Mini 707: Cops and Robbers Mafia (Game Over)

[charter]

Vote Count:

Fuzzyman - 2 (corporate, Green Crayons)
Green Crayons - 1 (Empking)

Empking - 3 (Fuzzyman, crywolf20084, mykonian)

Not Voting: (3)

Mizzy
Ether
q21

With 9 alive, it takes 5 to lynch!

[Mizzy]

No, you're not scum because you believe in meta. In fact corporate's lack of such a belief is part of why he's scum. What I meant to get across is that you're trying to convince people of things that aren't there.

Okay, this doesn't make any sense at all.

Firstly, meta information from finished games can be a huge help to current games, especially to show deviations in behavior. Using meta is a null-tell, it has nothing to do at all with whether or not someone is town or scum. If anything, using meta information is more useful to town since most of the time, people play as town, it can give a good base of knowledge for how someone might play as town and point out deviations.

Secondly, you're not saying things that match up. First we're discussing strawmanning and then meta and now you're saying that someone is scummy for using meta and that at the same time, someone else is scummy for not using meta?

Meta and the belief (or disbelief) thereof has nothing to do with role or alignment. Show how what he is trying to convince people of doesn't exist without using horrible blanket statements that aren't true, please.

[Fuzzyman]

Once more, I never meant to speak about meta in the first place. To my knowledge, Empking hasn't said a thing about it either. I was trying to state that I believed him to be trying to manipulate others, using untrue ideas.

Instances during which I think he has done this are:

• 1. Emp stating that GC was strawmanning.
  2. Emp stating that he had given reason to believe that Ether was not really town (Inferred).
  3. Emp stating that I had stated that he had been on GC since his first post.

[Mizzy]

• 1. Emp stating that GC was strawmanning.
  2. Emp stating that he had given reason to believe that Ether was not really town (Inferred).
  3. Emp stating that I had stated that he had been on GC since his first post.

I suppose I can kind of, maybe, see where you are coming from. The best way to show that is to show/quote the post you think he was trying to manipulate and then show a post or 2 that show what the truth of the matter was. You can really only prove manipulation by showing an intent to alter truths.

[Empking]

Once more, I never meant to speak about meta in the first place. To my knowledge, Empking hasn't said a thing about it either. I was trying to state that I believed him to be trying to manipulate others, using untrue ideas.

Instances during which I think he has done this are:

• 1. Emp stating that GC was strawmanning.

Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.

2. Emp stating that he had given reason to believe that Ether was not really town (Inferred).

Believing with meta, isn't scummy.
3. Emp stating that I had stated that he had been on GC since his first post. [/list][/quote]

When did I state that?

[Fuzzyman]

Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.

He mistakenly believed you to be using it.

Believing with meta, isn't scummy.

Your suspicion of Ether began with your first post. You did not mention meta in your first post.

When did I state that?

Your post 725.

[Empking]

Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.

He mistakenly believed you to be using it.

Any actual evidence of that? It looks to me that you're saying "GC is town. Therefore everything he does is either towny or a mistake."

(Note you never used those words.)

Believing with meta, isn't scummy.

Your suspicion of Ether began with your first post. You did not mention meta in your first post.

I don't look at meta till its presented for me. Is that scummy?

When did I state that?

Your post 725.

I dsaid that was the case, not that you said it.

[Fuzzyman]

Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.

He mistakenly believed you to be using it.

Any actual evidence of that? It looks to me that you're saying "GC is town. Therefore everything he does is either towny or a mistake."

(Note you never used those words.)

True or False? GC spoke truthfully in post 339. I personally believe we have no reason to believe that he isn't, assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty.

Believing with meta, isn't scummy.

Your suspicion of Ether began with your first post. You did not mention meta in your first post.

I don't look at meta till its presented for me. Is that scummy?

That is not scummy, but you diverge from the main point. When you said, "Believing with meta, isn't scummy," I interpreted it to mean that you had used meta in your original suspicions against Ether. If you meant something else, let us know.

When did I state that?

Your post 725.

I dsaid that was the case, not that you said it.

Yet you directed the question of whether or not you had mentioned GC in your first post at

me

.

[Empking]

Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.

He mistakenly believed you to be using it.

Any actual evidence of that? It looks to me that you're saying "GC is town. Therefore everything he does is either towny or a mistake."

(Note you never used those words.)

True or False? GC spoke truthfully in post 339. I personally believe we have no reason to believe that he isn't, assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty.

I'm thinking false.

I don't think the fact that we disagree with "assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty." theory is worthy of a vote from either of us.

Believing with meta, isn't scummy.

Your suspicion of Ether began with your first post. You did not mention meta in your first post.

I don't look at meta till its presented for me. Is that scummy?

That is not scummy, but you diverge from the main point. When you said, "Believing with meta, isn't scummy," I interpreted it to mean that you had used meta in your original suspicions against Ether. If you meant something else, let us know.

I was saying that I changed my opinion due to meta. Sorry, if I was the cause of any confusion.

When did I state that?

Your post 725.

I dsaid that was the case, not that you said it.

Yet you directed the question of whether or not you had mentioned GC in your first post at

me

.

Two things.
1. I was under the impression that, that was everyody's case.
2. Even if it wasn't, you saying it was not true was more powerful than me saying it was false. So, I was hoping that CW would re-evaluate her vote.

[Fuzzyman]

Arguing against the too townie fallacy, when nobody mentioned it, is strawmanning.

He mistakenly believed you to be using it.

Any actual evidence of that? It looks to me that you're saying "GC is town. Therefore everything he does is either towny or a mistake."

(Note you never used those words.)

True or False? GC spoke truthfully in post 339. I personally believe we have no reason to believe that he isn't, assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty.

I'm thinking false.

I don't think the fact that we disagree with "assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty." theory is worthy of a vote from either of us.

Okay. I guess we're at an impasse for this one, atm. You're cool here.

Believing with meta, isn't scummy.

Your suspicion of Ether began with your first post. You did not mention meta in your first post.

I don't look at meta till its presented for me. Is that scummy?

That is not scummy, but you diverge from the main point. When you said, "Believing with meta, isn't scummy," I interpreted it to mean that you had used meta in your original suspicions against Ether. If you meant something else, let us know.

I was saying that I changed my opinion due to meta. Sorry, if I was the cause of any confusion.[/quote]

If it's not too much trouble, could we see what exactly it was that switched your decision?

When did I state that?

Your post 725.

I dsaid that was the case, not that you said it.

Yet you directed the question of whether or not you had mentioned GC in your first post at

me

.

Two things.
1. I was under the impression that, that was everyody's case.
2. Even if it wasn't, you saying it was not true was more powerful than me saying it was false. So, I was hoping that CW would re-evaluate her vote.

[/quote]

1. I don't like how you think of people voting you as a group, as opposed to a bunch of individuals, each with slightly differing reasons to be on you. Your hostility towards this group makes you seem scummy.

2. So you used me to get a vote off of yourself? Not that I would be really offended or anything, but pick your arguments wisely.

[Empking]

vote: Simpor

, yeah.

Crywolf, if you're still going back and forth on me I'm going to need those thoughts you promised.

Fuzzyman, which of Simpor's points did you actually like? I did

not

restate the same reasons over and over, and I do not believe Simpor has ever successfully countered a single one.

Empking's case against me is also absolutely beyond my understanding; rather than deconstruct it, let's apply a bit of meta. Filter my posts in Pick Your Poison 3. These two posts in particular should be good examples of my rampant egotism.

Third Point.

1. Am I acting overly hostile? I just presumed that if somebody disagreed with CW's points, they'd have pointed it out.

2. If you're both town, its for your benefit to help me point out false argument.

[Fuzzyman]

Agreed and Agreed. You've just earned an

unvote

.

[q21]

Wow. Emp's made more sense on this last page than he has throughout the entire game. For that, and possibly the fact that I haven't had to deal with him for a week and a half, I've shifted closer to just not liking his style than thinking he's scum - he is still high on the list of people I'd be happy to lynch though.

I'm going to

Vote Fuzzy

.

GC's logic in 701 is good, but for me the main reason that sticks out in my mind is his hopping from Corp to Simp toward the end of day 1. Just felt wrong, like he didn't really care who went down.

[Fuzzyman]

Meh. Can't really blame ya. I need to work on clarity/decisiveness.

I will now begin to reread q21 and crywolf.

[corporate]

back from vacation.

[mykonian]

yay, quote piramids.

I have actually read them. I'm happy with the play of fuzzy today Let's see if he can keep it up.

[Empking]

Fuzzy has convinced me that he's likely an innocent. GC has not.

[mykonian]

he could hardly convince you, as he is not here.

[Fuzzyman]

back from vacation.

Uhh... Welcome back, for now. You never told us where you were going, and charter is currently looking for a replacement.

[Green Crayons]

I like how Fuzz goes from super hard-line against Emp (from the very moment Emp joined the game) and then when he realizes his stances are crap he does an aboutface, shifts his positions and becomes conciliatory.

And that somehow convinces Emp. It reeks of scum abandoning a bad wagon.


My vote stands (and I'm back from North Carolina).

[Mizzy]

I like how Fuzz goes from super hard-line against Emp (from the very moment Emp joined the game) and then when he realizes his stances are crap he does an aboutface, shifts his positions and becomes conciliatory.

I would much rather have someone go, "Oh, damn, my case is crap. Sorry, I take it back." then have someone continue to argue a bad case. And I would also much rather have the other person go, "Oh, good, I'm glad you saw the light." then have a passive-aggressive OMGUS bonanza.

So let me ask this, GC:

Why does your brain yell "scum abandoning a bad wagon" instead of "potential distancing" or "good, no more townie squabbles"? Scum aren't the only people who abandon bad wagons. Hell, if

anyone

abandons a bad wagon, is that anything but good?

[Green Crayons]

Not quite sure why you're bolding. Nobody has shown an inability to address points made to them.

I would much rather have someone go, "Oh, damn, my case is crap. Sorry, I take it back." then have someone continue to argue a bad case.

Except that isn't what has happened here. Nor how I described this situation. Let me show you details:

Once more, I never meant to speak about meta in the first place.

He "didn't mean" to talk about meta, but he did and it didn't play out well for him. Now he's backtracking and repositioning. There's a difference between doing this and saying "I was wrong." He's saying "I wasn't wrong because I didn't mean to do X."

I personally believe we have no reason to believe that he isn't, assuming that we're playing innocent until proven guilty.

This reads: "My position is X. X is right. Oh, unless if we're not going to assume Y, which is what I'm assuming, in which case I can see how X might be wrong." This epiphany comes so sudden and shockingly stilted it screams as scum looking to wiggle their way out of not only this single argument, but their larger position in the game. From the moment Emp stepped into the game Fuzz has been all over him like white on rice, repeatedly "coming to my defense" against whatever current issue Emp had with me (and in doing so breaking Fuzz' own stigma against players coming to others defenses and in doing so being a big fat hypocrite). And with this right here, he's suddenly undercutting the long and plentiful history of his blind, unhelpful and non-constructive attack against Emp because it's like he suddenly realizes that it just doesn't fly and he's got to abandon ship.

1. Am I acting overly hostile? I just presumed that if somebody disagreed with CW's points, they'd have pointed it out.

2. If you're both town, its for your benefit to help me point out false argument.

Agreed and Agreed. You've just earned an unvote.

These two points don't negate the rest of Emp's universe of failings - which was the reason for Fuzz's vote in the first place. It looks like Fuzz is looking for an excuse to unvote because he sees that even if other people think Emp is a certified nutball they don't automatically think he's also scum/needs to be lynched and so this wagon isn't going to be the successful town-lynch he was originally hoping for when he put his vote on Emp.

And I would also much rather have the other person go, "Oh, good, I'm glad you saw the light." then have a passive-aggressive OMGUS bonanza.

So you would rather take people at their word than reading into what they're saying? Also, I threw this criticism against Emp in here to further underline his blind adherence to his flawed suspicions against me as juxtaposed against his sudden disregard of his legitimate suspicions against Fuzz.

So let me ask this, GC: Why does your brain yell "scum abandoning a bad wagon" instead of "potential distancing" or "good, no more townie squabbles"? Scum aren't the only people who abandon bad wagons. Hell, if anyone abandons a bad wagon, is that anything but good?

Why does your brain yell

Because it's annoying and wants to be listened to.

"scum abandoning a bad wagon"

Because I have already explained why I think Fuzz is scum and the wagon against Emp is bad.

instead of "potential distancing"

Because I don't think Emp is scum. I do think Fuzz is scum. And what Fuzz is doing isn't distancing - he's doing the exact opposite in that he's negating a previous instances of his "distancing" from/attacking of Emp.

or "good, no more townie squabbles"?

Because I think Fuzz is scum as previously mentioned, discussed and explained.

Scum aren't the only people who abandon bad wagons.

You're right, but I didn't extrapolate from these last two pages that Fuzz must be scum and Emp must be town. Those are alignments I already had in mind for these two players, and with those alignments in mind the interaction between these two accurately reflects my beliefs as to their alignments. This play helps confirm my already established notions of their respective roles.

Hell, if anyone abandons a bad wagon, is that anything but good?

Anyone can join or abandon a good or bad wagon whenever they so desire. But just because someone hops off a bad wagon or joins a good wagon doesn't mean that their actions are exempt of criticism or suspicion. Why would you believe that this type of action would be exempt?

[Mizzy]

Not quite sure why you're bolding. Nobody has shown an inability to address points made to them.

Habit.

Once more, I never meant to speak about meta in the first place.

He "didn't mean" to talk about meta, but he did and it didn't play out well for him. Now he's backtracking and repositioning. There's a difference between doing this and saying "I was wrong." He's saying "I wasn't wrong because I didn't mean to do X."

Ah, okay, I can see your point here.

This epiphany comes so sudden and shockingly stilted it screams as scum looking to wiggle their way out of not only this single argument, but their larger position in the game.

It more screams to me, "I'm not paying attention and I have no idea what the fuck I'm saying." I suppose, to me, Fuzz hasn't played the smartest or the best (sorry Fuzz, no offense) and I'm having a hard time deciding if he is just town trying to fix a mistake or if he's what you see, i.e. scum trying to fix a mistake.

These two points don't negate the rest of Emp's universe of failings - which was the reason for Fuzz's vote in the first place. It looks like Fuzz is looking for an excuse to unvote because he sees that even if other people think Emp is a certified nutball they don't automatically think he's also scum/needs to be lynched and so this wagon isn't going to be the successful town-lynch he was originally hoping for when he put his vote on Emp.

I can see that, too. I think, though, that watching what Fuzz does next will be even more telling than what he has done already.

So you would rather take people at their word than reading into what they're saying? Also, I threw this criticism against Emp in here to further underline his blind adherence to his flawed suspicions against me as juxtaposed against his sudden disregard of his legitimate suspicions against Fuzz.

No, what I want are people to realize when they have done something moronic than to stick with the moronic thing. It was a comment in general, not just about what's going on.

Because I have already explained why I think Fuzz is scum and the wagon against Emp is bad.

I see (feel?) more of a Fuzz-wagon in general than I do an Emp-wagon.

My last comment about wagons was more a conversational piece and not really to do with the current situation either, I should have put a note in but I hit POSTPOSTPOST too fast

Last question, which is hypothetical and while I prefer you answer, you don't have to:

If Fuzzy gets lynched and flips town, what should be done next?

[crywolf20084]

Crazy week over. Catching up tonight after work and tomorrow. (Don't work. )

[corporate]

back from vacation.

Uhh... Welcome back, for now. You never told us where you were going, and charter is currently looking for a replacement.

i dont need a replacement, just a bit of time to catch up.

i didnt tell you where i was going because i was going to have my laptop. but my friend droped it and it broke. so now i only have access from work.