Crackers! Mafia -- Game Over. See page 50

[Yosarian2]

Proof that I hadn't dropped suspicion of ckd after unvoting him.

Hmm.

Unvote
Vote: Korts

ckd, I still want to see you responding to the posts I mentioned.

Des unvoted....now why would he do that?

I could have left you at L-1. I don't see what's wrong with me changing to my other suspect. Also, not including your self-vote, you and Korts are equal in the vote count.

I already explained that I had moved my vote to my second suspect, levelling the two wagons. I could easily switch back to ckd if I wanted to, making him the deadline lynch, just as much as anyone could change which wagon is leading with a single vote.

How did you miss this one?:

It is reaching…but NOT THAT reachy. It was early in the game…I upgraded my random vote (korts) to rofl who I felt might be making some scummy posts…and while you deem this as not prodding or probing, look at the reaction to come out of it. Now, I am not saying I did this for a reaction, but I didn’t do it to be safe either. I would not have advocated lynching rofl at the moment based on that, but it was enough for me to change my vote.

I should clarify. By saying it wasn't prodding or probing, I meant that you were actually accusing rofl of being scum. I should have said that it was

more than

prodding and probing. The quotes I posted made this evident. I didn't like the fact that you tried to downplay how serious you were about it all ("I am not trying to parade it as anything else").

Nothing..couple jokes..random votes…he wasn’t doing much of anything..but that was what most of goes on Day 1 in the first pages of a game…it was different in rofl play…I assume you are asking me about Korts at this point because I had my random vote on him…but what did anybody do in the first 5 pages of the game…other than BM spamming the thread..nothing really got this game going until my attack of rofl.

to me, just seems like someone who is trying to look like they are scum hunting...again this is just a couple pages into the game.

My question is, really, what made rofl's scum-hunting seem forced but Korts' seem genuine? For example, do you think Korts' suggestion that rofl was trying to buddy up to Yos wasn't tenuous and forced?

Given that it's been pointed out that BM has declared that you're town past the random stage, can you answer rofl's questions here again?

ckd, kison: how does bm's declaration that ckd is protown differ from my own about des, and why has it gone ignored by you two up to this point?

Um, none of that is "proof" of anything. Not one of those posts was any kind of actual attack against CKD, or case against him, or pressure on him. You were claimng you were suspicious of him, but it didn't look like you really were.

This is really a bad postion you're trying to put me in here, forcing me to defend an argument that has been proven wrong. Nonetheless, the way you were acting towards CKD there is just damn odd. Perhaps you didn't want to look inconsistant, but didn't want to connected on the wagon if it happened?

I mean, even CKD HIMSELF thought it was really odd you unvoted him there.

[destructor]

Um, none of that is "proof" of anything. Not one of those posts was any kind of actual attack against CKD, or case against him, or pressure on him.

But they clearly show me dropping all suspicion of ckd?

You were claimng you were suspicious of him, but it didn't look like you really were.

I'm pretty sure 409 shows me doing everything you say I wasn't.
What, specifically, gives you the impression that I wasn't actually suspicious of ckd? Impression is too soft a word to use here actually, because you were implying that you had more than an impression at the time.

[Adel]

˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚

votecount as of post 826

_{with 10 alive, 6 will lynch before deadline}

˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚

¬Korts:

1

:Raging Rabbit,
vollkan:

1

:roflcopter,
Yosarian2:

1

:destructor,

No Lynch:

none

not voting:

7

:DrippingGoofball, Elmo, forbiddanlight, Korts, populartajo, vollkan, Yosarian2

˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚˚

Day 3's deadline is December 26th at 12:28 (UTC)

Countdown timer to deadline

[vollkan]

As I said before, Des questioning you on other people is completely reasonable.

Did I ever say he was scummy because he questioned me? Of course not. I was looking for a possible pattern in behavior, which was why it was at all worthy of note.

Me questioning DES about the reasons behind his actions, and about his opinion on CKD, was also completly reasonable.

No, you didn't say he was scummy for questioning you simpliciter, but it was a fundamental component of the narrative of Des's play that you were trying to spin:

Note he was only asking this from people who were voting CKD; he wasn't asking anyone else to make cases on people. SO, again, I come back to the conclusion that either he suddenly had a problem with the CKD wagon, or else that he was trying to defend CKD for some other reason.

You are effectively setting up a false dichotomy - either he had a problem with the wagon, or he had other reasons for defending CKD. I mean, Des questioned you and I together asking:

Vollkan and Yos, if not ckd, who would you be voting for? Why?

It's a leap to read into that a desire to subvert the CKD wagon. Up to that point, I hadn't been clear in my broader views, and nor had you, so the narrative you weave is dodgy.

As for the BM debacle, I do think a wagon was justified, having myself criticised the stupid attacks BM was making against DGB. That said, it's particularly unhelpful that Rofl's vote was, in its entirety:

unvote, vote: battle mage

Precisely the same deal as with Yos. A L-1 vote without objective explanation is unacceptable. Why did you vote BM?

The other thing I take issue with is this:

Just for the record, BM also used this tactic in Adel's Nice Shot. Want to take a guess about his alignment?

I assume you meant the replacement request thing here. In any event, my problem is the idea that a meta can be established by a small sample space (in this case, one game) - a person's actions are impacted upon by more than just their alignment and can occur on different occasions for different reasons, so it's extremely tenuous to say that because BM does this in one scum game, he is therefore scummy to a significant degree in this one. The other question that merits consideration is whether you bothered making inquiries as to whether BM had done something like this as town in the past?

Your case is basically this, correct me if I'm wrong: I made a case on Guardian (which was justified, just not based on the tell I thought it was); I made a case on BM based on a BS point of view in an argument, which I later retract on account of it being weak, but leave my vote because I can't find another place for it; "OMGUS" case on you, based on the fact that you seem to be pushing a weak case very hard; self-preservation vote on CKD (how's that even a point against me?); "bad logic" on the gut read on DGB.

You voted Guardian for being "non-committal". That argument was rubbish, as I have said already. How was that justified?

That's the main point against you, but I'd also add the following lesser reasons of my own to the ones you identify:
1) You defended Rofl as having justified himself when, as I showed, he'd done absolutely nothing of the worst
2) Subjectivising disagreement over your argument about DGB's actions being towntells

I'd like to lynch vollkan today. All the while he stays on the sidelines. He's very off.

This simply isn't true. I've voiced my opinions and suspicions very clearly and have been in a number of arguments.

(I do have my own pet theory about this, and its one I formed in the wake of games that have gone badly for me as town, like California Trilogy: Going to San Francisco and House Mafia (where at endgame I was in the awful situation of being both dead in the water as far as scumhunting went and confirmed protown), in contrast to successful games for me as town (ie. where I catch scum) like Mini 495 or Mini 636 which went well. My style of play only really "works" if I am able to have debates with people, because that's how I tease out reasoning and separate scum from town. In other words, it fails completely in dealing with people like yourself or Rofl, who have a very different style of play to me. Proof in point of this is the way that I have been able to have pursue my suspicion of Yosarian, because, despite our disagreement on gut, he has a style that I can work with. I don't know whether that

is

the reason I find difficulties sometimes, but it makes intuitive sense that if I rely on debate, I need material to debate about - and it is consistent with the experiences I have had)

guh, really bm, that was ridiculous

vote: vollkan

Why?

=/

I'm pretty sure we should lynch Yos today.

Vote: Yosarian2

(and welcome to the game FL.)

I'm assuming this is for the stuff that we've been debating with Yos for some time now?

I also very interested in seeing who else is willing to lynch you.

Me.

[Yosarian2]

Um, none of that is "proof" of anything. Not one of those posts was any kind of actual attack against CKD, or case against him, or pressure on him.

But they clearly show me dropping all suspicion of ckd?

Well, it certanly looks like you didn't want to go after him there in those posts. I'm not sure why you're quibbling over semantics here; you know what I mean.

What, specifically, gives you the impression that I wasn't actually suspicious of ckd? Impression is too soft a word to use here actually, because you were implying that you had more than an impression at the time.

Because you weren't acting in such a way that would actually raise the pressure on CKD.

You are effectively setting up a false dichotomy - either he had a problem with the wagon, or he had other reasons for defending CKD. I mean, Des questioned you and I together asking:

Vollkan and Yos, if not ckd, who would you be voting for? Why?

It's a leap to read into that a desire to subvert the CKD wagon. Up to that point, I hadn't been clear in my broader views, and nor had you, so the narrative you weave is dodgy

Eh....well, it was a bit of a "leap", sure. But as part of the larger narriatve, it seemed like a possible explination for his actions; using that kind of subtle subject change that can be an effective scum tactic to protect a buddy without been seen tying yourself to him too closely.

[vollkan]

Eh....well, it was a bit of a "leap", sure. But as part of the larger narriatve, it seemed like a

possible explination

for his actions; using that kind of subtle subject change that

can

be an effective scum tactic to protect a buddy without been seen tying yourself to him too closely.

I wouldn't dispute that for a second. But I would draw attention to the bolded.

[Yosarian2]

Eh....well, it was a bit of a "leap", sure. But as part of the larger narriatve, it seemed like a

possible explination

for his actions; using that kind of subtle subject change that

can

be an effective scum tactic to protect a buddy without been seen tying yourself to him too closely.

I wouldn't dispute that for a second. But I would draw attention to the bolded.

Right. Which is why I speculated about it as a possible explination for his actions, and questioned him about it, but never voted him for it.

[Korts]

You voted Guardian for being "non-committal". That argument was rubbish, as I have said already. How was that justified?

He was saying that he didn't agree with the CKD case. The logical conclusion from that is that the points didn't make sense. And a point doesn't make sense, it is every pro-town player's duty to show how it's faulty. But he refused to give his contribution to the CKD wagon for or against it, basically saying that he would "allow" it to be pursued even though he thought it was invalid. How's that

not

justified taken the circumstances of that phase in the game?

1) You defended Rofl as having justified himself when, as I showed, he'd done absolutely nothing of the worst

I seemed to remember him giving a more extensive explanation for the suspicion of SF. The fact that I understood his point made me believe that he had explained it more thoroughly. I concede that I was wrong.

2) Subjectivising disagreement over your argument about DGB's actions being towntells

Well, that's because our disagreement

is

subjective. You draw the line a bit further in the case of towntells than me. This is nothing more than a nulltell and I think you know it.

Meanwhile, the debate between Yos and des doesn't seem to give proof of either one being scum. Yos seems to be slightly reaching, while des seems to be extrapolating Yos's scumminess from the fact that Yos is slightly reaching. Of the three main participants of that line of discussion (Yos, des, vollkan), vollkan seems to be the one who chimes in for personal motives.

[forbiddanlight]

Ok...I was going to go through and post everything I observed from the start, but I think for now I'll just do a commentary on what's scummy from D3. Since I'm getting tired already after 6 pages. Should have something shortly.

[forbiddanlight]

Let me rephrase that. I replaced in practically at the start of D3 and have no idea what people are talking about. So, let me attempt D2 in an attempt to not fry my brain.

[forbiddanlight]

vote: sensfan

Probably explained in D1, but can you revisit why?

vote: Korts for failure to claim. Scum hates having to claim.

I mostly agree, assumably another D1 event?

a counterpoint to the theory that sens is lurking everywhere (though i too feel his absence from his modded games), i present the recently concluded open 102 where town sens was incredibly active. it ran concurrently with his inability to post anything meaningful in this thread whatsoever.

Ah, that doesn't look good, but that's a semi explanation. Well...hopefully I can make my presence more known.

not a utility lynch, sens is obvscum. having him replaced would be cruel to the replacement.

If only because I am playing with you .

I kid.

We should get 2 to 3 daykills per day. One from the compulsive vig, and another from the mafia - and perhaps one from the SK, should there be one.

You do understand the concept of "COULD be" in the game, right?

Actually... Guardian was most likely a scum kill. So that the vig kill was foiled. Ah well. Forget what I said about the doctor. The dummy probably protected a scumbag.

You also forget the possibility of a mafia doc or mafia roleblocker. Both potential roles.

But, either way, how does speculating about killing roles help us? Beginning to get an IIoA vibe.

Sens should be utility lynched. He should either start posting or be replaced. His activity in the other game rofl linked to is certainly cause for suspicion, though.

Um, all this call for utility lynch/policy lynch is getting annoying. It seems anti town.

rofl's and DGB's day 2 posts before this are all rather IIoA and somewhat scummy.

I meant shouldn't.

Yeah, that does make more sense rereading your post, lol.

Also, I'm mildly interested to see if people think that Elmo's idea for why Guardian was killed is legitimate.

I think it's a good theory, to be honest.

="BM"


I'm fairly sure that 1 of the first 2 is the culprit of the Guardian-kill. Korts should also be killed for vague scumminess.

Even if you are BM...reasoning?

ANd yeah, Sensfan is lurking.

Vote:Sensfan

Is this

really

it?

BM is scum, he must die. I don't know what he's up to, I don't know what impression he's trying to give, but he's a lying scumbag. This much I know.

I'm all for SensFan to die. But with this post, BM has shown me beyond the shadow of a doubt that he can only be scum.

unvote, vote: BattleMage

Blatent OMGUS anyone?

It's a most excellent wagon, regardless. BM is up to no good. He's not working for the town.

My future sight says that you were wrong. Care to explain?

Amusing really that all 3 people who i declared were my suspects suddenly want to lynch me for no other reason than OMGUS. I guess the real test will be whether the remaining players buy into it, or whether they help me string the scumbags up.

It

is

amusing, given your flip

Wait, save my arse from what? The size of my wagon yesterday was partly due to the proximity of the deadline, IMO. I've got time to earn some town cred back today. And I'm starting with you.

pro tip. It failed. And if I had been playing D2, I'd say this in and of itself was scummy knowledge of BM's alignment. Now it just becomes more WIFOMy than the original premise would be.

Also, OMGUS is such a fictive scumtell. It doesn't exist in practice.

As far as DGB's vote goes, it certainly exists.

OMGUS isnt a scumtell, full stop. Not when so many stupid townies fall into the trap. I fail to see the case on me however, and feel you fall into 1 of the above categories.

Most votes for attackers aren't OMGUS. They actually have some weak case. DGB is just...wow, and using force of will to push a lynch rather than logic feels scummy.

GOOD QUESTION. Razz

I looked into people's activity on site at the time of guardians death. Not everyone, just a few people i thought were scummy, and/or had motives for wanting him dead. DGB had not posted on site within the time frame available for the kill (in excess of 3 hours i think). When i asked her where she was, in an attempt to give her an opportunity to confirm herself, she claimed that she'd been at a computer-something which i find very unlikely given her normal posting rate when she has computer access. Motive for the lie? i'm not sure. But chronic lying when scum isnt uncommon.

BM

Of all the scumtells DGB dropped in attacking you...you clue in on THIS? Seriously BM, DGB now looks better since you were such a ridiculous arse here.

You've said you don't want a replacement because Sens is "obvscum". I cannot see how a person, who does not see Sens as obvscum, could justify advocating a utility lynch when replacement is an option (policy lynch is also an option - it's not a utility or suspicion dichotomy). You've precluded replacement as an option for yourself, but your thinking here ignores it as an option for others.

This is so amazingly accurate it hurts. Honestly, rofl, you tunneled yourself into a rather untenable stance.

If Sens posts again and doesn't start contributing, I'm up for lynching him. But Yos' vote for him seems lazy. His whole play so far this game seems lazy. It really doesn't feel like Yos is trying to catch scum. When I look back at his case on me, it still looks like a big show for all the reasons I've stated. Given that ckd was town his case on me obviously doesn't stand, but rather than searching for a new case, he goes on easy mode and joins a lurker wagon.

Yos, if Sens has flaked, will you still vote his replacement? Why?

I agree with this sentiment.

Which of the six I've named do you think would give us the most insight to the others' alignments if lynched?
That is, I think we should lynch one of those six and focus on narrowing that list down.

I actually dislike this post since it seems to be lining up lynches that could be completely off, and if enough of them are wrong, cause a win for des scum. Not sure if I think you are scum or not, but I think your idea was horrible.

Kills are made in real time. Therefore we should be able to get some leads from who is online when the kill is submitted. Notice that you criticise my reasoning for voting DGB, perhaps justly, but then dont criticise her for having no reasoning whatsoever. Nice...

I actually agree with this. It makes Yos look a little worse, assuming DGB scum. And the reverse applies too.

No reason.

Can we kill BM already?

Hey Yos, are you scum or town? You're trying to derail BM's wagon in favor of a lurker wagon, and here's BM, bus'ing you. You scumbags should have a little private talk and get your act together, or we're going to have to lynch you all.

Did you even read BM's post? He actually did have a reason, and it was actually better than his reason for voting you.

unvote Vote:BM Asking to be replaced out because you're under pressure is such a scum move. I was going to wait for your response to my points before I voted you, to see if you'd see some reason, but now I'm clearly not going to. So frustrating.

I disagree with yosarian2. But I also happen to know how he flipped . But still, I could understand BM getting irritated with this game and replacing out. I've had situations where I probably SHOULD have done it as well, before.

shit
I think I just hammered.

I HATE it when I do that.

I'd like to lynch vollkan today. All the while he stays on the sidelines. He's very off.

You have a bit of a point there. I don't recall many stances from him at all.

I'm pretty sure we should lynch Yos today.

Did I miss reasoning?

We've been over this over and over again, and you still haven't managed to point out anything that was either innacurate about my observations on your or that was illogical about the conclusions I drew from them. Therefore I can only conclude that you are voting me because of OMGUS, because you certanly haven't given any other reason then the points I made about your day 1 play.

Hmm...this feels odd though. Like you are attacking the logic and not addressing any argument if it exists (which it assumably does and I missed it).

Well...that catches me up. I think I probably missed a lot in D1, and if anyone would like to breif me, it'd be happy making. Anyway...I think a

Vote DGB

is appropriate here. No matter how weird her meta is, the way she handled the BM wagon was really scummy in my eyes. She gets a slight reprieve for BM being a dumbass, but you didn't do much better. At least he had (very thinly justified) reasons. Also think Yos 2 should be looked at closer, especially if DGB flips scum.

[vollkan]

Eh....well, it was a bit of a "leap", sure. But as part of the larger narriatve, it seemed like a

possible explination

for his actions; using that kind of subtle subject change that

can

be an effective scum tactic to protect a buddy without been seen tying yourself to him too closely.

I wouldn't dispute that for a second. But I would draw attention to the bolded.

Right. Which is why I speculated about it as a possible explination for his actions, and questioned him about it, but never voted him for it.

The mere fact that you didn't vote means nothing, and I don't like the fact that you are now relying on the fact that your case was hedged as "speculation". I've explained already why your narrative about Des was not at all persuasive as an argument for him being scummy.

You voted Guardian for being "non-committal". That argument was rubbish, as I have said already. How was that justified?

He was saying that he didn't agree with the CKD case. The logical conclusion from that is that the points didn't make sense. And a point doesn't make sense, it is every pro-town player's duty to show how it's faulty. But he refused to give his contribution to the CKD wagon for or against it, basically saying that he would "allow" it to be pursued even though he thought it was invalid. How's that not justified taken the circumstances of that phase in the game?
[/quote]

You're setting up a false dichotomy here. As I said, one can quite plausibly be against a wagon, but also wish to leave it to the individual to explain themselves. Now, if Guardian had let the wagon go to lynch without intervening, there would be a problem, but there's nothing anti-town about not intervening in a wagon one disagrees with.

I seemed to remember him giving a more extensive explanation for the suspicion of SF. The fact that I understood his point made me believe that he had explained it more thoroughly. I concede that I was wrong.

I do hold this against you as a scumtell, but its potency is very much reduced because you've conceded your error.

Well, that's because our disagreement is subjective. You draw the line a bit further in the case of towntells than me. This is nothing more than a nulltell and I think you know it.

If I knew it, I wouldn't be arguing it.

And, no, our disagreement is not subjective.

Right...but if that is what you meant, why is DGB pro-town for it?

I mean, stirring up reactions is something that scum has an enormous motivation to do - it serves as a means of triggering town errors.

Triggering TOWN errors??? Ugh? Townies don't have to make things up, they are far far less likely to trip on their own shoelaces than scumbags.

Speaking of trying to confuse people.

You're scum.

It doesn't logically follow from the fact that townies are "less likely to trip up on their own shoelaces" (I agree with you on this, btw) that scum don't have a motivation for trying. Scum win by mislynches, and mislynches can be achieved by causing town to trip up.

That's a stance that I can understand. I still hold that town is slightly more motivated to provoke reactions. I guess it comes down to a difference in ideology.

Right, but:

Ok, let me elaborate on that gut feel after all.

DGBscum doesn't have any motive to be elbows deep in shit

while she mimes scumhunting. DGB's actions so far have been pro-town, therefore I have no reason to suspect her. Why are you trying to dig any deeper when what we're discussing is a town read on someone? I'm thinking rofl has a point here; you are either trying to dissuade me from my read on DGB because you don't like town eliminating other town as suspects, or the other possibility, you are trying to figure out how to appear more pro-town in my eyes (although this second possibility assumes that you give a shit about my opinion).

Then RR asks:

Where are you seeing DGB elbows deep in shit? Are we even reading the same game? She's under no pressure at all...

You reply:

You misunderstand me. When I said "elbows deep in shit" I was saying that she's not afraid to stir up shit with her bare hands, as in fishing for emotions, reactions etc.

Me:

Right...but if that is what you meant, why is DGB pro-town for it?

I mean, stirring up reactions is something that scum has an enormous motivation to do - it serves as a means of triggering town errors. Town can do it also, of course, so it's ultimately a nulltell.

And then your post quoted at top.

What's my point? We go from the very strong point of "DGBscum doesn't have any motive to be elbows deep in shit" to "Town is slightly more motivated to provoke reactions". When I pressed you to explain yourself, you directly contradicted your earlier point.

The contradiction point is a separate matter, and one I forgot to raise before.

But the point is that you made the simple assertion that it's an ideological disagreement over the alignment implications of a person triggering reactions. You're subjectivising it. In contrast, if you had explained your view (ie. by explaining yourself over my point about scum having a motivation to provoke town errors) I would have no objection. It's the fact that you guillotine all debate by simply making it a personal difference between us. Now, it might well be a personal disagreement at some level, but you didn't respond to the point I had made.

You have a bit of a point there. I don't recall many stances from him at all.

(Welcome to the game.)

That isn't true. I've given my opinion on everybody, and I've been involved in both offensive and defensive debates.

BM is scum, he must die. I don't know what he's up to, I don't know what impression he's trying to give, but he's a lying scumbag. This much I know.

I'm all for SensFan to die. But with this post, BM has shown me beyond the shadow of a doubt that he can only be scum.

unvote, vote: BattleMage

Blatent OMGUS anyone?

No, it isn't OMGUS. OMGUS is the fallacy of arguing along the lines of "I know I am town. Person X is attacking me. Since Person X is attacking me, who I know to be town, Person X must be scum". BM had presented incredibly dodgy attacks on DGB and, whilst her reasoning is ambiguous (as we've come to expect <grumble>), it isn't an OMGUS.

[forbiddanlight]

(Welcome to the game.)

That isn't true. I've given my opinion on everybody, and I've been involved in both offensive and defensive debates.

Quite possibly all D1, so I can't really hold it against you. D2 on you haven't done much remarkable, I suppose.

No, it isn't OMGUS. OMGUS is the fallacy of arguing along the lines of "I know I am town. Person X is attacking me. Since Person X is attacking me, who I know to be town, Person X must be scum". BM had presented incredibly dodgy attacks on DGB and, whilst her reasoning is ambiguous (as we've come to expect <grumble>), it isn't an OMGUS.

Her reasoning doesn't exist. And no, I see OMGUS as what it is. You are attacking me. Oh My God U Suck, I'm going to vote you. Your definition of OMGUS is...not.

[Korts]

You're setting up a false dichotomy here. As I said, one can quite plausibly be against a wagon, but also wish to leave it to the individual to explain themselves. Now, if Guardian had let the wagon go to lynch without intervening, there would be a problem, but there's nothing anti-town about not intervening in a wagon one disagrees with.

Okay, there may be some pro-town motive to not intervening, but I consider it a mild scumtell. Scum are more likely to do so, either because the case they're trying to subtly discredit is against a partner or because they are aiming for brownie points after the eventual lynch.

the point is that you made the simple assertion that it's an ideological disagreement over the alignment implications of a person triggering reactions. You're subjectivising it. In contrast, if you had explained your view (ie. by explaining yourself over my point about scum having a motivation to provoke town errors) I would have no objection. It's the fact that you guillotine all debate by simply making it a personal difference between us. Now, it might well be a personal disagreement at some level, but you didn't respond to the point I had made.

Okay, I see your point, I think. I simply saw us making the same points over and over again; that's why I said it looked like mostly ideological difference. And the point you raised, that scum have a motivation to provoke town errors, was fair, but town do have a greater motive to scumhunt, since the main goal of scum during the day is not to get lynched, and not to lynch someone specific.

The contradiction point is a separate matter, and one I forgot to raise before.

I'd already addressed the contradiction point when it was raised. Adjusting my point of view from "scum don't have motive" to "town have more motive" is, I would think, pretty natural when you had just pointed out how scum would have motive.

[Korts]

forb, there is no such thing as OMGUS. Seriously. Believe me. There is always an underlying reason to what you call "OMGUS", and that underlying reason makes the accusation of "OMGUS" invalid. Even if that underlying reason is only "that player's vote on me is weakly justified".

[forbiddanlight]

forb, there is no such thing as OMGUS. Seriously. Believe me. There is always an underlying reason to what you call "OMGUS", and that underlying reason makes the accusation of "OMGUS" invalid. Even if that underlying reason is only "that player's vote on me is weakly justified".

This was argued in MD. I still don't really think it's valid. And if that underlying reason isn't expressed, what is one to do?

[vollkan]

Okay, there may be some pro-town motive to not intervening, but I consider it a mild scumtell. Scum are

more likely

to do so, either because the case they're trying to subtly discredit is against a partner or because they are aiming for brownie points after the eventual lynch.

Where's this "more likely" coming from? I'm not going to facetiously ask "Have you got numbers to prove it?". What I would like to know, though, is what makes the pro-town motive I gave any less reasonable than the pro-scum motives you've given. It's just like Yos's narrative thing.

(As a point of contrast, contradicting onself is a scumtell, because town playing genuinely shouldn't violate the law of non-contradiction. Same with a quick-hammer. )

And the point you raised, that scum have a motivation to provoke town errors, was fair, but town do have a greater motive to scumhunt, since the main goal of scum during the day is not to get lynched, and not to lynch someone specific.

Yes, and the best defence for scum is a strong offence. That works in two ways: 1) It lynches town, thus preventing their lynch and; 2) They avoid being accused of being inactive. Consistent good logic is a mild towntell, as I have said, but simply trying to stir things up doesn't in any way show consistently genuine thought.

I'd already addressed the contradiction point when it was raised. Adjusting my point of view from "scum don't have motive" to "town have more motive" is, I would think, pretty natural when you had just pointed out how scum would have motive.

Right. That would explain why I didn't raise it at first instance or in my summaries.

forb, there is no such thing as OMGUS. Seriously. Believe me. There is always an underlying reason to what you call "OMGUS", and that underlying reason makes the accusation of "OMGUS" invalid. Even if that underlying reason is only "that player's vote on me is weakly justified".

QFT

Unless somebody votes for the specific reason that "You voted me", it isn't OMGUS. It might be a crappy vote, sure, but it isn't OMGUS.

[forbiddanlight]

Well, whether I accept your argument that OMGUS exists or not is a rather moot point, is it not? How does this help us hunt scum?

The way DGB handled BM was scummy, whether you call it OMGUS or not.

[vollkan]

Well, whether I accept your argument that OMGUS exists or not is a rather moot point, is it not? How does this help us hunt scum?

Not at all a moot point. And it can help us find scum.

1) "OMGUS" is an emotive label
2) You are potentially scum
3) Therefore, debating your use of the label "OMGUS" is scum-hunting

The way DGB handled BM was scummy, whether you call it OMGUS or not.

How was it scummy? The only point you made was that DGB committed "OMGUS", a claim which Korts and I have shown to be patently false.

[forbiddanlight]

How was it scummy? The only point you made was that DGB committed "OMGUS", a claim which Korts and I have shown to be patently false.

I never accepted it was false. And if you actually read my posts, you'd know my claim went beyond her committing OMGUS. I said she didn't provide reasoning for her BM vote and seemed far too assured of his scumness. Also, Yos has been defending her like mad, as well as the fact BM's entire suspicion list jumped on him the minute a bandwagon was viable. She was on it, and I feel the most scum vibes from her.

1) "OMGUS" is an emotive label
2) You are potentially scum
3) Therefore, debating your use of the label "OMGUS" is scum-hunting

Um...no?

1 and 2 are true...but 3 doesn't really follow. And you gain +5 to scumminess for that false progression. -2 modifier on bluff and diplomacy checks with me.

[vollkan]

I never accepted it was false. And if you actually read my posts, you'd know my claim went beyond her committing OMGUS. I said she didn't provide reasoning for her BM vote and seemed far too assured of his scumness.

If you looked at what she was saying in the context of BM's actions, her reasons were fairly obvious (he was making very bad posts, as you yourself have acknowledged). I'm extremely strict about reasons, and even I can see that.

And I can't see where you argued she seemed too "assured".

1) "OMGUS" is an emotive label
2) You are potentially scum
3) Therefore, debating your use of the label "OMGUS" is scum-hunting

Um...no?

1 and 2 are true...but 3 doesn't really follow. And you gain +5 to scumminess for that false progression. -2 modifier on bluff and diplomacy checks with me.

It isn't a false progression. As with analysis of any argument, analysing use of "OMGUS" is a method of scum-hunting.

If not scum-hunting, what is it?

[forbiddanlight]

It isn't a false progression. As with analysis of any argument, analysing use of "OMGUS" is a method of scum-hunting.

Ah, but you never said that. And that's NOT what you are doing.

You are basically arguing the semantics of OMGUS. You are NOT analyzing the use of it. And that's why it was a false progression.

If you looked at what she was saying in the context of BM's actions, her reasons were fairly obvious (he was making very bad posts, as you yourself have acknowledged). I'm extremely strict about reasons, and even I can see that.

And I can't see where you argued she seemed too "assured".

Just because you can see it does not absolve explanation

I may not have argued it. I was in a hurry to get that post done. I know I felt it, and I apologize if I failed to point it out.

[vollkan]

It isn't a false progression. As with analysis of any argument, analysing use of "OMGUS" is a method of scum-hunting.

Ah, but you never said that. And that's NOT what you are doing.

You are basically arguing the semantics of OMGUS. You are NOT analyzing the use of it. And that's why it was a false progression.

I initially said:

1) "OMGUS" is an emotive label
2) You are potentially scum
3) Therefore, debating your use of the label "OMGUS" is scum-hunting

I directly referred to "the use of it". And that is what I have been analysing (ie. by pointing out that you did not actually identify OMGUS. All you really attacked with that was the fact that DGB voted BM who was voting her, which isn't the least bit scummy.

If you looked at what she was saying in the context of BM's actions, her reasons were fairly obvious (he was making very bad posts, as you yourself have acknowledged). I'm extremely strict about reasons, and even I can see that.

And I can't see where you argued she seemed too "assured".

Just because you can see it does not absolve explanation

I may not have argued it. I was in a hurry to get that post done. I know I felt it, and I apologize if I failed to point it out.[/quote]

[forbiddanlight]

I directly referred to "the use of it". And that is what I have been analysing (ie. by pointing out that you did not actually identify OMGUS. All you really attacked with that was the fact that DGB voted BM who was voting her, which isn't the least bit scummy.

Except...it was. BM was a scapegoat, quite obviously. It's just too suspicious how things played out.

And the use of it can mean anything. So far we've been in a semantics debate about the use of OMGUS.

[destructor]

Um, none of that is "proof" of anything. Not one of those posts was any kind of actual attack against CKD, or case against him, or pressure on him.

But they clearly show me dropping all suspicion of ckd?

Well, it certanly looks like you didn't want to go after him there in those posts. I'm not sure why you're quibbling over semantics here; you know what I mean.

Because you've never actually substantiated that claim.

You are now saying that I wasn't "acting in such a way that would actually raise the pressure on CKD," which is notably different from suggesting that I obviously and perceptibly stopped suspecting him. Are you backtracking?

I think you said at some point that my case on you was all about your case on me. It is what I've posted the most about, but I don't recall you doing a heap of scum-hunting either and that is definitely a factor here. Most of your votes seem to have been made without a huge amount of consideration. That is, you've been going after easy targets and I've seen little evidence of you doing much to proactively catch scum.


I'm hoping it's clearer now why I say Yos' play was counter-intuitive as town. I'm bringing the posts up and demonstrating how they suggest that Yos' case on me was a reach. He's even said it was a leap himself.

To me, it doesn't look like Yos followed a train of thought that is natural to scum-hunting - seeing point A (me unvoting ckd) and, exploring it, coming to a logical conclusion, point B (I was distancing from ckd). It looks more like he saw point A and then went about trying to connect it to a point B rather than organically arriving at it.


I would really like to hear Raging Rabbit, Elmo, Tajo and FL comment on the cases on both me and Yos. With my case, I guess it'd be commenting on how valid Yos' points looked in context.