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

[SpyreX]

Note: I'm taking a little breather on my V/LA - not having my computer available makes dealing with this hard. It's gettin under my skin some and thats no way to spend my vacation. So, takin a step back.

Merry Christmas all.

[Rage]

Vote Count - Day 1

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

don_johnson - 2 (mykonian, Spyrex)
orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 0 ()

mykonian - 3 (mrfixij, vollkan, Ectomancer)

springlullaby - 0 ()
Ectomancer - 0 ()

vollkan - 3 (don_johnson, orangepenguin, springlullaby)

SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 2 (ortolan, TDC)

Vollkan

and

mykonian

are at L-3, 3 votes away from a lynch.

------
I have decided to wait out vacation time from all players. No players will be replaced this holiday season unless they asked to be replaced or need to be.

I've also decided to be lenient with the whole Unvote then Vote thing. As long as whatever you wish to do is

bolded

, I will understand what you wish to do.

[SpyreX]

One last little quip about this lynch for information:

The postulate is that Volkan and I must be of the same alignment because we have shown agreement Day 1 - be it scum or town.

So, would not a corollary to this be that two players that have absolutely no agreement be of different alignments?

Based on that, why not get lynched DJ? Since you and I could not agree that the sun would come up tomorrow at this point if you were town wouldn't that make me scum?

(I still want you hung, but see how silly this train of thought is?)

[don_johnson]

One last little quip about this lynch for information:

The postulate is that Volkan and I must be of the same alignment because we have shown agreement Day 1 - be it scum or town.

So, would not a corollary to this be that two players that have absolutely no agreement be of different alignments?

Based on that, why not get lynched DJ? Since you and I could not agree that the sun would come up tomorrow at this point if you were town wouldn't that make me scum?

(I still want you hung, but see how silly this train of thought is?)

duly noted. but i stated that these were my opinions. everyone is going to have their own opinions about the information gained from a lynch. i see a corollary between the two of you. i am not trying to tell everyone that my theory is absolute. for instance: if volkan is lynched and flips scum then you would jump to the top of my list. that doesn't make you scum, just puts you at the top of my list. if volkan flips town, you go to the bottom. the bottom of

my

list. it doesn't make you town. what everyone else gleans off of the lynch is their own choice. i will be responding to ecto's latest question soon, but i don't have time now. i am realizing that i am not as good at explaining myself as i think. sorry for that. happy holidays...

[orangepenguin]

Eh, still not quite convinced vollkan is not scum, but don is just convincing me more and more that he is scum. ("it was just a gambit"). I am going to

unvote

vollkan, getting him out of L-3. I don't like the mykonian lynch myself, so I am just going to go ahead and vote

don_johnson

and putting him at L-3.

I think him pairing vollkan and Spyrex is funny, considering I fell into that trap in another game, where the scum were using Spyrex just to turn around later, and lynch because of it. (Llamafluff, remember Spyrex?) I don't think their alignments corrolate with eachother at all. I think a you/vollkan pairing is a lot more likely and probable than a spyrex/vollkan pairing, to be honest with you.

[orangepenguin]

Oops - that should be

vote: don johnson

.

(forgot to put vote in the bold)

[vollkan]

I indeed think you did that deliberately. The sentence use the word "feel", not think, know, etc. It was already weakened, and showed what my view, based on only my feelings, on you was. The word feel acts as a marker that the sentence given includes a very weak point.

You, however, first say that it is a big point. Not entirely changing my point, but only shifting it in strength (I don't dare to call it strawmanning anymore). Then, after a few posts arguing you say triomphant: That big point in his post is based on almost nothing, therefore myk must be scum!

For just a moment, abandon the presumption that I am scum deliberately out to trap you.

Now, let's look at the first thing you said:

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?

You admit you hadn't looked at the point. If you are town, that means you were prepared in this point to take something which another player (ie. potential scum) had said regarding another player on faith (ie. belief without evidence). You were very clear "I believe him on that".

You then proceed to justify yourself saying you "felt" it before (this is a proper example of subjectivity. How can I possibly be expected to argue against what you

feel

about me?). You then say you don't think voll-scum is too good for strawmanning - well, this much is true. If voll-scum thought he could get away with strawmanning then he would do it. That's hardly a profound insight.

Let's proceed to post number 2, after I push you:

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.

You say here that you "think" I "could" have strawmaned and that you "could believe it". The shift in language is substantial, and not merely semantic. In post 1, you state actual belief, and you go on to assert that you yourself "felt" that I had done it. The fact you would present this as me deliberately trying to entrap you only makes this worse. Town-vollkan's responsibility is to catch scum. What better way to catch scum than to question somebody about a questoinable claim? If that person then demonstrates inconsistency and backpedalling, the only rational response from town-vollkan is to take it as a black mark against that person.

And, of course, we also have the way you retreat from the word "strawmanning"

Now, we move to post number 3:

Just to restate: I did believe don, just because I felt, and attacked you before, on subjective plays. I wouldn't think you too good for a little manipulation of the opponents argument.

Which is basically a restatement of position 1, meaning we have come full circle.

yes, caught up. still trying to sift through a ton of information. my vote was to prove a point. the point was that my voting pattern should be as relevant as anyone elses. THAT VOTING PATTERNS ARE RELEVANT. they are actually some of the ONLY concrete evidence we leave behind as our posts are subject to much more opinion and conjecture.

Again,
1) Nobody had claimed that voting patterns were not relevant
2) How the hell did your professed "gambit" (to bastardise the term) achieve this end? Failing that, how did you intend for it to achieve the end?

i was condemned for bringing a case against spyrex. why? because it was weak and i could not entirely explain my reasoning in terms that spyrex and volkan found acceptable. i found spyrex's play early on in this thread as "dodgy", and in reading his posts i felt like he was dodging questions and accusations while pointing fingers. he calls it scumhunting. i disagreed. in your own experience with him you found it extremely frustrating to get information out of him. i have not once said that i shouldn't be held accountable for a weak case. my point with the voting is that there were other facts in my argument with spyrex that were systematically avoided and decreed as irrelevant.

No. Because it was craplogic and you dodged questions.

As for the Spyrex scumhunting thing, let me repeat things as bluntly as possible:
1) Spyrex made a post containing his opinion on people
2) If Spyrex is town, that opinion is scumhunting. If Spyrex is scum, that opinion is fake scumhunting.
3) Any person who is not within Spyrex's head only has the bare words.
4) You say you "don't believe he is scumhunting" and, thus, he is scummy.
5) However, your logic there is completely circular. The only way Spyrex could not have been scumhunting is if he was scum.

IOW, you're basically saying: "Spyrex is scumy for not scumhunting, and the reason he wasn't scumhunting is because he was scum"

To analogise: "God exists because the Bible is true; and the Bible is true because it is the word of God". Circular bullshit. The Bible can only be "the word of God" if you proceed from a presumption that God exists. Ditto, Spyrex is only scummy for not scumhunting if you proceed from the presumption that he is scum.

volkan further pushed that point on me when i brought it up in my defense, so i felt inclined to see how he would feel if i voted for him. in his subsequent reaction i feel i really got a handle on what i have been referring to as his "circular logic".

For all this talk about my "circular logic", you've yet to actually present an example. It seems to just be your latest "catch-phrase" attack on me, after I showed the others were all BS.

i am not the best talker in this group and do not present my thoughts in a way he finds acceptable, but when i have approached him with evidence, it is summarily dismissed. maybe i'm not using terms correctly, but it doesn't matter how i explain it, volkan and spyrex think i am scum and therefore interpret everything i do as scummy even when its not

If you present weak arguments, craplogic, and BS accusations, what are we meant to think?

there is one major fact which has been summarily dismissed in my defense:

i never voted for spyrex. in fact, my entire reason for posting was to draw attention to the fact that he was asking for a deadline which i felt extremely premature.

how can someone so immersed in mafia theory ignore this fact? you can say you think dj is scum, but to say a hundred percent, based on the fact that he presented one weak case in the face of a deadline? it is illogical. i am accused of backpedaling, but how else is one to react under such an onslaught of insults and dismissal of evidence. heres my take right now

Wow. Good point. You might as well have said:

there is one major fact which has been summarily dismissed in my defense:

i posted in english

I'm not interested in the fact you didn't vote. I am interested in your reasons. Sure, voting patterns are relevant, but the absence of vote doesn't in any exculpate you.

It's not "one weak case". And I am not "a hundred percent" sure you are scum.

How is one meant to react? By defending one's original point and explaining its merits, or by coming out and admitting error straight off the bat.

because scum volkan=scum spyrex and town volkan=town spyrex. if you haven't seen the intense buddying up and hand holding going on between these two then you are not paying any attention. i put volkan ahead of spyrex because i believe him to be scummier due to his circular logic, evidence denial, and scummy behavior(the misplaced post is at the top of my list. i don't buy it.)
.

This is complete crap. I could be scum that has pulled the wool over town-Spyrex's eyes. Spyrex could be scum trying to suck up to me, knowing that if I am lynched he will look good for supporting me. It's actually far more common for scum to distance/bus each other than it is for scum to actively defend each other (not that that makes voll&spyrex scum less likely, given the wifomic nature of that point, but it simply refutes the idea that scum usually look like pals)

Oh and,

@DJ: ANSWER ECTO'S POST 774

[SpyreX]

If you've pulled the wool, you have done a great job on me. Funny how making sense does that.

<3.

[mykonian]

@vollkan

Now we are getting somewhere!

The statement I placed there was not strong: we agree
vollkan could use strawmanning (probably just not enough to get caught):we agree
vollkan uses subjective argumentation, uses sentences with the only use of getting the town to look positive at him: We don't agree. But on that moment, and still, I think I have found them
There is a link between subjectivity (playing with the words you use to tip the discussion in your favor), and strawmanning (playing with the argument of the opponent, to tip the discussion in your favor). I don't know if we agree here.

The last point is the only point you seem to miss in that whole business. I assumed, and still assume, that a person that handles his language well enough to use subjective language and manages to get an positive image (while you don't deserve it, as it is earned by subjective language), would also use strawmanning, maybe not in the clearest way, as he could try to conceal it. This is the problem that is left.

[don_johnson]

Oh and,

@DJ: ANSWER ECTO'S POST 774

sorry. i was celebrating christmas. haven't had a chance yet. i even mentioned that previously, but whatever.

Ok, this is still not showing

how

you proved your point. Did you vote only to prove a point? Specifically, what about you voting for Vollkan shows that voting patterns are relevant? I'm not getting this. Do you think Vollkan is town and your vote on him was scummy...or...what? I understand that you are going on and on about voting patterns being relevant, yeah yeah, we get that, please go on. How do you apply that specifically to what you did, and where do I see your successful application of it?

did i vote only to prove a point? first vote, yes, second vote, no

what about voting for volkan shows that voting patterns are relevant? if you believe that voting patterns are relevant then this would prove nothing to you. my motivation for this course of action was this post by volkan, refuting a portion of my defense(bolded is add on):

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

(regarding spyrex)

Irrelevant.

volkan seems to be explaining that whether or not i voted has no bearing on this case. i can't disagree any more than i do. why? because this is a game in which we have very little quantifiable evidence. start a spreadsheet on a game of mafia and track evidence. what would you track? when one player attacks another? how could you? someones attitude and tone in posting is completely subjective. volkan proved that with his "gut feeling" about fixijj. by saying he had a "gut" feeling he elicited in other player(s) different interpretations of what that meant. if you read it strictly for what it is, their is no mention of volkan finding fixijj scummy, but someone interpreted it that way. so it is not quantifiable to all, only to those who choose to intepret the post. so now let's read this:

You said you have "evidence" that would out a scum based on voting patterns. You, then, gave none of this mystical evidence. The reason for doing this is that said mystical evidence isn't there - and you are scum trying to hang on by a thread. Because you are scum.

this is a lie. sure, spyrex admitted that he "misread" my original post and that is an entirely reasonable excuse. but if we interpret things the volkan wants us to and seems to demand us to then this is a lie. there is no gray area. but i won't condemn him. posts and opinions are entirely subjective. spyrex produced what he believed to be evidence of me lying, however, that evidence was a quote wall of questions that i had either

thought

i had answered, or that i thought were rhetorical in nature. considering the daunting task of replacing into this game and the fact that i had posted suspicions based on five or six pages of reading and had not yet caught up with the entire thread, i deem these reasonable answers. but that's besides the point. it is all besides the point. what we believe is subjective to our interpretation of events. though votes can be interpreted, they are one of the only QUANTIFIABLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE that exist in the game of mafia.

what can we keep track of? 1) lynches and nk's. they give us role revelations and help us narrow down our lynch choice.

2) votes: votes are the only thing a mod keeps track of during the day. it is the only piece of traceable evidence that exists in the game of mafia. we have already realized through Spyrex's lie, that lies do not equal scum(unless spyrex wants to admit to being scum). also, unless he wants to admit to being scum then we must accept that misreading, misposting, or otherwise misunderstanding another players position is poor play, but not necessarily lynchworthy or in any way proof that someone is scum. if you go by timing then i would have to contend that spyrex's lie is much more damning and scummy BECAUSE it came at a time when i am actually near the top of the lynching list(while his vote is on me as well). but i digress, that is just my opinion.

so what the hell are you talking about, dj? this:

votes are always relevant. yes they are open to interpretation, but NEVER irrelevant. they indicate quantifiable intent to lynch. suspicions do not. you can interpret actions as scummy, but that does not make them so.

i cannot explain everyones votes, but i can track them which makes them evidence. which makes voting relevant.

so why am i voting for volkan now? for this very reason:

volkan has stood behind a wall of logic this entire game. he has attacked more than just me with the accusation of using "craplogic". his posts are logical and he prides himself in his ability to differentiate between what is "real" and what is "crap". he has even agreed that "voting patterns are relevant". so why in this "land of logic" does he dismiss

my

voting pattern? it doesn't indicate that i am town, and it surely doesn't indicate that i am scum, but for it to be "irrelevant" to a case against me is simply

inconsistent

with "logical" volkan(i'm sure he has an answer). i cast suspicion on spyrex for "feelings" i had about his play, but all of the logical evidence i have produced in my defense has been "dismissed".

okay, so why volkan over mykonian? because i believe this to be a game that is entrenched in mathematics and probability. we can suspect scum all we want, but suspicions are fallible as we have already shown with spyrex's lie that posts are fallible, so all the suspecting in the world will not defeat math.

the odds are that whoever we lynch is going to flip town.

this is a mathematical truth that any logical player must accept. the only people who know anything other than their own role 100% on day 1 are mafia. we still have NO CONFIRMATION that we have town masons, so we cannot deny the math. mykonian has what seems to me a scummy voting pattern. he has been

consistently

erratic and has earned a place on top of

my

scum list. however, volkan's denial of my voting pattern being relevant to my defense is a major inconsistency in his theory driven meta. so here we go ecto, hit that button on the way back (cherry picking)machine:

Also, how on earth can you justifying treating something as generally scummy without regard for the particular circumstances?

the timing of my entrance into this game, the fact that i did so to prevent a deadline, and the fact that i never voted and admitted almost three posts into the argument that my case was weak and that i actually didn't find evidence to substantiate my suspicions are some pretty damn PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES that are being written off in my defense.

do i think volkan is town and my vote on him is scummy? i think he is scum but must accept that the odds say he's town. my vote on him is not scummy. my first vote i will equate to his initial "self-vote". i used it to draw attention to my voting pattern and whether or not its relevant. everyone seems to be agreeing that patterns are relevant so my initial vote did nothing but spur discussion.

where is my successful application? of what, tracking voting patterns? not sure what you mean here. i am hoping to build a spreadsheet of the votes in this thread(and others) to actually design a "workable" theory, however, in this game i believe that looking at voting patterns will be extremely helpful. in short, i have not successfully applied my theory. i have plans, but the ensuing discussion from my vote has led me here. much like volkan's self vote, i am not sure how much more of this theory deserves to be discussed in this thread or in a "theory forum" but i will be clear: my vote on volkan is not based solely on his voting history. the major factor in my recent vote is the glaring inconsistency i see in his prosecution of me. his abandonment of basic logic like mathematics and the relevance of my vote to my situation. these i see as inconsistent to his meta which he so profoundly preaches.

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

noteworthy tidbit: has anyone bothered to check on who was up for a lynch when spyrex asked for a deadline and i intervened? SL, with 3 votes, and both spyrex and volkan on the wagon. relevant? hmmmm...

[don_johnson]

ebwop: sorry, i do realize that if op and ort are telling the truth about their role pms then they would know more than just their

own

roles in a game, and would not be scum. i maintain, however, that at this point they are not confirmed and that this is directly relevant to the mathematics of this game.

[Ectomancer]

Overall a good post Don. There are some minor things that I could go after, but I'm not going to nitpick.

In the interest of moving this game along, and (no offense Vollkan) in an attempt to clear the clutter should this result in a lynch, I'm going to put Vollkan at L-2 and request a claim.

@Everyone else - Please don't give me reason to lynch you tomorrow by hammering before the claim, or even after it before we discuss it.

[don_johnson]

Eh, still not quite convinced vollkan is not scum, but don is just convincing me more and more that he is scum. ("it was just a gambit"). I am going to

unvote

vollkan, getting him out of L-3. I don't like the mykonian lynch myself, so I am just going to go ahead and vote

don_johnson

and putting him at L-3.

op, being one of two (alleged) masons i am puzzled by your vote. if you think i am the best lynch then i would think it would be in your best interest to campaign for it. but why not hold your vote? i would think it would be in town's interest to have the mason's holding the hammer as opposed to those of us who are unconfirmed. putting me at L-3 is rather harmless, but i would like to see a little more thought behind your vote. just because you are a mason doesn't mean you don't have to explain yourself.

I think him pairing vollkan and Spyrex is funny, considering I fell into that trap in another game, where the scum were using Spyrex just to turn around later, and lynch because of it. (Llamafluff, remember Spyrex?) I don't think their alignments corrolate with eachother at all. I think a you/vollkan pairing is a lot more likely and probable than a spyrex/vollkan pairing, to be honest with you.

pairing the two of them is my own take. i don't expect everyone to buy it nor am i trying to set it in stone, its just my feeling. but this:

This is complete crap. I could be scum that has pulled the wool over town-Spyrex's eyes. Spyrex could be scum trying to suck up to me, knowing that if I am lynched he will look good for supporting me. It's actually far more common for scum to distance/bus each other than it is for scum to actively defend each other (not that that makes voll&spyrex scum less likely, given the wifomic nature of that point, but it simply refutes the idea that scum usually look like pals)

refutes nothing. i am glad that volkan is at least seeing the wifomic nature of this statement, but this is a good example of someone denying the mathematics of probablity. this statement is not quantifiable. in

this particular game

there is as much chance of scum buddying up as there is of them bussing each other. the only people who would know any different at this point would be scum.

[SpyreX]

Expect a full synopsis from me after I'm home from the holidays and actually have fully functioning computers at my disposal, but I want to make something very, very clear (this might take a bit).

I never lied. Nor did I say I did.

it is my belief that scum expose themselves through voting. spyrex and volkan argued the subjectivity of their comments with me. it is their right to do so and their subsequent frustration is understandable(as mine should be). it does not change the fact that their opinions are just that: opinions. go ahead and look back in this thread to see who has the most suspicious voting patterns and then get back to me.

You're saying that in looking for the worst voting patterns we will find scum? Based on this, who do you think is scum any why?

i am not going to answer your second question at the present time. interpret that as you wish. i feel confident that at least one mafia player has been exposed.

What bothers me a lot is you've insinuated more than once you have found some magical dirt that will out scum - and, well, why bother talking about it? Why share that and come under scrutiny for it?

You insinuated that, somehow, you have found scum in these voting patterns. Instead of..ohh.. discussing this you have opted to keep your mouth shut about it.

God, I even made it clearer.

You said you have "evidence" that would out a scum based on voting patterns. You, then, gave none of this mystical evidence. The reason for doing this is that said mystical evidence isn't there - and you are scum trying to hang on by a thread. Because you are scum.

Get it?

And if your mystical evidence is that Volk and I tend to move votes together... maybe, get this, its because we've been seeing the same things?

you are misquoting me. you have also misunderstood. i did not speak of evidence of any sort. i said i believed that scum out themselves with their voting patterns and that one may have already exposed himself. i am pushing who i think is the best lynch, based on who i think is scum and who will yield the most information. just because my logic is flawed in your eyes, doesn't make me scum. unlike you, i am not dealing in absolutes because i simply don't see them in this thread on day 1.

After rereading I guess you are right. There is absolutely no mention of evidence. It simply is: scum have outed themselves via voting patterns.

WOAH MY BAD THATS WAY BETTER.

Considering the patterns have no end result yet AND you (of course) haven't defined who was scum based on the patterns (and also who was town) I was putting way too much faith in there being evidence, even bad evidence.

Instead its a statement with no backing that, by nature of the game, is going to probably be true. Good catch.

So, of course he's leaping like a kid in a candy store at the idea that I've "lied".

Maybe my sarcasm didn't get it across well, but - I assumed with a statement like his original he would have evidence to support i - you know, a reason to believe it and a methodology to discuss it within the framework of this game.

Nope, apparently it was simply "Voting patterns may out the scum." with no backing.

So, yes, my "misreading" that he's said so many times in his last post was simply my assuming he wasn't being functionally retarded and just stating a simple postulate of mafia theory without direct credence to this game - evidence, if you will.

Now, with that in mind, he's made the subtle "lying isn't scum" move in that last post a few times. Why is that?

Because he is trying to equate the above to this (paraphrased) exchange we had earlier that is one of the scummiest things he did.

DJ: You have been dodging questions and accusations.
Me: Where? Show me examples.
DJ: You have been dodging them.
Me: I'd really like said examples.
DJ: I already gave them to you.
Me: ...What? You did? Where?
DJ: I'm not going to give them to you AGAIN.
Me: So you are saying, 100%, that you have given e examples of dodging questions and accusations.
DJ: Yep.
Me: That is a bald faced lie.
DJ: Well, I never meant dodging questions. Ohh, and ecto saw it too.
Me: That, again, is another bald faced lie.

That right above is some scummy shit. It has to be swept under the rug and fast. How to do that? Perhaps try to streeetch something said so it looks like I've done the same thing and then make mention of it over and over again... like so:

this is a lie. sure, spyrex admitted that he "misread" my original post and that is an entirely reasonable excuse.

spyrex produced what he believed to be evidence of me lying, however, that evidence was a quote wall of questions that i had either thought i had answered, or that i thought were rhetorical in nature.

we have already realized through Spyrex's lie, that lies do not equal scum(unless spyrex wants to admit to being scum)

if you go by timing then i would have to contend that spyrex's lie is much more damning and scummy BECAUSE it came at a time when i am actually near the top of the lynching list(while his vote is on me as well).

we can suspect scum all we want, but suspicions are fallible as we have already shown with spyrex's lie that posts are fallible, so all the suspecting in the world will not defeat math.

So, yea. I'll give my full set of reasons why DJ is the right lynch when I get home in a few days.

In the meantime - everyone but DJ because, seriously, I'm done arguing directly with you - reread this whole "SpyreX's lie" business and then go and reread what I've stated flatly DJ lied about (and hedged since then, but wth).

I will not support a Volkan lynch. Hell, I don't think I'll support not a DJ lynch - and, DJ, if you're town and you honestly think you answered my "Show me where I was dodging questions" and you REALLY think that my statement is a lie... I dont feel bad getting you lynched. At all.

[don_johnson]

i hope people will read the actual posts and not your synopsis.

i never said i answered your "show me where i was dodging questions bit." i didn't answer it how you wanted me to, but i did answer it. in fact, what i said was that in posting my notes i had said "it seems" like spyrex is dodging questions. when you pressed for evidence i admitted the case was weak. i also have explained that my notes were based on the impressions i got from reading the thread. ecto got a similar impression. just because you made a big production out of your version of the events doesn't make them true. boy, funny how i mention that part about you lieing. its so much different than you beating that horse for like, what, the last ten pages or so?

oh and:

noteworthy tidbit: has anyone bothered to check on who was up for a lynch when spyrex asked for a deadline and i intervened? SL, with 3 votes, and both spyrex and volkan on the wagon. relevant? hmmmm...

do you think i just posted this for shits and giggles. if

you're

town maybe you'll start to open your mind a bit here.

[SpyreX]

I hope they do too. Since it doesn't change how it went at all.

You never said you answered my question? You never said that you answered the questions I asked you? Really?

I've made a "big production" out of it because there was absolutely no town-reason for the lies and backpedaling with me. I will continue to beat that horse until you are dead.

Being asked a direct question and giving an answer that is factually incorrect IS different than my assuming you had actual reasons (or evidence, if you will) for your sweeping statements.

As for your other bit:

I'm not going to respond to half-ass suspicions. If you're saying Volk and I are scum and I asked for a deadline to get SL lynched then just say it. Dont sit there and beat around the bush for it.

And how is backhanded suspicion on me going to get me to "open my mind" you amazing, amazing man.

Just get hung.

[SpyreX]

Ohh and since we brought up math.

I know my alignment. That is the ONLY quantifiable fact I have at this juncture. So, from a base perspective I have a 2/9 chance of lynching scum (assuming normal distribution of scum).

Anything beyond that is assumptions. However, I'll give mine now.

1.) At this point I believe the masons (if you didn't, you would have only one vote choice, really).
--- 2/7 chance.
2.) I am not going to pursue a "lurker" lynch day 1. That knocks off TDC.
--- 2/6 chance.
3.) Fix has softclaimed a power role.
--- 2/5 chance.
4.) I find Volkans play to be pro-town.
--- 2/4 chance.
5.) Ecto has came around enough that I would not push for that lynch currently.
--- 2/3

So, we're left with Mykonian, SL, and DJ.

SL is not in a position to defend herself (although I still would love that lynch).
Mykonian, although having done some things that are questionable, is still not preferable to DJ.

So, for day one, It'd be DJ, SL or Mykonian a distant 3rd - until I get information that makes me adjust my assumptions and/or we are on a different day where other avenues can be pursued.

And, just because I can't help myself: SL was up for lynch when I made my nefarious "deadline" comment. Who came in and deflected right off that case?

(see how stupid backhanded suspicion is)

[don_johnson]

noones pointing the finger at you, funny how you seem to think that everything revolves around you. do i need to reiterate that i have never voted for you?

i am pointing to facts. not conjecture or opinion. it is a fact that yours and volkans voting patterns are similar. it is a fact that after i broke up the deadline, volkan, while still backing you with posts and suspicions in my direction has branched away from voting with you. it is a fact that volkan's math is off. it is also a fact that your math is off. 2/3 is based on your opinion, not in fact. the actual chances are 2/9(assuming 2 scum). it is your opinion that i lied. it is no fact. and no, your alignment is not the

only

quantifiable fact available to you. voting patterns are entirely quantifiable. how can you deny this?

[ortolan]

I want vollkan to claim also. I believe he's been tunneling on dj. Holding off on a vote cause I don't know what the count is.

[vollkan]

In the interest of moving this game along, and (no offense Vollkan) in an attempt to clear the clutter should this result in a lynch, I'm going to put Vollkan at L-2 and request a claim.

I want vollkan to claim also. I believe he's been tunneling on dj. Holding off on a vote cause I don't know what the count is.

I can see this is not going to go away and I will dispose of it up the top of this post to ensure people see it.

CLAIM TIME

I am the Doc.

I have left a few subtle breadcrumbs:

From isolation post 58:

(

ie..

claims should be a sort of "any last words" thing, not a

"I'm a Doc, leave me alone"

thing)

Note the double fullstop after ie and the bolded claim. The double fullstop is a technique I used in Newbie 514 also in a breadcrumb as my kind of subtle "Note this sentence is special"
More recently, in post 99:

Secondly, what makes you think there isn't an investigative role here? Have you ever played a newbie game? They have just 9 plays and some contain cops AND docs (!).

Exclamation mark in parentheses, people?

I know doc claims are notorious, and I also declare that I recently fakeclaimed doc as scum in Iceman Mafia.

@vollkan

Now we are getting somewhere!

The statement I placed there was not strong: we agree
vollkan could use strawmanning (probably just not enough to get caught):we agree
vollkan uses subjective argumentation, uses sentences with the only use of getting the town to look positive at him: We don't agree. But on that moment, and still, I think I have found them
There is a link between subjectivity (playing with the words you use to tip the discussion in your favor), and strawmanning (playing with the argument of the opponent, to tip the discussion in your favor). I don't know if we agree here.

The last point is the only point you seem to miss in that whole business. I assumed, and still assume, that a person that handles his language well enough to use subjective language and manages to get an positive image (while you don't deserve it, as it is earned by subjective language), would also use strawmanning, maybe not in the clearest way, as he could try to conceal it. This is the problem that is left.

Your use of the word "subjective" is completely different to my own.

I also don't agree with your last two points, because I don't think you've established them.

@DJ: For fuck's sake, I have never said that voting patterns are not relevant. Your entire last post is proving a point which I haven't even contested. Reasons are open to manipulation in debate, sure, but they are invaluable as a source of information in scumhunting. If your logic holds, all scum have to do is simply not vote. They can throw around as much bullshit as they want but, because votes "are one of the only QUANTIFIABLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE" they aren't accountable or anything for that bullshit unless they vote on it.

I cannot state my position any more simply than this: Reasons are important. Votes are important. Absence of a vote doesn't negate the importance of reasons.

volkan has stood behind a wall of logic this entire game. he has attacked more than just me with the accusation of using "craplogic". his posts are logical and he prides himself in his ability to differentiate between what is "real" and what is "crap". he has even agreed that "voting patterns are relevant". so why in this "land of logic" does he dismiss my voting pattern? it doesn't indicate that i am town, and it surely doesn't indicate that i am scum, but for it to be "irrelevant" to a case against me is simply inconsistent with "logical" volkan(i'm sure he has an answer). i cast suspicion on spyrex for "feelings" i had about his play, but all of the logical evidence i have produced in my defense has been "dismissed".

No. I have proven you wrong again and again. Once I prove your reasoning wrong, it becomes "craplogic" to me. Saves me trouble of saying "DJ's logic which I have demonstrated is fundamentally flawed".

I haven't dismissed your voting pattern. What I said is that I am not going to ignore your craplogic on Spyrex simply becasue you didn't vote.

the timing of my entrance into this game, the fact that i did so to prevent a deadline, and the fact that i never voted and admitted almost three posts into the argument that my case was weak and that i actually didn't find evidence to substantiate my suspicions are some pretty damn PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES that are being written off in my defense.

Timing of entrance makes mistakes more likely; doesn't provide an excuse for craplogic.

Ditto for deadline.

I've said my piece on not voting.

Admitting your case is weak is irrelevant. There's a distinction between a point being "weak" and it being "crap". A "weak" argument has a valid reason for seeing something as scummy, but not to a degree as would compel serious suspicion (say, ignoring a single question). A "crap" argument has an invalid reason for seeing something as scummy.

refutes nothing. i am glad that volkan is at least seeing the wifomic nature of this statement, but this is a good example of someone denying the mathematics of probablity. this statement is not quantifiable. in this particular game there is as much chance of scum buddying up as there is of them bussing each other. the only people who would know any different at this point would be scum.

Thus making the entire argument about Spyrex and Vollkan being scumbuddies completely wifomic. The hallmark of a scum relationship is not attacking or defending, but inconsistencies - attacks which seem a little too vigorous, defending which seems off, changes of behaviour that just don't fit, etc.

[orangepenguin]

If vollkan is a powerrole (say a doctor, or a cop), why should he claim at this point? He is at L-4, and is hardly in danger of being lynched. He shouldn't claim, unless he feels that he has to.

[vollkan]

If vollkan is a powerrole (say a doctor, or a cop), why should he claim at this point? He is at L-4, and is hardly in danger of being lynched. He shouldn't claim, unless he feels that he has to.

Ecto said he was going to put me at L-2, and Orto said he is only not voting me because he doesn't know the exact count.

If I held off any longer, I risked getting tarred with "refusing to claim", only further inviting a comparison with Iceman mafia.

[ortolan]

Why such aggressive play for a doc?

And why only breadcrumb your role after having been on L-1?

If anyone had a scum hypothesis on you I don't think this claim necessarily proves much to the contrary.

[vollkan]

Why such aggressive play for a doc?

My playstyle should change when I am a doc?

And why only breadcrumb your role after having been on L-1?

I didn't do it early game. When I realised that I was going to likely be in a position whereby I had to claim, it made sense for me to breadcrumb, so it at least looked less spur of the moment.

If anyone had a scum hypothesis on you I don't think this claim necessarily proves much to the contrary.

No, it doesn't. Having said that, it's not much more dubious than somebody else's claim.

[ortolan]

My playstyle should change when I am a doc?

I've already said that, from what I've witnessed, that I think your playstyle is different this game. Being so amazingly ostentatious and getting into extremely complex arguments, if townie, is a pretty good way to get the mafia to night-kill you (unless by tunneling you were actually trying to mislynch a townie so that the mafia would love to keep you alive and let you stay about your night-time protecting unperturbed).

I didn't do it early game. When I realised that I was going to likely be in a position whereby I had to claim, it made sense for me to breadcrumb, so it at least looked less spur of the moment.

Wouldn't the reason be "so that hopefully people would pick up the breadcrumb", rather than "so it looked less spur of the moment"?

No, it doesn't. Having said that, it's not much more dubious than somebody else's claim.

I can't really argue this.

Why do I so far find your arguments re: your claim to be far less convincing than those you could make when you could fall back on the situation of no-one having any game relevant info?