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

[Rage]

don_johnson replaces Spolium, effective as of his first posting in this thread, and right now.

[orangepenguin]

Yeah, ort and I are both pro-town masons. Just confirming for his sakes. I know I have been playing crap.

I've been suspicious of him for quite some time, but

vote:TDC

. Reasons later.

[ortolan]

Meh, there's not much more I can say according to what Rage said really-I'm a mason with orangepenguin and the pm explicitly states we are both town (presumably in case I or OP speculated that the other was scum)

[TDC]

I do not get the point of TDC's last post at all and the undecided-ness is starting to grate on my nerves.

What's there not to get? I thought looking at who voted who and when might be of help. Turned out it didn't help that much, but now that I had done it, why should I keep it for myself?
If by undecided-ness you mean not joining either your or vollkan's side - there's not necessarily a decision to make there. I find it quite possible that both of you are town. You two approach the game from entirely different directions, and that's what the discussion between you two has mostly been about. I still fail to see how either of you arrived at the conclusion that the other is likely scum. Ortolan's discussion with vollkan went much along the same routes.

--

I've been suspicious of him for quite some time, but vote:TDC. Reasons later.

Interesting.

--

ortolan: Well, there's one thing you can still tell us: Can you only talk at night, or all the time?

[orangepenguin]

Only night. Via quicktopic. Prior to the game, we both said hello.

[vollkan]

Just an interesting meta exchange I came across whilst reading California Trilogy - Going to San Francisco a game where I was lynched as town. A bit of "food for thought" shall we say:

I don't like your analysis of me. It doesn't look genuine.

Thankyou for giving me your conclusion. Now give me the reasons which led you to it.

Same attack as I have received here, and I have the same attitude to it.

[ortolan]

vollkan, let it be known I still find your drawing of very loose analogies between how you're playing this game and how you've played similarly as town in other games entirely unconvincing.

An even more extreme example is Mini 486. This game had an unusual setup. Mod confirmed at the start that "There are 3x mafia, 3x masons that win with the town, and 1x day-vig that can be a mafia, mason or townie." I had the fortune of being a dayvig-mason. On D1, a very bad wagon occurred - a player named Nelly632 self-voted (just after random stage) and got put to L-1 for it. It wouldn't surprise any of you to learn that I didn't like the wagon at all. So, I took a big gambit. I prematurely claimed one-shot dayvig (Not vigmason, in the hope that it would save my life by making me an unattractive kill target), influenced largely by the fact that I feared being NKed. Anyway, I started toying with Oman (Oman again Razz) and proposed a BS dayvig shortlist (risky, given that the mod had confirmed the possibility of a scum-vig). He took the bait and got dayvigged. He was scum.
////////////////////////////////////////////

Here you're suggesting in one game you "trapped" another player due to you being a dayvig (btw I don't even understand what actually happened in the other game from the way you described it) and he took your bait and flipped scum. That's all well and good. Except you draw an analogy with this game, where you said you had a bad gut-reading on mrfixij and acknowledged it was an opinion with no basis, having previously said you loathe opinions given with no basis. You claim (wrongly, in my opinion) that giving voice to a gut suspicion is not voicing an opinion. You then further stretch your argument to saying that by pulling you up on this, this proves I am "prejudiced". Please explain how a game where you can prove you caught a claimed scum is analogous with a game where we have no knowledge of your alignment and in which you made a subjective, weak (and in my opinion downright wrong) argument for having "caught" me being "prejudiced".

Trapping doesn't at all go against my principles of logic. In the examples above, I work out what scum would likely do in response to certain conduct, and then proceed to test people. In this case, my test confirmed my suspicion of Orto's prejudice. At the very least, he wasn't looking at me in a detached manner. In both the examples I give above, my actions were such as to place myself at risk and, in that sense, were anti-town. But it all comes back to risk v reward - I expected good odds of a return for taking a risk so I was willing to gamble a bit.

You make use of traps in the game of mafia. That's fine, don't we all. This doesn't change the fact that your argument that you "trapped" me is entirely weak and subjective and I'm certainly not the slightest bit convinced by it. The fact you devoted so many words to describing two meta-cases which plainly aren't at all analogous with this game is suspect.

Orto's argument was that SL's logic was valid inductive reasoning, and that I was over-prioritising deductive reasoning. I thought this distinction was irrelevant because of the point I made about needing to disprove the validity of counter-hypotheses.

I asked Orto to explain himself to see how he could manage to argue for the validity of SL's reasoning despite her arguments being conspiracy. I was reasonable certain the distinction was irrelevant, but I needed to see his argument to make sure.

I will say this one more time for your benefit. "Validity" is not a concept in inductive logic. Thus you are not refuting inductive arguments by saying they are "invalid", in fact you are saying nothing at all. You have to argue why they are not reasonable or why the weight of evidence they summon is not adequate. I don't like you arrogantly assuming my point had no basis when in fact you're still entirely wrong about your usage of the term "validity" in the context of inductive logic.

And I agree entirely entirely about your usage of the word "conspiracy"- I haven't studied law (where I assume it comes from) and it's not a term used in philosophy, which I have studied/study so have no knowledge of what it really means (and I remember googling it a while ago and still not finding a satisfactory explanation). Firstly I am skeptical of you importing this term without an explanation and I am doubly skeptical that you would attempt to dismiss sl's arguments simply be describing them as "conspiracy", assuming that it's magically obvious to everyone else how they fit this archetype of being "conspiracy". I can only assume SpyreX has studied law and instantly understands your vague usage of obscure terminology, hence continuing to lap up your posts like nectar.

I did say I was going to get off your case, more for pragmatic reasons than anything else, so please try to do some actual scum-hunting in your next post.

[vollkan]

Here you're suggesting in one game you "trapped" another player due to you being a dayvig (btw I don't even understand what actually happened in the other game from the way you described it) and he took your bait and flipped scum. That's all well and good. Except you draw an analogy with this game, where you said you had a bad gut-reading on mrfixij and acknowledged it was an opinion with no basis, having previously said you loathe opinions given with no basis. You claim (wrongly, in my opinion) that giving voice to a gut suspicion is not voicing an opinion. You then further stretch your argument to saying that by pulling you up on this, this proves I am "prejudiced". Please explain how a game where you can prove you caught a claimed scum is analogous with a game where we have no knowledge of your alignment and in which you made a subjective, weak (and in my opinion downright wrong) argument for having "caught" me being "prejudiced".

Okay, for starters, I never said that I had "gut suspicion" of mrixfij. I said I had an odd feeling about him. You must see that there is a massive distinction between suspecting somebody for gut and acknowledging a gut feeling. In the former case, the person uses their suspicion to justify an ingame action. In my case, I simply voiced a feeling (it isn't an "opinion", because I expressly repudiated that it meant anything for ixfij's alignment)

My position is simply that gut/emotion cannot serve as a basis for suspicion. Nothing I said contradicts that. I have NEVER said emotions are totally irrelevant and should not be spoken of.

As for the meta, I spent more time on 495 (the one you didn't understand) for the simple reason that it is directly relevant. I will explain that shortly, but the point I was trying to get across with that reference was my history of doing things which are somewhat disingenuous for pro-town aims. Mini 486 (the dayvig game) is less directly relevant, but the reason I quote it is to show the risks which I have run in the past in gambitting (if my gambit flopped in 486, the town would have been in deep trouble)

Here is a simplified explanation of my Mini 495 trap:

Background

AlyG (actually a tracker) claimed tracker. In doing so, AlyG said that he had tracked Originality (actually a vig) as committing the N1 nightkill of a townie named CarrotCake.

In response, Orig (stupidly) claimed vig.

Now, there were good reasons to suspect AlyG (thus the claim) and nobody was wholly convinced by the claim. We knew, however, that if AlyG was mafia, then Orig would have to be also. Think about it: If AlyG was mafia he would have no way of knowing that Orig had committed the kill unless Orig was also mafia.

My trap

Given the above, I made a trap by suggesting the lynch of AlyG:

One possibility would be to lynch AlyG.
If AlyG comes up mafia, we pretty much know that Orig is mafia also. If that happens, we know we have a SK and I would be willing to bank very strongly on it being Dybeck.

The above idea is stupid, of course. It is like saying that we should lynch Ortolan to prove that orangepenguin is not mafia. The reason I raised it was to see how people would react.

Shaft.ed, who was town and who I thought was town, responded against the idea
Oman, who was scum and who I suspected of being scum, expressed coy support for the idea by saying:

Dybeck is choice #1 for a lynch, but AlyG could help us confirm Orig mafia if(when:lol:) AlyG comes up mafia.

This I considered scummy because the idea was horrifically and very obviously anti-town.

What's the relevance?

The trap I pulled in Mini 495 is like in nature to the one here, only more extreme and more deceptive. Here, I genuinely believed what I said (odd feeling on ixfij) and wanted to express that feeling, but of course I was also majorly motivated by a desire to gather reactions.

You make use of traps in the game of mafia. That's fine, don't we all. This doesn't change the fact that your argument that you "trapped" me is entirely weak and subjective and I'm certainly not the slightest bit convinced by it. The fact you devoted so many words to describing two meta-cases which plainly aren't at all analogous with this game is suspect.

The games are analogous.

And my argument here is not weak and subjective any more than my argument that Oman was scummy for falling for my Mini 495 trap was "weak and subjective". Both you and Oman reacted in a way that didn't show a reasonable level of reflection. If you hadn't claimed mason, I would have jacked up my suspicion on you for your response to my trap, but since you have it instead becomes evidence that weren't giving me the due level of consideration.

The assumption underpinning my argument is that a reasonable townie would not have found fault in what I said. If you want to deride me as weak and subjective, critique that assumption.

I will say this one more time for your benefit. "Validity" is not a concept in inductive logic. Thus you are not refuting inductive arguments by saying they are "invalid", in fact you are saying nothing at all. You have to argue why they are not reasonable or why the weight of evidence they summon is not adequate. I don't like you arrogantly assuming my point had no basis when in fact you're still entirely wrong about your usage of the term "validity" in the context of inductive logic.

You are attacking the word "validity" in a technical sense. What I mean, and what I have attacked SL on the basis of, is her failure to demonstrate why her reasoning is more reasonable than competing hypotheses. If she doesn't do that, her logic is invalid.

You're focusing on the "validity" of inductive reasoning in a purely technical sense (as you say, "in the context of inductive logic"). What I am saying is that, in the context of this game, inductive logic is invalid if it fails to deal with competing hypotheses.

And I agree entirely entirely about your usage of the word "conspiracy"- I haven't studied law (where I assume it comes from) and it's not a term used in philosophy, which I have studied/study so have no knowledge of what it really means (and I remember googling it a while ago and still not finding a satisfactory explanation). Firstly I am skeptical of you importing this term without an explanation and I am doubly skeptical that you would attempt to dismiss sl's arguments simply be describing them as "conspiracy", assuming that it's magically obvious to everyone else how they fit this archetype of being "conspiracy". I can only assume SpyreX has studied law and instantly understands your vague usage of obscure terminology, hence continuing to lap up your posts like nectar.

Well, it isn't a legal term. (Legal conspiracy is the crime of plotting to commit a crime)

I actually defined it way back in my list of "ground rules":

8) Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.

and again much later:

Her arguments are conspiracy (premises pulled out arse to justify conclusions)

If you want a clearer and fuller definition:

Conspiracy

: An argument that somebody is scummy which either: a) Is not linked to any specific in-game actions (eg. there is no "because he did Y") or; b) Is linked to specific in-game actions, but no explanation is made as to why the most reasonable hypothesis is that the action in question is more likely to come from scum than town (eg. "

could

help scum because Z").

So, take the "ungenuine" point. This is conspiracy under category a). It doesn't take any action of mine and explain why it is scummy. Instead, it simply makes the unfalsifiable assertion that I am not being genuine which, axiomatically, presumes scumminess. There's no logical pathway to the argument from my actions.

The "misplaced post" argument is a class example of a case b). Here there is an identified action, but SL makes no effort to explain why her view is more reasonable than me being town. It weaves a nice narrative about the possibility of scum (pulling the premises out of the arse), and stops right there.

[vollkan]

Here you're suggesting in one game you "trapped" another player due to you being a dayvig (btw I don't even understand what actually happened in the other game from the way you described it) and he took your bait and flipped scum. That's all well and good. Except you draw an analogy with this game, where you said you had a bad gut-reading on mrfixij and acknowledged it was an opinion with no basis, having previously said you loathe opinions given with no basis. You claim (wrongly, in my opinion) that giving voice to a gut suspicion is not voicing an opinion. You then further stretch your argument to saying that by pulling you up on this, this proves I am "prejudiced". Please explain how a game where you can prove you caught a claimed scum is analogous with a game where we have no knowledge of your alignment and in which you made a subjective, weak (and in my opinion downright wrong) argument for having "caught" me being "prejudiced".

Okay, for starters, I never said that I had "gut suspicion" of mrixfij. I said I had an odd feeling about him. You must see that there is a massive distinction between suspecting somebody for gut and acknowledging a gut feeling. In the former case, the person uses their suspicion to justify an ingame action. In my case, I simply voiced a feeling (it isn't an "opinion", because I expressly repudiated that it meant anything for ixfij's alignment)

My position is simply that gut/emotion cannot serve as a basis for suspicion. Nothing I said contradicts that. I have NEVER said emotions are totally irrelevant and should not be spoken of.

As for the meta, I spent more time on 495 (the one you didn't understand) for the simple reason that it is directly relevant. I will explain that shortly, but the point I was trying to get across with that reference was my history of doing things which are somewhat disingenuous for pro-town aims. Mini 486 (the dayvig game) is less directly relevant, but the reason I quote it is to show the risks which I have run in the past in gambitting (if my gambit flopped in 486, the town would have been in deep trouble)

Here is a simplified explanation of my Mini 495 trap:

Background

AlyG (actually a tracker) claimed tracker. In doing so, AlyG said that he had tracked Originality (actually a vig) as committing the N1 nightkill of a townie named CarrotCake.

In response, Orig (stupidly) claimed vig.

Now, there were good reasons to suspect AlyG (thus the claim) and nobody was wholly convinced by the claim. We knew, however, that if AlyG was mafia, then Orig would have to be also. Think about it: If AlyG was mafia he would have no way of knowing that Orig had committed the kill unless Orig was also mafia.

My trap

Given the above, I made a trap by suggesting the lynch of AlyG:

One possibility would be to lynch AlyG.
If AlyG comes up mafia, we pretty much know that Orig is mafia also. If that happens, we know we have a SK and I would be willing to bank very strongly on it being Dybeck.

The above idea is stupid, of course. It is like saying that we should lynch Ortolan to prove that orangepenguin is not mafia. The reason I raised it was to see how people would react.

Shaft.ed, who was town and who I thought was town, responded against the idea
Oman, who was scum and who I suspected of being scum, expressed coy support for the idea by saying:

Dybeck is choice #1 for a lynch, but AlyG could help us confirm Orig mafia if(when:lol:) AlyG comes up mafia.

This I considered scummy because the idea was horrifically and very obviously anti-town.

What's the relevance?

The trap I pulled in Mini 495 is like in nature to the one here, only more extreme and more deceptive. Here, I genuinely believed what I said (odd feeling on ixfij) and wanted to express that feeling, but of course I was also majorly motivated by a desire to gather reactions.

You make use of traps in the game of mafia. That's fine, don't we all. This doesn't change the fact that your argument that you "trapped" me is entirely weak and subjective and I'm certainly not the slightest bit convinced by it. The fact you devoted so many words to describing two meta-cases which plainly aren't at all analogous with this game is suspect.

The games are analogous.

And my argument here is not weak and subjective any more than my argument that Oman was scummy for falling for my Mini 495 trap was "weak and subjective". Both you and Oman reacted in a way that didn't show a reasonable level of reflection. If you hadn't claimed mason, I would have jacked up my suspicion on you for your response to my trap, but since you have it instead becomes evidence that weren't giving me the due level of consideration.

The assumption underpinning my argument is that a reasonable townie would not have found fault in what I said. If you want to deride me as weak and subjective, critique that assumption.

I will say this one more time for your benefit. "Validity" is not a concept in inductive logic. Thus you are not refuting inductive arguments by saying they are "invalid", in fact you are saying nothing at all. You have to argue why they are not reasonable or why the weight of evidence they summon is not adequate. I don't like you arrogantly assuming my point had no basis when in fact you're still entirely wrong about your usage of the term "validity" in the context of inductive logic.

You are attacking the word "validity" in a technical sense. What I mean, and what I have attacked SL on the basis of, is her failure to demonstrate why her reasoning is more reasonable than competing hypotheses. If she doesn't do that, her logic is invalid.

You're focusing on the "validity" of inductive reasoning in a purely technical sense (as you say, "in the context of inductive logic"). What I am saying is that, in the context of this game, inductive logic is invalid if it fails to deal with competing hypotheses.

And I agree entirely entirely about your usage of the word "conspiracy"- I haven't studied law (where I assume it comes from) and it's not a term used in philosophy, which I have studied/study so have no knowledge of what it really means (and I remember googling it a while ago and still not finding a satisfactory explanation). Firstly I am skeptical of you importing this term without an explanation and I am doubly skeptical that you would attempt to dismiss sl's arguments simply be describing them as "conspiracy", assuming that it's magically obvious to everyone else how they fit this archetype of being "conspiracy". I can only assume SpyreX has studied law and instantly understands your vague usage of obscure terminology, hence continuing to lap up your posts like nectar.

Well, it isn't a legal term. (Legal conspiracy is the crime of plotting to commit a crime)

I actually defined it way back in my list of "ground rules":

8) Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.

and again much later:

Her arguments are conspiracy (premises pulled out arse to justify conclusions)

If you want a clearer and fuller definition:

Conspiracy

: An argument that somebody is scummy which either: a) Is not linked to any specific in-game actions (eg. there is no "because he did Y") or; b) Is linked to specific in-game actions, but no explanation is made as to why the most reasonable hypothesis is that the action in question is more likely to come from scum than town (eg. "

could

help scum because Z").

So, take the "ungenuine" point. This is conspiracy under category a). It doesn't take any action of mine and explain why it is scummy. Instead, it simply makes the unfalsifiable assertion that I am not being genuine which, axiomatically, presumes scumminess. There's no logical pathway to the argument from my actions.

The "misplaced post" argument is a class example of a case b). Here there is an identified action, but SL makes no effort to explain why her view is more reasonable than me being town. It weaves a nice narrative about the possibility of scum (pulling the premises out of the arse), and stops right there.

[ortolan]

Thank you for again explaining the success of traps in your other game. Unfortunately it is not analogous to this game because your "trap" in this game is one only in the sense that it should be encased in inverted commas and dismissed as laughable. For something to be a "trap" you need to bait someone into doing something and then show them why it was wrong. You have not convinced me in the slightest that your expressing of a bad "gut" feeling on mrfixij was consistent with your earlier disavowing of gut play, and thus you haven't "trapped" me at all. In fact even if you had it would be a ridiculously minor point- "You 'trapped' me and proved I'm 'prejudiced' because I pulled you up on something that you are subjectively arguing isn't scummy". It doesn't wash, and it's not worthy of bringing up your entire playing history on this site to give support to.

And your point about conspiracy- concerning potentialities, and "what ifs", brings me back to the original argument concerning your hypocrisy in allowing sl's interpretation of my "dangling" point whereas not allowing sl's interpretation of your misplaced post, where the explanation for the former does not seem more plausible than the latter.

[vollkan]

Thank you for again explaining the success of traps in your other game. Unfortunately it is not analogous to this game because your "trap" in this game is one only in the sense that it should be encased in inverted commas and dismissed as laughable. For something to be a "trap" you need to bait someone into doing something and then show them why it was wrong. You have not convinced me in the slightest that your expressing of a bad "gut" feeling on mrfixij was consistent with your earlier disavowing of gut play, and thus you haven't "trapped" me at all. In fact even if you had it would be a ridiculously minor point- "You 'trapped' me and proved I'm 'prejudiced' because I pulled you up on something that you are subjectively arguing isn't scummy". It doesn't wash, and it's not worthy of bringing up your entire playing history on this site to give support to.

1) You say I haven't convinced you that my play was not inconsistent. As I have already said, my position as expressed earlier was that subjective gut/feeling cannot be a basis for suspicion. I have not used my gut/feeling as a basis for suspicion of ixfij. Therefore, how can you possibly say I am inconsistent?

2) The trap here is essentially the same as the Mini 495 trap - I say something, albeit genuinely here, for the purposes of eliciting reaction. You mightn't like my argument for you being prejudiced, but that's a completely separate consideration as to whether I laid a proper trap in the first place

3) I repeat myself: "The assumption underpinning my argument is that a reasonable townie would not have found fault in what I said. If you want to deride me as weak and subjective, critique that assumption."

And your point about conspiracy- concerning potentialities, and "what ifs", brings me back to the original argument concerning your hypocrisy in allowing sl's interpretation of my "dangling" point whereas not allowing sl's interpretation of your misplaced post, where the explanation for the former does not seem more plausible than the latter.

That's not actually true.

What I said on the "dangling" point was:

Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

Above, I make the very same point about competing hypotheses (other reasonable inferences exist; the relevant question is "which is most reasonable?")
And in my next post I asked her:

@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

And I did later refer to this in justification of my vote for her:

Orto's rebuttal was wrong - her points here were not purely subjective. That said, she never did explain at all why the "dangling question" was a scumtell (Why is X scummy for Y?). Same goes for the second point; she draws an inference of shirking responsibility. That said, however, neither of these is a compelling argument at all; they both make large assumptions which, whilst objectively explained, aren't supported enough by evidence to carry a vote.

The reason I went back to this vote is that I think we can see a rather clear tendency here. Coming to my point about assumptions underpinning arguments. What we see is that even where SL's logic is impeccable (Objectively speaking, I could very well have quoted "the post" for the reasons she supposes), her assumptions are not (ie. mistake is a more reasonable explanation in the case of a mispost). Her arguments on "genuineness", however, fall into a different category, since they don't construct an argument stemming from anything specific in my play. They fail for being unfalsifiable gut assertions.

Unvote (if I am), Vote: SL

[ortolan]

2) The trap here is essentially the same as the Mini 495 trap - I say something, albeit genuinely here, for the purposes of eliciting reaction. You mightn't like my argument for you being prejudiced, but that's a completely separate consideration as to whether I laid a proper trap in the first place

No it isn't, you haven't been able to prove that your intention in making the comment about mrfixij was to "trap" me, you have merely made the post-hoc justification of "oh yes, haha, it was a trap!" It's exactly the same as if I said I had baited you into attacking me as a mason and then revealed myself as a mason to show you must be scummy. Actually that's not true, the latter case of a mason is actually verifiable (as was the case where you were a town-vig) whereas all we have to go on is your crappy smart-arse, after-the-event suggestion that your comment was a "trap". Furthermore even if you intended it as a "trap", it proved nothing. So I really suggest you stop going on about it, it only makes you look as though you're defending a baseless position for the sake of it

3) I repeat myself: "The assumption underpinning my argument is that a reasonable townie would not have found fault in what I said. If you want to deride me as weak and subjective, critique that assumption."

This argument is extremely crappy. There is much variety in mafia, I'm sure there are extremely well-respected players who rely on gut, make impulsive moves and often appear scummy as town even in the process of turning over countless scum (in my experience already the "best players" are a totally separate category from "least likely to be wrongly lynched". I'm sure there are much more skilled players than you, who, in some instances you would be capable of portraying as scum when they were in fact town. The whole notion of a "reasonable townie", especially in the way you've applied it, is really so loaded as to be useless.

@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

And I did later refer to this in justification of my vote for her:

Orto's rebuttal was wrong - her points here were not purely subjective. That said, she never did explain at all why the "dangling question" was a scumtell (Why is X scummy for Y?). Same goes for the second point; she draws an inference of shirking responsibility. That said, however, neither of these is a compelling argument at all; they both make large assumptions which, whilst objectively explained, aren't supported enough by evidence to carry a vote.

The reason I went back to this vote is that I think we can see a rather clear tendency here. Coming to my point about assumptions underpinning arguments. What we see is that even where SL's logic is impeccable (Objectively speaking, I could very well have quoted "the post" for the reasons she supposes), her assumptions are not (ie. mistake is a more reasonable explanation in the case of a mispost). Her arguments on "genuineness", however, fall into a different category, since they don't construct an argument stemming from anything specific in my play. They fail for being unfalsifiable gut assertions.

Unvote (if I am), Vote: SL

Apparently all this amounts to is us disagreeing over the interpretation of "subjective". I meant subjective in that she was privileging her interpretation of my dangling "point" over any alternative perspectives, without any justification (which would be a scumtell, contrary to what you say, because it implies I deliberately misrepresented her, which is rather scummy in and of itself). You have a semantic disagreement that her interpretation was "objective", but no more likely than any other. You implied her privileging this interpretation was justified, but not her privileging of her interpretation of your misplaced post, which you applied stunningly different criterion to- she suddenly had to prove that her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid than any other. I don't see why this point is so hard for you to concede.

[vollkan]

Glad to see you didn't contest point 1), on my adhering to the law of non-contradiction.

No it isn't, you haven't been able to prove that your intention in making the comment about mrfixij was to "trap" me, you have merely made the post-hoc justification of "oh yes, haha, it was a trap!" It's exactly the same as if I said I had baited you into attacking me as a mason and then revealed myself as a mason to show you must be scummy. Actually that's not true, the latter case of a mason is actually verifiable (as was the case where you were a town-vig) whereas all we have to go on is your crappy smart-arse, after-the-event suggestion that your comment was a "trap". Furthermore even if you intended it as a "trap", it proved nothing. So I really suggest you stop going on about it, it only makes you look as though you're defending a baseless position for the sake of it

Proof of intention is impossible. You're setting up an impossible onus upon me if that's what you seek.

I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?

This argument is extremely crappy. There is much variety in mafia, I'm sure there are extremely well-respected players who rely on gut, make impulsive moves and often appear scummy as town even in the process of turning over countless scum (in my experience already the "best players" are a totally separate category from "least likely to be wrongly lynched". I'm sure there are much more skilled players than you, who, in some instances you would be capable of portraying as scum when they were in fact town. The whole notion of a "reasonable townie", especially in the way you've applied it, is really so loaded as to be useless.

Just because there is diversity in playstyles doesn't make the concept useless. The lynch of townies is unavoidable because townie can, and do, act unreasonably - even the best. The notion of a "reasonable townie" shouldn't be understood as a concrete concept. It's content can and should be debated. My argument is that there was no contradiction in my post, and that a contradiction would most likely only have been found by somebody that was uncritically reading me and leaped on the mere fact that I mentioned my gut.

Apparently all this amounts to is us disagreeing over the interpretation of "subjective". I meant subjective in that she was privileging her interpretation of my dangling "point" over any alternative perspectives, without any justification (which would be a scumtell, contrary to what you say, because it implies I deliberately misrepresented her, which is rather scummy in and of itself).

Uh...I agree with you here. As my question implied, she hadn't explained her interpretation over other perspectives. Her interpretation was most certainly subjective. As I said:

Her first point is subjective, but the reason given is subjective. You (and Ecto ) need to understand that there is a difference between drawing an inference and gut. Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

Note, also:

(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 quote the previous recognition of the typo so that you don't accuse me of changing my story now, even though the typo is obvious just from my use of the thre phrase "but the reason given", which implies a difference)

What I mean is that her reasoning is objective insofar as she has specfically based it on something you have done. It falls apart for subjectivity at the broader level, though, because she doesn't consider competing theories

[quote="Orto]
You have a semantic disagreement that her interpretation was "objective", but no more likely than any other. You implied her privileging this interpretation was justified, but not her privileging of her interpretation of your misplaced post, which you applied stunningly different criterion to- she suddenly had to prove that her interpretation of your misplaced post was more valid than any other. I don't see why this point is so hard for you to concede.
[/quote]

That's wrong.

For the umpteenth time, I said:

Spring is drawing a reasonable inference as to scum motivation based on behaviour. I don't agree with her there, because I don't think that's the only reasonable inference, but it's an objective reason.

And I asked her:

@Spring: Why is it not just as plausible that town-Orto might have left the question dangling as an afterthought?

I did NOT imply I thought she was justified at all; quite the contrary. I explicitly said I don't agree with her, and I specifically questioned her on the point.

[springlullaby]

Just an interesting meta exchange I came across whilst reading California Trilogy - Going to San Francisco a game where I was lynched as town. A bit of "food for thought" shall we say:

I don't like your analysis of me. It doesn't look genuine.

Thankyou for giving me your conclusion. Now give me the reasons which led you to it.

Same attack as I have received here, and I have the same attitude to it.

This is interesting, tell me who are you trying to convince here? And of what exactly?

[mykonian]

I agree with orto in the trap business. This proves nothing. It never could. Just from your starting play you should have known people could react like that Vollkan. The amount of traps you have made in other games doesn't change a thing in that.

Just two hypothesis:

a you are town, tried to trap scum in a slightly weak trap, and you cought a mason. Bad luck.

b you are scum. You tried to open your possibilities in case there came more votes on mrfix, and you expressed your direction. On the moment you get attacked for that by a confirmed person, you say: "hehe, it was a trap".

I personally think b more likely, as it assumes quite good play, while the first assumes not looking at the possible reactions on your "trap", or simply throwing a trap in, without knowing what will happen, without having thought about it.

While the action of mentioning your gut wasn't scummy on itself, your explanation just seems off.

[ortolan]

I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?

That means it's a crap trap, was pointless and it's suspicious you even brought up. See for example the comparison case of a mason who baits votes onto himself then _can_ prove his alignment to attempt to find scum who voted for him. Contrast this with a vanilla townie who can't spring the trap by claiming mason- they have to get lynched. Contrast this further with you who can never prove your trap worked regardless of whether you flip town or scum, because you can never prove what your intentions were in leaving that inconsistency (re: mrfixij) in your post.

Proof of intention is impossible. You're setting up an impossible onus upon me if that's what you seek.

Yes, proof of your intention is impossible, that's why it was stupid to ever claim it was a trap. Contrast with the above case of for example the mason or even the vanilla townie who ultimately does have something that can prove their intention.

I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?

It goes to my argument of you clutching at straws and being opportunistic which makes you more likely to be scum in my eyes.

Just because there is diversity in playstyles doesn't make the concept useless. The lynch of townies is unavoidable because townie can, and do, act unreasonably - even the best. The notion of a "reasonable townie" shouldn't be understood as a concrete concept. It's content can and should be debated. My argument is that there was no contradiction in my post, and that a contradiction would most likely only have been found by somebody that was uncritically reading me and leaped on the mere fact that I mentioned my gut.

Well your initial arguments clearly did not take account of, or deliberately ignored, these subtleties. You stated that my crappy vote on Ecto *must* be due to either me being scum or me being new, and left no potential for me to lie in-between. You argued I was unlikely to be new because some of my posts seemed intelligent, and concluded from this that I was scum. Yet now you acknowledge that what a "reasonable townie" is and what "aberrant play" is are indeed extremely subjective, which leads me to wonder why you felt you had such a concrete basis for your vote on me in the first place.

[TDC]

Just two hypothesis:

a you are town, tried to trap scum in a slightly weak trap, and you cought a mason. Bad luck.

b you are scum. You tried to open your possibilities in case there came more votes on mrfix, and you expressed your direction. On the moment you get attacked for that by a confirmed person, you say: "hehe, it was a trap".

Vollkan said he wanted to show that orto was tunneling on him and not that he wanted to find scum with his trap.

[vollkan]

Just an interesting meta exchange I came across whilst reading California Trilogy - Going to San Francisco a game where I was lynched as town. A bit of "food for thought" shall we say:

I don't like your analysis of me. It doesn't look genuine.

Thankyou for giving me your conclusion. Now give me the reasons which led you to it.

Same attack as I have received here, and I have the same attitude to it.

This is interesting, tell me who are you trying to convince here? And of what exactly?

Well, Xtoxm was town in that game, so it isn't meta evidence for your actions being scummy. I cite it only because I have received the same complaint before, suggesting it might just be something in my playstyle.

I agree with orto in the trap business. This proves nothing. It never could. Just from your starting play you should have known people could react like that Vollkan. The amount of traps you have made in other games doesn't change a thing in that.

Just two hypothesis:

a you are town, tried to trap scum in a slightly weak trap, and you cought a mason. Bad luck.

b you are scum. You tried to open your possibilities in case there came more votes on mrfix, and you expressed your direction. On the moment you get attacked for that by a confirmed person, you say: "hehe, it was a trap".

I personally think b more likely, as it assumes quite good play, while the first assumes not looking at the possible reactions on your "trap", or simply throwing a trap in, without knowing what will happen, without having thought about it.

While the action of mentioning your gut wasn't scummy on itself, your explanation just seems off.

Well, I disagree with you, but I'll say first up that I am pleased to see an argument in precisely the format I like

Now, the first point I take issue with is that I "should have known people could react like that". Certainly, I knew that people could react like it. The question was "Would a 'reasonable townie' attack me for it?" There was very clearly no contradiction in what I said. The express repudiation I made of it having any bearing on the game only bolstered this. Attacking me for the post would have depended upon drawing a false equivalence between using gut as a justification as using gut as a "pointer".

Also, your hypothesis a) suffers from the minor problem that I did, in fact, expressly consider the chance of "catching" Orto as most likely. As I said in my immediate justification of the trap (a post which I have really just been having to repeat again and again):

1) Nothing I have ever said is against the viability of gut as an indicator of "maybe you should read up on this person", which is precisely what I said. There is nothing wrong with me saying that I have a funny feeling, provided I don't use it to back up a declaration of suspicion or a vote. And, in fact, I specifically stressed that I don't consider Ixfij scummy simply because of the feeling.

2) To see who would jump on this as an apparent contradiction. Would it surprise you if I said that you were my first guess?

3) To make a point. Rather than saying "I think Ixfij seems odd, so he is therefore scummy", I have said "I think ixfij seems odd, so I need to reread him more closely". This is precisely the distinction between objective reasons and subjective feelings.

It wasn't aimed squarely at Orto - others might have jumped on and I would have found them scummy - but I figured it most likely would be Orto.

I'd spoken of my concern about Orto possibly being prejudiced, so backing up my theory was a legitimate aim for me.

The trouble with b) is more significant. I have been so rabidly anti-gut here and abroad that there is no way that this would be a viable ploy for vollkan-scum. Saying "I have a gut feeling on ixfij" might work for other players but, in light of my meta, it would be a very stupid town that would let vollkan-scum get away with voting or even declaring suspicion for ixfij unless he presented a case to his usual standard.

So, I really disagree with your conclusions. B) assumes that I would play in total ignorance of the implications of my meta, and you've all seen the extent to which I make use of my meta in argument. I don't see where you get off saying that a) depends on me not thinking about possible reactions or consequences. I've already outlined what I expected to happen.

I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?

That means it's a crap trap, was pointless and it's suspicious you even brought up. See for example the comparison case of a mason who baits votes onto himself then _can_ prove his alignment to attempt to find scum who voted for him. Contrast this with a vanilla townie who can't spring the trap by claiming mason- they have to get lynched. Contrast this further with you who can never prove your trap worked regardless of whether you flip town or scum, because you can never prove what your intentions were in leaving that

inconsistency

(re: mrfixij) in your post.

(NB: You don't have the right to call it an inconsistency since I rebutted you on this)

Now, this leads right into the Mini 495 trap and the Mini 486 traps. In both cases, I was unconfirmed (remember, in Mini 486 there was the prospect of a scum-vig. I was just lucky that by killing Oman I prevented any possible suspicion; imagine what would have happened if I had bulldozed a townie in that way). In Mini 495, where I was a vanilla, I had no way of proving that I wasn't actually suggesting the lynch of AlyG - it was quite open to the others to run that idea.

Interestingly, the question you are asking here is exactly what Korlash (scum) asked me in Mini 495:

1) How can the excuse "I voted player X just to see who would also vote him! Actually voting him is scummy! So lets lynch the person who agreed with me!" fly... How come Volkan is still alive? Why did this last an additional ... 20 odd pages... ???!?!?!?! Is there a logical answer later on? Did I miss something? What?

Korlash leaps onto the fact that I am only justifying myself with "it was a trap" (he even throws in a charge of hypocrisy, because that trap involved me attacking somebody who agreed with my trap post)

Anyway, I can never prove my intentions to you. As I argued above, the scummy interpretation proffered by Myk doesn't compare with the trap explanation. My actions really do make most sense as a trap.

Yes, proof of your intention is impossible, that's why it was stupid to ever claim it was a trap. Contrast with the above case of for example the mason or even the vanilla townie who ultimately does have something that can prove their intention.

But why does there need to be something to "prove" intention? I had no proof of the sort in Mini 495.

I'm curious, though, what is the ramification of my inability to prove it was a trap? Does it make what I said scummy?

It goes to my argument of you clutching at straws and being opportunistic which makes you more likely to be scum in my eyes.

Clutching at straws, how? Being opportunistic, how? Nice words, but you don't link them to anything.

Just because there is diversity in playstyles doesn't make the concept useless. The lynch of townies is unavoidable because townie can, and do, act unreasonably - even the best. The notion of a "reasonable townie" shouldn't be understood as a concrete concept. It's content can and should be debated. My argument is that there was no contradiction in my post, and that a contradiction would most likely only have been found by somebody that was uncritically reading me and leaped on the mere fact that I mentioned my gut.

Well your initial arguments clearly did not take account of, or deliberately ignored, these subtleties. You stated that my crappy vote on Ecto *must* be due to either me being scum or me being new, and left no potential for me to lie in-between. You argued I was unlikely to be new because some of my posts seemed intelligent, and concluded from this that I was scum. Yet now you acknowledge that what a "reasonable townie" is and what "aberrant play" is are indeed extremely subjective, which leads me to wonder why you felt you had such a concrete basis for your vote on me in the first place.

You're dredging this up

again

? . You have already made me repeat myself once on this point about me setting up a dichotomy of newb or scum. I'm just going to quote those two other posts, because I am getting tired of repeating myself.

Before that, just a brief word on your newest idea - that the "reasonable townie" concept is subjective. You're conflating "not set in stone" with "subjective", and the two are distinct. Play practices can and do vary over time and between sites; what is reasonable here may not be reasonable on MTGS. If I could give a defintion, consider the idea that a "reasonable townie" is a townie who is consciously playing in pursuit of hsi or her win condition - that means there is an expectation of impartial analysis, but some allowance for the possibility of error. It's to be objectively understood - as in, taking the Mini 495 trap, "Why might town-vollkan, acting reasonably, have made such an atrocious post?"

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.

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

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.

No, it wasn't a false dichotomy. As I just said:

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.

There's no false dichotomy. I was giving you a greater degree of tolerance for error than I would give to an experienced player, for whom I wouldn't consider the prospect of dazed newbie. In the same way that you proceed with a presumption that contradiction is scummy because no reasonable townie would do it, I proceeded with a presumption that no reasonable townie would hedge, but I had to explicitly address the prospect of you not being a reasonable townie (ie. being a dazed newbie).

There is, therefore, no false dichotomy. I explicitly considered scumminess and newbie error, and I have been able to explain my assumption against reasonable error on request.

Just two hypothesis:

a you are town, tried to trap scum in a slightly weak trap, and you cought a mason. Bad luck.

b you are scum. You tried to open your possibilities in case there came more votes on mrfix, and you expressed your direction. On the moment you get attacked for that by a confirmed person, you say: "hehe, it was a trap".

Vollkan said he wanted to show that orto was tunneling on him and not that he wanted to find scum with his trap.

Hmm...not exactly. It would be more accurate to say that I expected to show that Orto was tunneling me (in confirmation of my theory that that is what he has been doing and continues to do) and held a quiet hope that it might also catch scum.

[vollkan]

Ugh...what the hell. It double-posted last time and now it triple-posted.

I have deleted two of the copies for easier reading.

[Ectomancer]

O
M
F
G
W
T
F
W
T
?
?
?
?
?
??
?
?

[mykonian]

I agree with orto in the trap business. This proves nothing. It never could. Just from your starting play you should have known people could react like that Vollkan. The amount of traps you have made in other games doesn't change a thing in that.

Just two hypothesis:

a you are town, tried to trap scum in a slightly weak trap, and you cought a mason. Bad luck.

b you are scum. You tried to open your possibilities in case there came more votes on mrfix, and you expressed your direction. On the moment you get attacked for that by a confirmed person, you say: "hehe, it was a trap".

I personally think b more likely, as it assumes quite good play, while the first assumes not looking at the possible reactions on your "trap", or simply throwing a trap in, without knowing what will happen, without having thought about it.

While the action of mentioning your gut wasn't scummy on itself, your explanation just seems off.

Well, I disagree with you, but I'll say first up that I am pleased to see an argument in precisely the format I like

Now, the first point I take issue with is that I "should have known people could react like that". Certainly, I knew that people could react like it. The question was "Would a 'reasonable townie' attack me for it?" There was very clearly no contradiction in what I said. The express repudiation I made of it having any bearing on the game only bolstered this. Attacking me for the post would have depended upon drawing a false equivalence between using gut as a justification as using gut as a "pointer".

Also, your hypothesis a) suffers from the minor problem that I did, in fact, expressly consider the chance of "catching" Orto as most likely. As I said in my immediate justification of the trap (a post which I have really just been having to repeat again and again):

of course you would never gut vote, but when you came up with a case against mrfixij when there were already 2 persons on the him, nobody would have considered it weird, you said you would look him closely. If you hopped on the bandwagon while you had never been suspicious of mrfixij, we would look closely at your actions. So the scum part could still be.

And as town, why would you want to catch orto, and orto being town, couldn't it have been that other townies would also react on it, in a manner scummy in your eyes? What purpose had the trap if you actually knew it could catch town just as easily as scum? From the traps you have mentioned it is everytime obvious that a scum player did something very antitown. That is why the traps worked. Would a player that says: "vollkan detests gut, and now he uses it" and attacks you for it do something antitown? would it be scummy? What you are implying is that attacking you is scummy, because there seems to be no other reason.

Vollkan, the other traps you mentioned were well thought out. Why not this one?

[don_johnson]

i am trying to keep up, however, i am still plowing through the first eighteen pages. i have made some interesting observations(interesting to me at least) and will gladly share my notes soon. mainly i want to finish reading the rest of the thread and make sure i am not bringing up points that have already been covered, or questions that have been answered. since the conversation seems to be around volkan right now i will say this:

in having read six pages of posts i have probably the most quotes and notes on volkan. almost every single one gives me a neutral read. he is well thought out, well written, and for the most part seems to be posting pro town. he remains neutral in my mind because everyone is trying to look protown, so looking protown should be nothing special on day1. if i may, though, i would like to know(and forgive me if this has been answered) why did you post your rules? it seems extremely counterproductive in the early going. you have basically given any one who wants it a "how to stay off of volkans scumdar" guide. in addition, if you are scum, you now have a way of justifying not picking out your partner(s). as this appears more useful to you as scum, i find this to be very anti town.

other than that i have notes on how well spoken you are and also how you do address everyone's questions. as of page six you haven't dodged any inquiries. please respond.

What purpose had the trap if you actually knew it could catch town just as easily as scum?

i didn't catch where volkan claims he was aware that the trap could catch town, so is that part true? and if so i look forward to your answering the whole post.

[mykonian]

He said he thought it most likely that the trap would catch orto. Orto is town. Why wouldn't other towny's apart from orto also get trapped?

[SpyreX]

The trap would most likely catch orto because orto, in fact, is approaching said issue from a point of prejudice. Thats the point.

This is a whole mess of words upon words that really, aren't getting the job done.

@Volk:

I can understand showing consistency, but ultimately we both know you're smart enough to be consistent regardless of your alignment. The meta has to end man, for all our sakes.

@Everyone:

There was a little snipe in this mess that stands out. What was it and why!

[ortolan]

The trap would most likely catch orto because orto, in fact, is approaching said issue from a point of prejudice. Thats the point.

Oh yer Hehe I forgot I got caught in his trap. Noted that you buy the crap argument wholesale solely because it come from vollkan.

This is a whole mess of words upon words that really, aren't getting the job done.

Agreed