the theory discussion before. Now I've had to read some of it again in order to express why exactly I'm voting for Ectomancer. Can I firstly take a leaf out of his book and go with "whatever argument you make use of, it's still ultimately coming from your gut instinct". I cite springlullaby's last post (144) as an example of this- her 2 points against me are basically entirely subjective: one is putting an additional question at the end of my post after voting, and the second is deferring to others' reasoning- if no-one agreed with anyone else in this game I don't see it going very far.

I also acknowledge the case against Ectomancer isn't particularly strong. It's possible he is townie and just likes indulging in lengthy theory discussions mid-game. I also see it as quite viable, however, that, as mafia, he tried to jump on you for the self-vote (as can often be done successfully in other games) then realised after your rebuttal that no-one else would support it, was drawn into a deep discussion of why he had reacted against it, and whether that sort of thing is good or bad in general (a discussion which he tried to curtail in post 99).

My other reason is simply I have a slight leaning towards him over SpyreX, again call it gut if you will. Thus I wanted to tip him into the more likely to be lynched category.

It's ironic that, as a side effect of extremely lengthy theory discussions to get "reads" on people, I find the progression of argument too convoluted for it to serve this purpose, and am forced to regress, in a way, to gut instincts.

Again, you hedge things. The bolded is interesting though. I don't see why his position to Spyrex is at all meaningful. The question is whether he is scummy enough to justify a vote - and you seem to think that merely being scummier than Spyrex (relatively, not absolutely) somehow warrants, as you say, tipping him "into the more likely to be lynched category".

Unvote

Ok. I acknowledge the case isn't strong enough to keep a vote on him. Unfortunately this will probably just bring me under further suspicion as past experience has dictated. I blame your gambit, Vollk.

Then, once everything about your vote has collapsed, you drop off.

What's my point - it's slinking away for the simple fact that you never justified yourself in the first place and from the start you were under-cutting yourself (if you don't appear convinced, you don't have to justify yourself? Right? ) It's like - you are going to vote and be unaccountable and then, once you get caught out, you simply dodge accountability by saying that you were all wrong from the start.

On the possibility that you are just a confused newbie - unfortunately, this is a real possibility. What runs against this is the fact that you have articulate and long posts. Your posts show you are clearly a reasonably clever guy, which makes it less likely you are just a dazed newbie. I am watching this closely, though, but you just don't seem to fit the newbie paradigm.

Well actually, I did already back down. Which in fact makes this whole point moot (straw man, etc.)

If you paid any attention to me, you would see I was addressing a post before you did so. It still responded to what you said and, thus, is still relevant. Not a strawman - so don't try and sling mud that way.

That seems a pretty subjective claim to me again. For example, do you mean pro-town content i.e. content that is more likely to help town and turn up scum, or just content. I don't see how we're going to find out whether this discussion was in fact helpful for town until at least the end of this day (when we'll find out whether the lynch that stemmed from this discussion was a townie or scum), and probably not until even later than that, so I'll hold my judgement until then.

It's not a subjective claim. This game has, if you compare it many others, a high level of proper arguments and so on. I don't mean that it all is pro-town - absent prior knowledge, that's impossible to tell.

You seem oblivious to the potential irony of this. You're exactly the sort of person who, as scum, would fill this category.

Yeah, exactly. In all seriousness, it's a very effective scum strategy. Hence, why people should be made to give reasons. It stops scum doing to impressive posting ploy, and it also stops scum doing the "I agree with Jones. Vote: Mr X" move.

Please justify why you are equivocating "paying no attention" with "playing scummy" (implied by your vote on me). I see no reason why scum would pay any less attention than town.

Simple.

Scum win the game by killing off townies. Right? Ergo, they have no inherent need to pay attention - other than for the purpose of appearing to be paying attention if they think doing so will be needed to cover their arse. Town, in contrast, win by killing off the scum. Since town don't know who the baddies are, they need persuasion of scumminess. It therefore makes no sense for a townie to vote without understanding why.

Vollkan, simple question. Were you, or were you not intending to spur conversation when you made your self-vote?

Yes. The whole point was to spark debate.

You are stuck on this "onus of proof". What need of proof do I have to question you about the move you made to invoke questioning about the move?
Never going to agree with you over this.

Alright, conversation should ideally have run like this:

Antagonist:

Vollkan, why would you self-vote?

Vollkan:

My post 26 - which said "why do I need to justify it?" and thatmy purpose was "to stir the pot. People have a tendency to leap onto it with presumptions and prejudices "

Antagonist:

Self-voting requires justification because it causes <something> which is bad for the town because <reason>.

See, I even allow for a prejudiced Antagonist, but one that has some explanation for why self-voting is bad but whom also accepts that whatever reason they had doesn't work.

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

Moreover, it is not an automatic requirement that people explain the assumptions under things unless requested. I mean, take contradictions for an example. When you and SL have accused me of being contradictory in my behaviour, I never once bothered asking "why is a contradiction scummy?". The important thing is that you can give the explanation when asked.

Let the record show that tut of that entire piece I wrote repudiating Orto and SL's craplogic, Orto only addressed the bit about hedging.

That was all I needed to do to refute your argument, because your response hinged on your incorrect claim that it was an objective fact that I was "hedging my arguments". In fact it was still your interpretation, because it implies I tried deliberately to pre-empt accusations of my case being wrong by distancing myself from it. This is simply not an objective fact- I know that this wasn't my intention in writing the post. Thus you are still open to the drawing of an equivalence between your interpretation of my vote on Ecto and sl's interpretation of your misplaced post.[/quote]

First up, I'd like to draw an analogy with contract law. When a contractual dispute is being resolved - when the court tries to resolve the meaning of the contract - the lawyers and judges don't ask themselves "What did Party X want when she asked for this clause?". Instead, you determine the intention of the parties based on what is manifest in the contract. Because it is impossible to know what is in Party X's head, you judge subjective intention objectively.

Now, it is a clear fact that your post contained a number of phrases which indicated a lack of commitment to your own argument. That means your arguments were hedged - it doesn't matter what your intention was. I don't

know

what your intention was; only you do. Of course, your intention is very relevant in judging scumminess, and I have already explained why I think a scummy explanation is the most reasonable

[ortolan]

The bolded is the important bit. I did consider the alternative hypothesis of it being a mistake. In fact, I even looked at you specifically, to accomodate for your relative inexperience (rather than simply on whether a reasonable townie simpliciter would do it). You didn't meet the standard signs of a dazed newbie, so I was entitled to treat you as I would anybody else, making your actions unreasonable.

Even when you first made this point it was only ever a false dichotomy- that either I must be a confused newbie or scum. By assuming this you then went on to argue that I was unlikely to fall into the former category due to your interpretation of my posts as intelligent. However this ignores that there was no evidence I had to be in one or the other of these categories to begin with. For the record; at the time I was: new to the game- yes, confused- somewhat, making intelligent posts- subjective. You didn't consider that I could make seemingly intelligent posts while being new to the game and somewhat confused. By reducing interpretations of my behaviour to a simple binary choice you were able to place me under suspicion.

First up, I'd like to draw an analogy with contract law. When a contractual dispute is being resolved - when the court tries to resolve the meaning of the contract - the lawyers and judges don't ask themselves "What did Party X want when she asked for this clause?". Instead, you determine the intention of the parties based on what is manifest in the contract. Because it is impossible to know what is in Party X's head, you judge subjective intention objectively.

Now, it is a clear fact that your post contained a number of phrases which indicated a lack of commitment to your own argument. That means your arguments were hedged - it doesn't matter what your intention was. I don't know what your intention was; only you do. Of course, your intention is very relevant in judging scumminess, and I have already explained why I think a scummy explanation is the most reasonable

As I have already said, phrases such as "a lack of commitment to your own argument" and "your arguments were hedged" are loaded phrases.

If I was to say "Ecto seems the most scummy, I'm not sure about him but enough to warrant a vote" is this "a lack of commitment to my own argument"? No, because my argument is only that he has acted the most scummy and thus warrants a vote, not that he definitively is scummy. You're importing your own prejudices about what a vote signifies by saying otherwise.

Again with the phrase "hedging your arguments"- this to me strongly implies a *deliberate* act, which I dispute it was- it may have had the effect of looking to others as though I was trying to justify why I may be voting for a townie- but this is just an interpretation based on the circumstances. So again, I deny that it is an objective fact that I "hedged my arguments".

[springlullaby]

Dear Vollkan, the energy you put into arguing unarguable grounds that may sounds pretty on paper but are indeed very far removed from mafia reality is amazing, and I think quite scummy because I think you do have the pragmatic experience to know that you are spewing BS.

Please do show me one case in the entire mafia history that couldn't be explained 'reasonably' away, especially on day 1.

Then I'll show you any number of instances where a case is spot on despite being possibly 'reasonably' explained away.

You see, any scum worth his money knows to thrive within the confines of reasonableness, and I do not believer for one second that you can be oblivious to that fact.

Mafia is about perspective, and finding the right one in a sea of possibilities that are all equally uncertain. The reason of this uncertainty is because there isn't a standard for scum action that you can 'objectively' check people's action against to determine what is scummy or not. What is left is hypothesis, and agreement or lack thereof upon them.
----------------------------------

That said I'm still sold on Vollkan. I think my original arguments stands true and I also urge people to reread our argument, because I think there is backpedalling on Vollkan part (specifically on my 'contradiction' thing), I also think that his manner of responding first appeasing-ly to my case then going full steam for 'I'm so scummy for it' is scummy. Plus, his latching on my 'misplaced' post argument and trying to represent all my arguments as equivalent is what I would expect scum to do.

I'm not gonna respond to Vollkan last post addressing me because I think the points he makes are not true, and that I have responded to them already at one point or another, and I feel I'm facing an endless fountain of words, mainly saying the same thing again and again. Now if someone else want me to address something specifically, ask and I'll reply.

I also would like a

prod on Mana_Ku

.

[mykonian]

personally I thought MK was already replaced, and that the replacement wanted to be replaced again...

I have some time later on this day to look at the insane amound of words vollkan manages to get in to this thread.

[Rage]

Hmm. I'm not sure if everyone has noticed this or not, but

Mana_Ku

was replaced a while back by

Spolium

who I am currently trying to replace, without much success.