What would you have picked them?
It isn't fishing.You just didn't know at the time when you wrote that that the first who would bold a path would decide which path to take. Instead of reading to look in this game how RS decided which path, you start talking about a possible role of RS. Now tell me how that isn't fishing.
And I don't see how you could have missed the part why RS decided which road.
No, it really isn't. And like I said - I probably did read it - last night. And when I couldn't post right away, I probably forgot. It's really not that important and I really think you're trying to make something out of this that really isn't there. I don't even see the point of it anymore. I doubt anyone else does either.It's printed right up there. And you missed it. The only way how you could have missed it is if you didn't read it. And that's scummy.
Umm... why? That's not scummy, it's a mistake. Those are two totally different things. Like I said, please tell me what advantage I would have in doing that on purpose? It doesn't make any sense.Besides, I find it very scummy that you posted without knowing the exact details.
Ok - uh - at the most it's role speculation, not fishing, and those are two totally different things. I also never asked him to elaborate, which is kind of a requirement for fishing.Then the rolefishing thing, it's not a defence when you say 'it isn't fishing'. Please say why you don't see it as fishing.
My point is that you seem to both doubt that I actually didn't know the rule, and imply that I was rolefishing or speculating - and those two are not compatible.You didn't know yet that the first who would bold a path, would decide the road. At this point, you speculated about a possible role, which could have been true for you at that point. So in the case of not knowing what was going on, who would gain more from your role speculation?
It wouldn't have. Like I said it was an offhand comment that I made before I realized that that role didn't make any sense anyways.So explain to me how talking about a possible role in that set-up would have helped us in that set-up?
Ha I was going to ask you what that avatar was about.Why do you otherwise think that the penguin is forcing me to do stuff I don't want to do?
This post (60) deserves andMM wrote: I'm sorry I mispoke. Defending the move is just as bad as doing it, if not more so. Like Prom King said, it's unlikely scum would actully choose a path this early, but having someone defend the tactics worries me.
This could be interpreted in a couple of different ways. The way I read it is that THIS decision isn't very important, but LATER, SIMILAR decisions will have more of an impact. I can see how you misread it (if you're at fault and not me) but I think you should recognize the plausibility of either interpretation.mod wrote:This decision will not make much of a difference now, though similar decisions may be more potent later.
Yes, but there's another Japanese saying that goes like this:freeko wrote: There is an old japanese saying that goes something like this.
Even the greatest of Tsunamis all startt as just a simple ripple.
No, he said "THIS decision WILL not make much of a difference now." Not MAY, but WILL not. He specifies that THIS decision in particular WILL NOT make a difference, but that later decisions of a similar nature MAY. So my interpretation is certainly more correct. But that is aYour interpretation has a slight possibility of being correct, but he specifically said "The decisions may not make much of a difference now."
I'll agree with you that the decision itself is not important, nor the ramifications that directly result from the decision. I don't agree that the discussion stemming from it is not important.Rhinox wrote: I really want to know why everyone is so uptight about the ramifications of RS picking path C? Its distracting, and is not scum hunting. Its arguing over nothing.
This was me trying to do what you just tried to get us to do in your post - move past the RS decision. Then MM began to attack my comment (falsely, because he was actually the one misquoting the mod, not me). So it seems important to me that MM is attacking me for my case on Kiro. I hate the term "chainsaw defense" but that's what I'm seeing here - he's using bad evidence to attack me and devalue my attack on Kiro.I wrote: It seems like this whole thing is stemming from RS picking a direction... which (I think?) we can all agree to call neutral at this point? Regardless of what we WOULD have picked, RS already picked. And the mod even said it had little bearing on the game. Later choices, he said, will be more important. The point is, I'm confused as to why Lunar's at L-2.
...and we won't know that until he's lynched. So to be on his wagon, you should have an opinion one way or the other. Is he scum or is he not, based on the evidence we have pre-lynch? That's how you evaluate. So do you think he's scum or not? You seem to be trying to make it look like you're impartial until after a lynch - and it doesn't make any sense. Are you saying you're OK with lynching someone regardless of what you think they're alignment is, and also without any solid evidence? That's what I get out of this:That all depends on whether or not LT is scum.
That's a scum attitude.My vote stays on LT because I don't find anybody any more scummy than anyone else, so LT is just as likely to be scum as anyone else I could be voting for. If he gets lynched, he gets lynched. I'm not afraid to participate in lynching anybody.
Yes, because like I've said, unlike yourself, I need EVIDENCE to justify a vote/lynch. It DOES matter to me who we lynch and I DO want to know why. I AM afraid of lynching ANYBODY. I want to lynch the RIGHT person, not ANYBODY.You have a problem with LT being lynched?
False dilemma? Neither, actually, just trying to prevent a mislynch.Sucking up to town, or do you not want your precious scumteam violated?
No, not even close and I don't even see how you could get that wrong. I say explicitly that neither the choice nor the ramifications matter. How is that backtracking?It sounds like you're leaving open the possibility that there are long term consequences to the decisions we make now, which is different than what you said before, that the path's we take in the beginning don't really matter.
And I didn't say the DECISIONS (note the S at the end of the word) have no importance, nor did the mod. I said the FIRST DECISION (notice the LACK of an S at the end of the word) was not important, AS DID THE MOD.MM wrote: That is very different from saying the decisions have no importance.
Few things.Rhinox wrote: What makes you so sure the lynching LT would be a mislynch? What evidence is there that LT is town?
In short, it's impossible for me to PROVE that LT is town because I have no idea if he even is town. But you can't use the fact that I can't prove LT is town as evidence that he's scum. The only form of case that is valid is a case by person A on person B formed with the intention of demonstrating to the rest of the town why you think someone is scum. Asking someone to construct a case that doesn't fit that formula is committing the "Burden of Proof" fallacy, which you're guilty of.wiki wrote:A particularly damning method of false argument involves forcing someone to prove that they are not Scum, and then using their lack of proof as evidence that they are. It is similar to the "you can't prove that invisible pink unicorns didn't create the universe" argument.
Again - defending someone is not a scumtell.freeko wrote: I still think this bandwagon is providing information. Unfortunately for you, I think it is telling me that you are trying to defend your scumbuddy?
For the same reason I've stated all along - I see no reason to think he's scum from the "case" provided, nor from posts of his I've read. There is nothing wrong with defending someone.freeko wrote: Maybe this should be the time and place where you give us a reason for your zealous defense of another player?
OK. It's your vote. But moving it onto LT right now will look bad if LT flips town, fyi.freeko wrote: I am truly considring moving my vote either onto you or onto the bandwagon for LT, as it seems to have gotten a reaction out of you. I cant help but think that LT is playing the silent lurker scum while you are playing the more vocal of the group trying to convince everyone else that others within the group are worth more attnetion than your scummate?
A. is WIFOM, of course, but it's just to make a point, not to stand as evidence or defense.freek wrote: Oh and isnt all that ABCD crap WIFOM? I mean an actual reason might help. The only thing you are telling me is that the 2 of you are linked somehow. Lovers? Scummates? Help yourself out here.
I'm not going to argue with you on that. It's a valid point.rhinox wrote: Thats quite bad wifom, considering that scum often argue against a townie mislynch to prove their good townie judgment.
Mislynch = bad lynch. That's what I mean to say. The terms are interchangeable for me, but I suppose I should work on that.Rhinox wrote: I'm not asking you to prove anything... but surely you must have some reason, or some information, that makes you think LT would be a mislynch, as opposed to simply a bad lynch at a bad time.
Did you read the part where I explained my use of the word, or no?Korts wrote: And how can you state with such certainty that it would be a mislynch?
Not to be a dick but this is really just stupid. As is assuming that because I said mislynch, I KNOW that it's going to be a mislynch. God, you people are really being thick.Korts wrote: I went back and reread what they were actually saying, and the quote tags are now correct. So no, I'm not attacking LT for the use of the word "tactics", I am attacking him for stating with seemingly absolute certainty that the choice was clearly random and in no possible way an "under-hand mafia scheme". Defending Rogue with something only Rogue or mafia would know is, IMO, scumlicious.
Has he posted since he was attacked? No. And what do you mean NO CLEAR REASON TO DEFEND HIM? THERE'S NO CLEAR REASON TO ATTACK HIM!Korts wrote: Defending someone for no clear reason is, on the other hand. Why do you assume LT wouldn't want to defend himself?
OK - here's the deal. When someone says "trying to prevent a mislynh", that doesn't mean they KNOW it's going to be a mislynch. It means they think chances are better than not, based entirely on the random distribution of roles and the fact that there are more town than scum in a typical mafia game, that a person is town if they haven't done something scummy. So no, it isn't a backtrack.Korts wrote: BACKTRACK ALERT
MAN YOUR STATIONS
THIS IS NOT A DRILL
no seriously, I quoted you a little further up. You said, very clearly, that the LT lynch would be a mislynch.
Sure, he seemed to think that it wasn't a "scheme" - but guess what? So do I! Do YOU think it was a scheme? That it wasn't a random choice? Will LT coming back and saying he wasn't certain, but that that is the most obviously reasonable thing to assume given the information that we have, change anything in your thinking?Do you, or do you not agree that what LT seemed to be absolutely certain about isn't something that is public knowledge?
Isn't MM expressing a level of "certainty" in calling it a tactic? LT seems to think so - I do not. But the point is, you're attacking LT for the same thing he attacked MM for - and if you think his attack is unreasonable, you should be able to figure out that yours is too.MM wrote: Like Prom King said, it's unlikely scum would actully choose a path this early, but having someone defend the tactics worries me.
WIFOM WIFOM WIFOM. And no, it's still you being thick. Thing is, even within your WIFOM, he's "certain" that it's NOT something scum did - so you can WIFOM that whatever way you want to and it still sucks as a point.Korts wrote: If you do: do you agree that knowing something not publicly known, especially about the setup, implies scum knowledge? If so: doesn't knowing something scum would know imply that HE IS SCUM? No offense, but you're being the thick one here.
No. That's something that I wish there was a solid experienced player here to explain to you why your thinking is massively flawed, but it's almost entirely noobs in this game. Basically, you cannot assume people are "connected" because one is defending the other. That's noob.That is BS plain and clear. There was no stated reason to attack him. Unexplained bandwagons are a very good tool for finding implications of connections, like when you jumped to LT's aid.
No. I would sit here and wait for him to defend himself IF I didn't think the attackers were scummy for their attacks - if it was a reasonable point you were bringing against him I'd certainly allow him or any other player to defend themselves instead of speaking for them. But that's not what I'm doing here - I'm actually attacking YOU and Rhinox and MM via and because of your bogus play. It's more an act of scumhunting than it is a defense, if you read closely.Also, why not wait until he posts? If he hasn't posted since he was attacked, he hasn't had a chance to defend himself, which he surely would want to give a shot. By defending him, you're both putting words in his mouth and intimidating people off his wagon; the most likely reason I see for this is that you are scum either trying to buddy up to LTtown, tying yourself to LTtown for later purposes, or simply defending a scumbuddy.
You did the same thing when I used WIFOM. It's not stupid, it;s what you do when there is WIFOM.And shouting WIFOM at every hint of it is stupid and won't get you anywhere.
Yes, he used unlikely there.MM wrote: it's unlikely scum would actully choose a path this early
Here he uses "tactic", which implies that he thinks it was a "tactic", which is the same as LT saying he thinks it wasn't a "scheme". Then MM says:MM wrote: having someone defend the tactics worries me.
As long as we can agree that "scheme" and "tactic" are essentially the same thing in this context (because they are), MM just contradicted his own thinking.MM wrote: The only way you could know if there was a scheme or if it was random choice is if you were scum, a townie would not know the difference.
I would if I thought anything you have said is valid, but I obviously don't.Korts wrote: So please shut the fuck up for a moment and consider things not just for what they are, but what they could be and how they would make sense. IMO scum are more probably going to slip up on something like LT did.
100% agree - and the information I am getting from this bandwagon is:Rhinox wrote: Unexplained bandwagons DO serve a purpose Occam, especially on D1. Lots of purposes actually. You can see what type of response you get from the person being bandwagoned, you can see who jumps on the wagon and why, you can see who ignores the wagon all together, you can see or supports the wagon but doesn't vote, you can see who is vocally opposed to the wagon and why, etc... All of this is valuable information to keep tucked away until later in the game when concrete information is known about players roles, and then logical conclusions can be made.
So yes, it was productive in that manner. As far as carrying it out to a lynch, that would be nonsensical without evidence.rhinox wrote: there is scum on LT's wagon
HUH?freek wrote: Raider, my mason partner gave ME away actually. We are actually what looks to be 3rd party masons. Our victory condition (at least mine) is simply to get to the town alive on day 6. I also have the town win condition of winning when all scum are found. It is unknown to me what PK's alignment is.
Oh god. I just realized something. I believe freek and PK now. I know it looks scummy but I just reread my role pm and thought about it - I can actually confirm that the two (or one tonight, one the next night) are town. I don't think I should fully claim but I can if necessary. My role is really irregular and I have been pm'ing the mod to try to understand it, but I get it now. My money is now on freek and PK being town.Could you explain this a bit more?
