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

[mykonian]

Ecto, are you really pushing for a mason lynch? I do not agree. I agree with TDC, although his math is not completely right. Maybe a vig-kill could be used, but we really don't need that yet.

Really, ecto, what do you want? lynch one, and kill the other?

Mrfixij, bit of overkill to respond at a lurking accusation isn't it? . Just come and play

DON, would you plz reread for once and stop coming up with close to, or completely caseless votes.

anyway, new top three:

Don
Mrfixij
Ecto

[vollkan]

okay then.

Vote: Volkan

Why?

Alrighty then. Sometimes you put a line in the water not knowing what you might get. At that point I didn't really care what I got so long as it was more than what we had going on. Policy lynch all liars? Sue me.

You can either ignore the "lynch OP today section", or you can press me for the details. All I can say is that it is a gambit rooted in psychology. I realize that people get nervous around gambits, but if you want a weird Ecto townie read, you can check out http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=500 (not the same situation here!) or http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight= (Got first scum, but HackerHuck owned me in endgame. My guess rooted in psychology in that situation was that the real cop would not try to counter my soft claim.)

Now that we have a more amenable atmosphere between the players here, let's continue.

unvote

I don't get nervous around gambits, but I would like you to clarify yourself somewhat. What specifically was gambit and what wasn't? By that, I mean:
1) Do you/Did you sincerely want OP to be lynched today?
2) If not, what is your actual position regarding a mason lynch?
3) Was the whole vanilla claim and mountainous speculation part of the gambit? If so, what was your intention?

[Ectomancer]

Those are 3 great questions. Glad you asked them. Those really are the questions aren't they? You can't look in the back of the book for the answers though. Have to wait until we get there.

[mykonian]

maybe I shouldn´t do this this late, but what is happening here. Missed that ecto called it a gambit.

all this are ecto´s quotes, chronologically.

vote OrangePenguin

Their claim needs to be tested and confirmed. I'm not going to fall for a VI scheme.

"Hey, if we get into trouble, let's claim mason so town wont lynch us and then play scummy so that "scum" wont kill us. Haha!"

At the very least, Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels need to be neutered. Take out the inactive one.

TDC wrote:

What would've happened had anybody jumped on?


That's the 64 dollar question isn't it? Encourage more to join?

You can either ignore the "lynch OP today section", or you can press me for the details. All I can say is that it is a gambit rooted in psychology. I realize that people get nervous around gambits, but if you want a weird Ecto townie read, you can check out http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=500 (not the same situation here!) or http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight= (Got first scum, but HackerHuck owned me in endgame. My guess rooted in psychology in that situation was that the real cop would not try to counter my soft claim.)

In between we have a softclaim without reason.

Now we get the discussion again, like with vollkan, is this a gambit, or is someone trying to get away with antitown play because it is a gambit.

a few points: sometimes, ecto seems a little serious about the vote. Wants to pull us over. On the moment he tells us it is a gambit, he must have gotten his information, yet he doesn't tell us. The information would have been taken out of psychology, or said different, would are easily influenced by the way you are viewing things. So, ecto claims it is a gambit, says he has information, and even if that information would lead to a mislynch, he doesn't have the be the next obvious lynch.

[vollkan]

Those are 3 great questions. Glad you asked them. Those really are the questions aren't they? You can't look in the back of the book for the answers though. Have to wait until we get there.

I can live with my questions not being answered immediately, but I expect answers within a reasonable time.

I have typed up some ideas about your possible intentions, but I don't want to ruin a gambit. Thus, would you would like me to post said ideas right now?

On the moment he tells us it is a gambit, he must have gotten his information, yet he doesn't tell us.

Not necessarily. Revealing the gambit can be part of the gambit itself. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now. He cannot run this gambit indefinitely, that would be unacceptable, and when (not if; WHEN) it ends, we can analyse it in full.

[SpyreX]

Gosh, I miss a little time and you guys go all crazy.

Ecto: I know it was a gambit, but considering fix's softclaim AND the masons AND the fact we better damn well not have a lying town it, by nature, can not be a mountainous.

The masons will be fine for now. IF they are town (and although I still believe the claim I gnash my teeth at the play) then we've got 1/4 shot today for hitting scum (even if it was totally random) AND if we dont tomorrow we are up to a 1/3 chance barring any other actions.

As for do I think DJ is scum? Look at his vote on Volkan. Explain to me the backpedaling and lying in his "case" on me, weak or not. He is playing to survive and just happened to pick a real bad target to throw out a case like that on.

Also Ecto - there's only one vote on SL now, but believe you me I'd lynch SL if I can't get DJ today.

[don_johnson]

As for do I think DJ is scum? Look at his vote on Volkan. Explain to me the backpedaling and lying in his "case" on me, weak or not. He is playing to survive and just happened to pick a real bad target to throw out a case like that on.

i brought up my opinions after reading the first five or six pages of this thread to prevent a hasty lynch. you asked for a deadline. "lying" is a subjective term in regards to what i have said. not giving you the answers you wanted is more like it. i was prepared to give the "volkan would not be a good lynch" side of things, but after reading everything in this thread and witnessing the pointlessness of his circular logic i feel he is the best lynch. i have my reasons and i will post them all in due time. besides:

at this point i have not pushed a lynch, or even voted

Irrelevant.

why? are you saying that voting patterns are irrelevant in the game of mafia? if so, is my vote relevant now?

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

in regards to this:

I have provided reasons for my 'feelings'. Don't forget that suspicions are rooted in feel as there is no concrete evidence in the game of mafia. There are no finger prints, no DNA, no video surveillance. The game is not a simple equation of x + y = z. There is a human element which is constantly changing. I have to decide how I think you would act as mafia based on limited information. Gut and feelings are all a simplistic way of expressing a subconscious understanding of the events going on around you. I am a poker player, so things like 'gut' which is really just a flash recollection of a player (or the collective of all opponents) and how they respond to certain actions is crucial - even though the game has many statistical factors to it. I will admit I am fairly new to playing mafia and I have not translated those instincts to the game yet. With that said, I used the word feel in the instance you quoted in the same manner I would use the word 'believe' or the phrase 'in my opinion'. I just felt like poking at you because you jumped on it with your code of vollkan.

Justifying yourself with the poker analogy isn't going to work.

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

We don't have fingerprints, but we also have more than just a person's poker faces. We have words and arguments.


As of now, I see that Shez has made a very substantial case. I cannot hope to respond to something that detailed with the reading I have done thus far, so I will from hereon post on my reading instead of current events (since the meta case appears to have floated off into the ether....)

please answer the following:

1) were you modkilled in this "other" game for posting information pertaining to said game outside the appropriate thread?
2) why did you not immediately ask the mod to remove this post from this thread as it is "obviously" not part of this game?
3) to all: has this ever happened to any of you?
4) why are you allowed to pish posh away your accountability for this post with

*sigh* It was a misplaced post - not a cynical attempt to improve consistency. In any event, you only need to look through my history to see that I frequently get into clashes over my opposition to gut.

and this:

I'm not going to say "think what you will", because I don't accept that there are good reasons for suspecting me for this.

That's just granting you license to continue peddling this nonsense. The game is still ongoing, but check out Mini 688 "The Iceman Modeth". I stress that the game is ongoing (I am dead, however, which is why I am referencing it), so please say nothing which could influence that game. That is where the post was meant to be made.

i only need to look through your history? why does everyone else need to produce evidence to back up their claims then? with that "craplogic", couldn't i just offer this thread as my evidence of you being scum? funny how you don't "accept" the reasoning...

socrates knows your logic here is bullshit.

please explain.

[SpyreX]

i brought up my opinions after reading the first five or six pages of this thread to prevent a hasty lynch. you asked for a deadline. "lying" is a subjective term in regards to what i have said. not giving you the answers you wanted is more like it. i was prepared to give the "volkan would not be a good lynch" side of things, but after reading everything in this thread and witnessing the pointlessness of his circular logic i feel he is the best lynch. i have my reasons and i will post them all in due time. besides:

Saying you answered all my questions when you yourself said you hadn't addressed some is lying.

Changing the initial "question" in backpedaling from "Dodging suspicions and questions" to "Dodging suspicions" is lying. Saying you never said the former is, well, lying.

So, you're all caught up now? Ready to jump on the bandwagon and everything?

Where's the rest of these notes? Or feelings on anyone else in the game?

I'll leave Volk to answer Volk's bit.

As an aside, I really am just sad to see "Volk is REALLY GOOD AT THE GAME SO LYNCH HIM KTHX" as part of the rationale for this debacle.


[/mech]

[vollkan]

at this point i have not pushed a lynch, or even voted

Irrelevant.

why? are you saying that voting patterns are irrelevant in the game of mafia? if so, is my vote relevant now?

No, I am not saying that. My position is this:

A person is fully accountable for their reasons whether or not they vote. Thus, the mere fact you voted doesn't in any way excuse craplogic.

The above is in no way inconsistent with voting patterns being relevant.

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

1) were you modkilled in this "other" game for posting information pertaining to said game outside the appropriate thread?

Nope.

2) why did you not immediately ask the mod to remove this post from this thread as it is "obviously" not part of this game?

The thought didn't cross my mind. Probably a consequence of the fact that, if I were the mod, I wouldn't have deleted it - thus meaning I didn't consider it objectionable material.

4) why are you allowed to pish posh away your accountability for this post with

*sigh* It was a misplaced post - not a cynical attempt to improve consistency. In any event, you only need to look through my history to see that I frequently get into clashes over my opposition to gut.

and this:

I'm not going to say "think what you will", because I don't accept that there are good reasons for suspecting me for this. That's just granting you license to continue peddling this nonsense. The game is still ongoing, but check out Mini 688 "The Iceman Modeth". I stress that the game is ongoing (I am dead, however, which is why I am referencing it), so please say nothing which could influence that game. That is where the post was meant to be made.

i only need to look through your history? why does everyone else need to produce evidence to back up their claims then? with that "craplogic", couldn't i just offer this thread as my evidence of you being scum? funny how you don't "accept" the reasoning...

socrates knows your logic here is bullshit.

please explain.

Oh boy, now he's necroing SL's arguments.

As I have already explained, my misplaced post was an error arising from my use of tabbed browsing. It's not a question of me "pish poshing" (lovely phrase, btw) accountability. The fact is that you/SL, as accuser, cannot mount any serious argument that my actions aren't perfectly reasonable as a mistake.

The history point is relevant for two reasons: 1) It shows that these arguments are common for me, thus further cutting away at the idea that I posted to promote some false consistency between the two games (ie. because I have this debate so often, there is a greater than average probability that any misplaced post will relate to the debate); 2) And this is the most important reason - If I wanted to show that I am being meta consistent, it would make far more sense to quote a completed game where I was town rather than an ongoing game where I was scum.

[vollkan]

I'll leave Volk to answer Volk's bit.

Thankyou. I do so enjoy fighting zombie arguments.

(Fingers crossed that High Necromancer Don Johnson now summons the zombie duo of "Ungenuine" and "Unclear Perspective")

[SpyreX]

Then we can go another 30 pages of dancing!

[mykonian]

actually, don´s post 706 begins to look like it.

Spyrex´s action (asking for a deadline) was very scummy. And he points out what we all know about vollkan: his post are close to unreadable, and most of it tells nothing about the game. Vollkan uses subjective arguments. I haven's checked out the post don mentioned, but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before. I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using strawmanning. As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

Spyrex's post 707 points out unvoluntarily what my biggest problem with vollkan is. Vollkan is good at this game, tells us he plays logically, yet takes his resort with subjective arguments, he hides everything that could be a scumtell in massive post and keeps omgus attacking his attackers. How often haven't we seen that vollkan finds his attackers scummy, or at least suck, because he finds the attacks on him rubbish. Nice way to push them in the defensive.

That's why I absolutely have no problem with orto's play. Even after he had claimed vollkan kept doing the same (that was pointed out there) but the fun thing is, orto doesn't need to defend. Orto did assemble a lot of small points against vollkan (would you have expected more?). Now, because everybody loves vollkan, orto is laught at. I feel that is wrong. People say he doesn't do his job. He does. Even if vollkan isn't scum, we have everybody talking about it. Orto played active, made cases, and in general tried to find vollkan-scum.

I'm going to reread vollkan. lol.

[vollkan]

And he points out what we all know about vollkan: his post are close to unreadable, and most of it tells nothing about the game

1) Readability is very much an individual judgment and I am posting here no differently to how I do elsewhere.
2) I don't like how people continually make it out like my posts contain nothing relevant, when that simply isn't the case. My posts contain as much relevant material as anybody else's.

I have used a lot of meta this game, but maybe it would be prudent to consider why that might be the case? I've been attacked, variously, for self-voting, gambiting, post length, verbosity, irrelevance, and theory. And I have basically been forced to write a doctoral thesis on the concept of a "scumtell". It's basically a "damned if you do, damned if you don't": Nobody understands me unless I explain myself in full, but when I explain myself in full I get attacked for irrelevance and verbosity.

Vollkan uses subjective arguments

For fuck's sake. The number of times in the past few pages I have asked for people to explain what the hell they mean by "vollkan has been making subjective arguments". This is really beginning to piss me off and I am getting the distinct impression, from the lack of explanation being given, that we have sheep behaviour going on here.

I am going to ask you this question, and bold it, and size 18 it.

What do you mean by "subjective"? Which arguments are you talking about? How are they "subjective"?

I haven's checked out the post don mentioned, but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using strawmanning. As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

You "felt" it before, huh? And you have the gall to accuse me of being subjective.

I didn't strawman Don. His argument is a load of crap, and it does wonders for my opinion of you to know that you are taking his argument as true simply on the basis of a "feeling" you had before.

he hides everything that could be a scumtell in massive post

No, I don't.

This is a perfect example of a subjective claim. My posts are big, yes. How can I possibly argue against the claim that I am "hiding scumtells" in my big posts? The most I, or anyone, can do against this sort of accusation is simply say "No I don't".

and keeps omgus attacking his attackers

...
...
hmm
...
I know
...
*HEADKNIFE*

I have been attacking my attackers. Yes. Want to know why? Because almost every argument that has been made against me has been absolute bullshit, and I have explained in thorough detail why. OMGUS is where you attack people BECAUSE they are attacking you, and I have done no such thing.

How often haven't we seen that vollkan finds his attackers scummy, or at least suck, because he finds the attacks on him rubbish. Nice way to push them in the defensive.

Yes, you're completely correct.

Forgive me, I should have realised that the protown response to bullshit arguments is to roll over and die.

Seriously, town has as much responsibility to defend as it does to scumhunt. In the process of defending, it is completely legitimate, indeed it would be a dereliction of duty to do otherwise, to attacker an attacker for a scummy argument.

That's why I absolutely have no problem with orto's play. Even after he had claimed vollkan kept doing the same (that was pointed out there) but the fun thing is, orto doesn't need to defend.

Orto does need to defend actually. Orto is potential scum and it is as legitimate for me to subject him to scrutiny as it is anybody else.

Orto did assemble a lot of small points against vollkan (would you have expected more?).

It would be more accurate to say that he continued throwing bullshit at me until some of it hardened.

What would I have expected? A few proper arguments.

Now, because everybody loves vollkan, orto is laught at. I feel that is wrong. People say he doesn't do his job. He does. Even if vollkan isn't scum, we have everybody talking about it. Orto played active, made cases, and in general tried to find vollkan-scum.

Everybody loves vollkan? You have got to be kidding me.

Now, if Orto is mason, then, yes, he has been doing his job by scum-hunting. Make no mistake about that. BUT the arguments he has adopted are scummy.

[mykonian]

OK, I'm stretching the defintion, but you attack people based on the fact that their case on you sucks. If you attacked me, I could do that too.

and the "I felt that before" thing is based on the point that I attacked you before on it. Some doubtful sentences, that were, if they were placed with an intention, placed to make your attackers seem dumb. That is one instance. Also the fact you call it bullshit, why I called it a minor scumtell. It doesn't deny my point, but you still respond on it in this way. That is purely subjective vollkan. You put in that sentence in, and why? That is also my question with the insulting orto business. Why?

[vollkan]

OK, I'm stretching the defintion, but you attack people based on the fact that their case on you sucks. If you attacked me, I could do that too.

You are not "stretching" the definition. You are completely misapplying it. "OMGUS" is an emotive label just like "strawman" and, just like "strawman", it has a specific definition. To quote from the wiki:

OMGUS stands for "Oh My God, You Suck (for voting for me)!". it is sometimes used as a shorthand to indicate that you are voting for someone primarily because they voted for you.

OMGUS is a scumtell because the craplogic underpinning it is "I am town (or, at least, I claim to be). You must therefore be scum". This completely ignores the fact that town can attack town. It is a scummy thing to do.

That's completely and utterly different from suspecting an attacker for their reasons for suspecting you. Now, it is true that you could retort to me with attacks against me based on me making a bad case - and you'd be perfectly entitled to. Crap reasons are scummy, and anybody is entitled to suspect people for them.

Now, the great thing about labels like "OMGUS" is that you can say them and slap scumminess on somebody without explaining yourself.

As in, you can accuse me of OMGUS for that and it looks, at first glance, like a plausible point against me.

If, instead, you had said: "Vollkan keeps attacking his attackers for what he has argued to be crap reasons", it doesn't look scummy at all.

and the "I felt that before" thing is based on the point that I attacked you before on it. Some doubtful sentences, that were, if they were placed with an intention, placed to make your attackers seem dumb. That is one instance. Also the fact you call it bullshit, why I called it a minor scumtell It doesn't deny my point, but you still respond on it in this way. That is purely subjective vollkan. You put in that sentence in, and why? That is also my question with the insulting orto business. Why?

Uh...

I haven's checked out the post don mentioned, but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using strawmanning. As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

The above quote is very clearly about strawmanning.

Now you have completely flipped to talking about alleged ad hominem. As I have already explained, I insulted Orto out of frustration and I didn't ad hom. To reiterate:
Ad hominem is where you say somebody's argument is crap because they are stupid. (or any other insult)
Ad hominem is NOT where you say somebody is stupid because their argument is crap.

As I have said already:

I can't repeat myself enough that that is not what I was trying to do. I've been adamant from the outset that the faults in SL and orto's arguments are purely logical. What I am trying to get across, though, is my frustration at being tunnelled on conspiracy arguments. I have had to repeat myself so many times on each issue that I really don't think I am being listened to, and I would hope that some emotional language would get across that I really am adamant that SL and Orto have been pushing a truly atrocious case against me.

I am not trying to discredit Orto or anything (that's merely one interpretation of my conduct). Emotive language has its place, provided it is for a good reason. Getting across the depth of my opposition to the "case" is a legitimate purpose.

As for the "bullshit" point, you need to appreciate a distinction similar to that above:
It would be subjective if I said "Your arguments are wrong because I think they are bullshit"
That is not what I have said though. My position has been:
"The arguments are bullshit because they are wrong <for whatever reason, depending on the argument>"

There is nothing wrong with calling an argument bullshit, provided you back up that argument, which I have done in extensive detail.

Oh and you ignored my size 18 and bolded question.

[mykonian]

I think I didn't ignore it. I gave two things that were clearly subjective, and you have even tried to answer them.

I know it was not ad-hominem, that lable would be wrong. You don't attack orto there, you try to disqualify him, and people buy it. Calling someone stupid doesn't make him wrong, yet the general feeling here seems to be like that. That is subjective vollkan.

And I also explained already what I meant with the lable omgus, I explained it in the next sentence.

It is not yet strawmanning what you do here, but you don't want to read everything, and you seem to have problems understanding me in the previous post.

Because of this:

I never said it was ad hominem, that was not even what you were attacked for. I attacked you at disqualifying your opponents. You defend by saying it was not ad hominem. point for you: you also say emotive language should have its place (I don't agree here...)
I used the word omgus, and explained in the next sentence what I thought was wrong. You defend by theory discussion, and saying it could never be omgus.
You say I didn't answer your question, while you answered the points I brought up to answer it.

[vollkan]

*spasm*
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "SUBJECTIVE"? You seem to just be using it in application to anything you don't like.

By all means, say that I am trying to disqualify Orto. What you are accusing me of there is psychological manipulation, NOT subjectivity. And, as I have said, it's one interpretation but I've already explained why I have done it, and have repudiated that it should be taken to discredit Orto simpliciter.

Frankly, I think that you either don't have a clue what the term means, or you are deliberately misusing it to make me appear inconsistent.

And I also explained already what I meant with the lable omgus, I explained it in the next sentence.

I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED WHY YOU ARE WRONG HERE. I addressed the second sentence point:

Now, it is true that you could retort to me with attacks against me based on me making a bad case - and you'd be perfectly entitled to. Crap reasons are scummy, and anybody is entitled to suspect people for them.

I am going to be as blunt as possible:
OMGUS is a specific scumtell. What I did was NOT OMGUS. You abused the term and labelled something which wasn't scummy.

It is not yet strawmanning what you do here, but you don't want to read everything, and you seem to have problems understanding me in the previous post.

Then why the hell did you use the word strawmaning?

Spyrex´s action (asking for a deadline) was very scummy. And he points out what we all know about vollkan: his post are close to unreadable, and most of it tells nothing about the game. Vollkan uses subjective arguments. I haven's checked out the post don mentioned, but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before. I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using

strawmanning

. As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

I never said it was ad hominem, that was not even what you were attacked for. I attacked you at disqualifying your opponents. You defend by saying it was not ad hominem.

Your meaning was ambiguous so I addressed both ad hominem and the other form of pyschological disqualification. Thus, you are simply wrong to say that I only defended a charge of ad hominem.

I used the word omgus, and explained in the next sentence what I thought was wrong. You defend by theory discussion, and saying it could never be omgus.

I have already answered this. Even mentioning the word OMGUS was completely inappropriate. Your next sentence said nothing more than that you could do the same thing. And as I have already said twice now:

Now, it is true that you could retort to me with attacks against me based on me making a bad case - and you'd be perfectly entitled to. Crap reasons are scummy, and anybody is entitled to suspect people for them.

And it was not "theory discussion". If you accuse me of doing something I did not do, it is DIRECTLY RELEVANT to explain why you are wrong by explaining what the term actually means.

[mykonian]

Maybe I misused the word subjective. Any argument that is not based on facts, derivatives from that, autorities (probably bad spelling here), etc, but on feelings, denying proof etc is subjective. So calling someone stupid is moving the feeling of people against that person, so you win the debate. This would be bad. That is why I felt you shouldn't have insulted orto, not have called there arguments bullshit etc.

Don mentioned strawmanning and subjectivity. I attacked you on the second, but like I said, I think you could easily have strawmanned. There already I don't say I have found it, but I could believe it.

I used the word strawmanning in the previous post, because you came close to it. I didn't want to fully accuse you of strawmanning, because you could have read it wrong, or you could just have evaded the point I made, but it didn't have big consequenses here. Plus that it is too easily used for someone that doesn't understand what you are saying. With the ad-hominem business this seemed to apply, so I'm quite happy with this weakened statement.

If you had placed the blunt "this is not omgus" part in the previous post, you could just have defended against the accusation I was making after it. Would have been a lot easier.

[vollkan]

Maybe I misused the word subjective

So that's three out of three so so far: OMGUS, strawman, and subjective.

Any argument that is not based on facts, derivatives from that, autorities (probably bad spelling here), etc, but on feelings, denying proof etc is subjective.

I love how slip in "denying proof" as subjective. Sorry, but "denying proof" is a purely objective argument. Saying "You haven't advanced sufficient objective reasons/weighed your judgments against alternatives to mount a case" is not subjective.

So calling someone stupid is moving the feeling of people against that person, so you win the debate. This would be bad. That is why I felt you shouldn't have insulted orto, not have called there arguments bullshit etc.

I know that is what you think. I have been reading your posts.

My point is and has always been (since the first time this argument was raised ages ago) that I wasn't discrediting Orto with insults. I was pissed off by the slew of stupid arguments he was making and kept repeating and needed strong language to voice that in the hope that it would make you people notice.

Your interpretation of my actions is valid, but put yourself in my position: If you had had to repeatedly deal with the same arguments again and again, whilst having a load of new subjective claims thrown at you, wouldn't you begin to want to let people see that you were annoyed.

In essence, what you are saying is that my actions were intended to make people pay less attention to Orto. What I am saying is that my actions were intended to make people pay more attention to me - not to the exclusion of Orto, mind you, just so people might think "You know, vollkan is angry, so maybe he has a point and we should take another look".

Don mentioned strawmanning and subjectivity. I attacked you on the second, but like I said, I think you could easily have strawmanned. There already I don't say I have found it, but I could believe it.

Congratulations. You just earned my vote:

Unvote, Vote: Mykonian

I haven's checked out the post don mentioned,

but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using strawmanning.

As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

Myk has now admitted that the entire strawmanning thing came out of nothing more than him thinking I *COULD* have strawmanned. He also claims he "could believe it". Just before, however, he said he did believe it because he "felt" that I had strawmanned. Obviously, the "felt" thing is almost as bad.

What we see here though (and I stress, this comes on top of the other criticisms I have made of Myk's latest attempts against me) is him endorsing the use of a powerful label - "strawman" - in relation to a post of mine, declaring his belief in its existence, and then backpedalling once he is placed under fire, rightly, for never even bothering to check.

I used the word strawmanning in the previous post, because you came close to it. I didn't want to fully accuse you of strawmanning, because you could have read it wrong, or you could just have evaded the point I made, but it didn't have big consequenses here. Plus that it is too easily used for someone that doesn't understand what you are saying. With the ad-hominem business this seemed to apply, so I'm quite happy with this weakened statement.
.

But I didn't come close to strawman. Strawmanning is where you take an argument and attack something similar but not the actual argument.

I discussed the accusation of ad hominem, and then I moved on to discuss the "discrediting" point. Right here:

I am not trying to discredit Orto or anything (that's merely one interpretation of my conduct). Emotive language has its place, provided it is for a good reason. Getting across the depth of my opposition to the "case" is a legitimate purpose.

What you accused me of could be either ad hom, or discrediting. (ie. calling Orto names to weaken his arguments would be ad hom; calling Orto names because of his arguments would be, on one view, "discrediting")

[don_johnson]

this is an excercise in futility, but here goes:

i brought up my opinions after reading the first five or six pages of this thread to prevent a hasty lynch. you asked for a deadline. "lying" is a subjective term in regards to what i have said. not giving you the answers you wanted is more like it. i was prepared to give the "volkan would not be a good lynch" side of things, but after reading everything in this thread and witnessing the pointlessness of his circular logic i feel he is the best lynch. i have my reasons and i will post them all in due time. besides:

Saying you answered all my questions when you yourself said you hadn't addressed some is lying.

if you have questions please ask. name calling is unproductive. just because you are good at masking questions and asking rhetorical sounding questions, doesn't make you the purveyor of truth.

Changing the initial "question" in backpedaling from "Dodging suspicions and questions" to "Dodging suspicions" is lying.

Saying you never said the former is, well, lying.

how is explaining my notes lying? i wrote down my "feelings", you asked for clarification. i clarified. my notes were:

Seems

to still be dodging accusations and questions

keyword is both italicized and bolded.

So, you're all caught up now? Ready to jump on the bandwagon and everything?

yes. i like your use of the term "bandwagon", too. like i said: suddenly my vote is relevant. apparently i may not use my voting pattern in my defense, but it is fair game for my prosecution.

Where's the rest of these notes?

right in front of me. you'll have to ask better questions than that.

As an aside, I really am just sad to see "Volk is REALLY GOOD AT THE GAME SO LYNCH HIM KTHX" as part of the rationale for this debacle.

i hope this does not refer to me, because that would make you a liar. all of the arguments about volkan are being explained in full. you and volkan just choose not to accept others rationale.

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really? condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself? how would you define that?

[vollkan]

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really? condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself? how would you define that?

Answer the goddamn question.

On a more pleasant note, I am pleased to announce that Death Note Mafia has finally ended with vollkan being confirmed as town (lost, sadly, but I lasted until endgame). I refer to this game for a few reasons:
1) Recent town self-vote (and I received the argument there that "this particular gambit was "inherently flawed" because it is "based on being suspicious of people who question the logic behind a trap or experiment" - just as I did here)
2) I am forced to bang on about subjectivity
3) I get accused of OMGUS for voting the person who gave crappy reasons for suspecting me for self-voting, and make the same argument I did here
4) It might pay for some of those who object to my play style here to have a look there and see if there is actually any difference (especially early game when I was under attack; late game I managed to semi-confirm myself and so things got easier)

[mykonian]

denying proof is the wrong term: I meant giving a statement, and by some construction say that proof is not needed (for example "it should be obvious that vollkan is scum, because he has the longest posts in the game"). You probably have a better word for it. English is not my first language, the above comes from that.

From the first post where you reacted on vollkan, I have never given any example where you were strawmanning, and I have never given the intention to look for it. You could have known that from the first post you reacted on, but it really had to take this long. Now you have first made my point seem too strong, you attacked me hard on the fact that I used such lables, and now suddenly you get back to that post, and tells everyone my point was easily defendable. "well, myko, why attack with it like it is strong?". When I restate what I posted there: "backpedaling". Vollkan, you are setting me up here.

You are cleverly putting me in to the defensive, and while you weren't really on my scumlist, let's see what happens now:

unvote vote vollkan

. Why play your game and get defensive, if I can just disagree with you and let town decide about the mess you are making here.

[don_johnson]

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really?

condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself

? how would you define that?

Answer the goddamn question.

see if you can find it...

[vollkan]

denying proof is the wrong term

I'm noticing a pattern here

I meant giving a statement, and by some construction say that proof is not needed (for example "it should be obvious that vollkan is scum, because he has the longest posts in the game"). You probably have a better word for it. English is not my first language, the above comes from that.

The best English word for it is probably "assertion" or the phrase "unsubstantiated claim"

Anyway, where specifically have I done that?

From the first post where you reacted on vollkan, I have never given any example where you were strawmanning, and I have never given the intention to look for it. You could have known that from the first post you reacted on, but it really had to take this long. Now you have first made my point seem too strong, you attacked me hard on the fact that I used such lables, and now suddenly you get back to that post, and tells everyone my point was easily defendable. "well, myko, why attack with it like it is strong?". When I restate what I posted there: "backpedaling". Vollkan, you are setting me up here.

You endorsed an accusation against me because of a "feeling" saying you believed. I then pressed you and you backflipped saying that you *COULD* believe it, despite admitting you hadn't seen any evidence.

IF you did not have reasons to believe it, you should not have made any endorsing noises at all.

You are cleverly putting me in to the defensive

See, that's an assertion. The word "cleverly" implies some deliberate strategem to my actions.

And

I am now at L-1

. I'll wait for more people to respond to our exchange before claiming.

[vollkan]

what was that phrase again, "craplogic"? yeah, that was it... i see, when you do it its acceptable, when someone else does it you call it cherrypicking. got it.

So, where specifically are you charging me with being hypocritical? Post numbers please.

post 658 contains "cherrypicking" and "strawmanning".

Okay, good. Now, how am I being hypocritical?

really?

condemning me for cherrypicking, then doing it yourself

? how would you define that?

Answer the goddamn question.

see if you can find it...

Yes, I know that is what you meant. You've identified the post, now explain how I was being hypocritical.

(IOW: I am trying to narrow this down from general assertions by forcing you to identify a post and now I want you to explain the accusation in light of that post)