Mini 793: Scrubs mafia- GAME OVER

[inHimshallibe]

Oh good grief, I can't believe I'm actually going to reread and respond to that.

[Brandi]

I'm not expecting much from you, all you'll do is strawman/spout more of your typical scummy BS. You've done enough, nothing you say can convince me that you aren't scum.

[Brandi]

Ok so there is a lot of typos. But I'm sure that you are all smart enough to recognize if I put the wrong name between quote="soandso" and whatever. If you are confused, go back and reread the original posts yourself, or ask me, but do the former first, and the latter only if you can't find it. >>

[Gorrad]

Good post, Brandi!

Inhim, make a bloody good response or I'm going to vote for you.

[Fishythefish]

Responding to the bits immediately relevant to me first:

Now first of all, Slicey wasn't STATING anything, he was asking a QUESTION. "Thats not what he said, its what he meant!" Also is a very odd reason to vote someone. But again, inHIM did say that, blatantly, MULTIPLE TIMES.

Next, I post, then Furry posts saying he will reread at some point.
Fishy says he thinks Slicey is strawmanning too. I'll admit, Slicey does word things poorly, but the point is still very much true.

What I am seeing here is an

Argument from Fallacy

If a person argues that because one reason for coming to a conclusion is false, the conclusion must be false, they may be trying to use this logical fallacy. If that reason was indeed the only evidence against them, this is not wrong; however using one mistaken assumption by one player to discount the arguments of other players, or other arguments, can be misleading.

Just because Slicey's reasoning for coming to his 'conclusion' was not valid, does not mean that the CONCLUSION ITSELF is not True.

Fishy then votes me, completely misunderstanding what I was trying to say, and actually blatantly strawmanning me, when he was using a strawman as a basis for his not liking slicey.

Slicey asked a

rhetorical

question. Here is Slicey’s quote:

This makes no sense. You're saying we should lynch players based on who has the most amount of votes, not based on how scummy they are?

This clearly implies that he is attributing the sentiment to inHim. Just because he puts his interpretation of inHim in question form does nothing to make it less of a misrepresentation of inHim’s words. And it was certainly a misrep. As far as I’m aware, inHim has never said he wants a

lynch

on any player he can- only that he wants a

wagon

- this is certainly the position I have always thought he held. Certainly the post Slicey quoted does not say inHim wants a lynch.
The argument from fallacy bit is true, if this was inHim’s position. It does not change the fact that Slicey attacked inHim based on a quote with a very different meaning from the one he attributed to it. This smacks of finding a convenient (and popular) argument, without worrying about accuracy. I’m not attacking Slicey for a false conclusion so much as for a false argument.
On misunderstanding what you said- well, I’m still not clear on your position here. This is about your post which links the wagon on inHim and his policy of random wagonning. Why did you link these concepts? It makes no sense either as an attack on inHim’s policy or as part of an argument against inHim. I saw it as a bit of random mudslinging, undermining whatever defence inHim gave by taking away his right to object to his wagon. As an accusation of hypocrisy, as you and DDD say, it really doesn’t make any sense. The wagon on inHim was not a random wagon, and even if it was the logic that wagons are good does not extend to your own wagon.

Fishy says a lot of things that doesn't make much sense. On the next page, DDD does a good job clarifying.

A rather unfair dismissal of this post:

And there you go putting words in my mouth again, "most likely motive" yah, because I totally said that.

So what REALLY made you supportive of Fishy's lynch? Was "to get a reaction, and if he ends up getting lynched, oh well" just a cover? Perhaps Fishy would turn up scum and you, inhim, would look very town to the rest of us because you valiantly pushed against his wagon, even though there was no reasoning behind it. Maybe, just maybe, you'd be given the right to pursue OTHER baseless bandwagons in an attempt to rid us of townies?

You are right that you didn't say that explicitly. The above paragraph, however, implies strongly that that is what you think. You ask questions that are in effect rhetorical in order to put forward your own read on the situation. If you didn't think bussing the most likely motive, I can't see why you would write this.

Well, that's fine, keep thinking something is scummy when you're already proven wrong.

There's a big difference between responding to a point and proving it wrong. Just because you give a townie explanation for something doesn't necessarily make it more convincing than the "you are scum" explanation.

Still funny that he thinks I'm telling him to be on his own wagon when in fact I'm simply stating that his baseless wagons are just plain illogical.

I think this post did more than that:

From what it looks like at the moment, InHim is all supportive of wagoning just to wagon, but is against his own wagon, and is being very defensive. He should be supporting it by his own logic.

You are attacking inHim for being defensive (which is a bad attack in itself), and linking it to his bad logic. What I infer from this paragraph is something along the lines of "inHim has less right to defend himself- he supports wagoning for the sake of it", which is not a good sentiment.

The first two points are entirely correct. The third point is discussed above.

On my accusation of OMGUS- I made a case. You made a post saying “that case is clearly wrong, and hence scummy”. Since I believed my case had merit, it is hardly surprising I thought this was OMGUS. I am pretty certain that, had my case been on someone else, you would have reacted to it less than you did. Whether you were OMGUSing or not really just comes down to whether or not my arguments had any merit.

The thing is - earlier on the game I posted my initial gut feelings. Those usually change throughout the game. It was meant to be taken with a grain of salt, not "THESE PEOPLE ARE TOTALLY TOWN WE SHOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEM" or anything like that. It had just as LITTLE MEANING as when HP tried to "guess all 4 scum" in his post on page 1. Also, I had thought that 4 scum was possible, just like FISHY thought that 4 scum was possible, and that's why I made my comment about HP. But I retracted it after it was made CLEAR that 4 scum wasn't going to happen. I had tried to explain this to multiple people and I got the feeling that it was being ignored, and honestly I don't see how it could ever be seen as a tell to make an early 'guess' as to who might be town, when you don't hold to those feelings the whole game. Maybe if I had said that they were 100% town and there was no reason to make any cases against them, and ATTACKED people because they were ATTACKED, that might be scummy. But giving a gut feeling? No I don't think so.

This is quite a bit clearer, thanks.

On my recent vote for inHim: well, for a while inHim has been acting scummily, and you have looked better than you did when I voted for you. He has not responded well to any attack on him, and you in particular have offered strong reasons for voting him. My post shouldn’t be read as “here is a ridiculously strong scumtell- I'm going to vote based largely on this”. It was just at that point that I realised that the person I was voting for was definitely no longer the most scummy.

6) Fishythefish-

Fishy seems to like to pick at peoples words, and strawman them. He has taken a lot of things that I and others have said out of context and changed them around. I think that maybe he has just been inferring wrong, and that perhaps his strawmen are not fully intentional. However, there are also the points in which he has been just echo-ing the words of others. Early on in the case of HP- he echo'd Verrus's point. Later on he echo'd inhims 'points.' He also echo'd Furrys *incorrect* point about Slicey making a strawman against inhim earlier on. Overall, I get a scummy feel. However I also get that 'unsure townie' vibe as well. I do not think he would be a good lynch for this day.

Where are these strawmen (plural)? You analysis points out only one, on yourself. I have echoed points, when I agree with them. I don’t see a problem with agreeing with others.

[Fishythefish]

I agree with some of your case on inHim. The points in your argument, with my thoughts:

0. Throughout, that he wanted a quick, randomish lynch.
If he’s said this, I’ve missed it. He wanted a quick, randomish, largish bandwagon, which is hugely less interesting.

1. His voting Furry for moving a vote, very early.
Yes.

2. When voting Furry, he admitted that he actually only moved his vote originally to form a bandwagon.
His post does not say this.

3. His change of reasoning/poor reasoning for the vote of Furry.
Very true.

4.

veerus: It's Day 1, meh. I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

inHim is saying that, basically, he doesn't want to vote with reasons, because that gives too much INFO to go back on, too much to USE FOR CASES to bring up later on. He doesn't want to have to give any legitimate reasons to vote anyone, or lynch them, because it's too much "EFFORT." GOD FORBID SOMEONE GO BACK THROUGH THE FIRST FEW PAGES AND BRING UP HIS REASONS FOR VOTING PEOPLE LATER ON IN THE GAME. THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T HELP THINGS PROGRESS AT ALL. ;P

Not at all convinced. inHim was saying that he wasn’t going to say things if he had nothing to say- and related to this, elsewhere he had said or was going to say that he thought a bandwagon was a productive way to get information. You say he didn’t want to vote for reasons- and that he wanted to lynch for no reason. These are

completely different statements

.

5.

Fishy seems to have cooled it on his front. Too bad he still has the most votes (I think.) Someone needs to climb aboard!

Translation: There no longer seems to be any legitimate reason to be voting for Fishy, too bad there are still people voting for him! Hurry! Lynch him so we can move into night!

Again, inHim didn’t want the lynch.

6.

inhim posts again, pretty much confirming that "Hey, I know that I'm being scummy! I NEVER DENIED THAT I WAS SCUMMY, but at least I'm being honest about it! So you can't have a case against me."
[inHim snipped]
Translation: IN MY DAY, WE DIDN'T PLAY MAFIA, WE PLAYED "LYNCH RANDOM PEOPLE UNTIL THE GAME IS OVER" Seriously, not only is this a flawed 'method of play' for the town, but I don't even see how those with SCUM ROLES would be happy with playing the game if the town didn't even TRY.

I don’t see how inHim in any way says or implies his actions are scummy. I don’t see how inHim in any way implies he wanted a random lynch, as opposed to movement towards a lynch for the purposes of information.

7. Changing his mind about having a reason for voting for me.
Yes.

8.

And then he blatantly contradicts himself with this line:

I'm trying to generate a lot of possible information with many bandwagons.

a complete opposite of:

That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned.

Before he said that he didn't care about gathering information, he said that it was too much trouble/effort. Now, he's saying the point is to gather information. Which, if I hadn't said it enough already: Bandwagonning, with no reason behind it, and killing off a possible townie, just because you want a QUICK LYNCH gives little to no information to be brought out.

Not true. The first point is saying “there is no point adding content with no significant information”. The second is saying “there is a point in adding content with significant information”. They are very far indeed from contradictory.

9. Dismisses fair points with “lol”
Yes

10. Votes Brandi, clashing with intention to stop random wagonning.
True.

11.

Inhim posts again, saying he is going to give us some WIFOM, gives it to us. And then says this:

Well... are you even sure that was me trying to not rock the boat? My intention was more along the lines of, "I want to vote someone I think is scummier than many of the other players in the game, and other players might agree with me this time."

Asking 'are you sure'? What?! "Oh well if you're not so sure, here, let me make something up to put further DOUBT in your mind so that I can get you off of my case" The only reasoning you gave was "NO ONE LIKES MY PREVIOUS VOTE" and that was it. THAT WAS IT. the only thing extra that could be IMPLIED from that was OMGUS. This is inhim, once again CHANGING AROUND HIS REASONS.

The “are you sure?” in this quote is a pretty minor thing, and doesn’t serve the purpose you claim. The rest of the post makes it clear that he is claiming that he was not just not-boat-rocking. You make a valid point, however, that this is a new sentiment, not expressed in his original vote post, and this is another example of changing his reasoning- though perhaps not so clear cut as the reasoning for the vote on me.

12. 143 is “fluffy bullshit”
Well, it certainly doesn’t have that much in it. But it’s hardly contentless, and this term is not justified.

13.

Now she's mudslinging more than just me; Brian got caught up in some mud as well.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.' You seem to be doing this a lot actually. Whats wrong with latching on to you? You are incredibly scummy. I'm not going to just 'ignore' scum. But that's what you'd like, wouldn't you? None of your arguments hold any water - you just keep repeating the same BS over and over again.

I didn't mean that latching on to me was scummy; I was just using it as a frame of reference. Also, I believe the way in which you just attacked my post is a subtle strawman.

Yes, because when I say you are spewing BS, that is TOATALLY me taking apart your argument and presenting a weaker argument. No. All I said is that you weren't giving ANY EVIDENCE for your claims.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.'

Also, if you hadn't noticed, I had issues with inHim and Fishy BEFORE They voted me. I am the one being OMGUS'd.

Maybe you should read more Brian, you are on the list of those who have been lurking.

Emphasis mine.

OH YES. THAT'S RIGHT. HOW DARE I TELL ANOTHER PLAYER WHO HASN'T BEEN POSTING TO STOP LURKING. OH MY GOD WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF PLAYERS STOP LURKING?! THAT COULD REALLY RUIN IT FOR THE SCUM! AND DEAR LORD, TELLING THEM TO READ MORE SO THAT THEY CAN

UNDERSTAND

WHAT IS GOING ON? WHAT AN INSULT! HOW DARE I BE SUPPORTIVE OF TOWNIE BEHAVIOR! THIS IS JUST UNCALLED FOR. [If you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.]

Finally, posts 127-131 seem incredibly scummy to me because of my personal belief that scum are more worried about attaining "posting perfection" than town.

Another Relativist fallacy. "It is my PERSONAL belief"
Personal beliefs do not make up what is and what isn't scummy. I'd rather someone make points against others based on FACTS, not "PERSONAL BELIEFS."

a) I agree the accusation of strawman does not wash.
b) I agree there was no problem with the accusation/pointing out of lurking/needing to read more.
c) I agree that the “Personal belief” is a relativist fallacy. I’m not all that convinced it is intrinsically scummy.

All in all, I think your case on inHim is very mixed. The “wanting a quicklynch” aspect of it is not strong, and any merit this does have has been blown out of all proportion- you talk as if it is obvious that inHim wanted a lynch on anyone as fast as possible. However, I agree with enough of this to think that inHim is currently the scummiest player. The main reasons I am voting inHim;
1) Post hoc changing of voting reasons.
2) Poor attacks on Brandi following Brandi's voting him.

[Furry]

Very verbose as well, but definitely not a lurker. He uses a lot of fallacies in his arguments, and seems to attack people for the wrong reasons but with good intentions. He seems to push the idea of "playstyle" a little to fervently. I actually find this relating to art. As an artist, I see that some are very much against criticism when they receive it, and respond often with "its just my style." This is all good and well, but there is a LIMIT to how much something can be called STYLE and how much something can be seen as a definite area in which someone needs to improve.

If he was still going "I want to vote the highest vote getter and only the highest vote getter", then yes, its a problem. For the most part though, I could care less what people do in the random stage. This includes what he did in the random stage. He isnt playing like he did in the first few pages, and I see no reason for people to keep trying to get him lynched for random stage comments. If people are using really bad reasoning to push a case, im going to step in and say something.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD, your argument with Furry quickly derailed into theory instead of scumhunting... Who do you think is scummy right now?

Vote: Gorrad

He's running real low under the radar. He's not drawing attention to himself as part of the lurker contingent, but he's not particularly engaged with the main arguments and appears to be content to snipe with one liners into the fray.

I'm not sure if his first post and vote are random or serious because he offers up a tired textbook scumtell as his reason. If it's random I don't like him attaching a reason that could be perceived as real to it and if it's serious it's a bad reason. I don't like his vote on Brandi and I don't like the threat attached to his unvote. And in his latest he whirls from not liking either Brandi or inHim to complimenting Brandi and pressuring inHim.

[Slicey]

I'm sorry I haven't been posting that much, I've been busy. For anyone whose attacking me because of my attack against inHim: I made a mistake. I thought inHim was implying something different than he truly was. Thus, the points I made against him are null.

[veerus]

Slicey, we're currently waiting for some fresh opinions from you since you took back your last of your (very few) opinions in this game.

[Gorrad]

DDD, your argument with Furry quickly derailed into theory instead of scumhunting... Who do you think is scummy right now?

Vote: Gorrad

He's running real low under the radar. He's not drawing attention to himself as part of the lurker contingent, but he's not particularly engaged with the main arguments and appears to be content to snipe with one liners into the fray.

I'm not sure if his first post and vote are random or serious because he offers up a tired textbook scumtell as his reason. If it's random I don't like him attaching a reason that could be perceived as real to it and if it's serious it's a bad reason. I don't like his vote on Brandi and I don't like the threat attached to his unvote. And in his latest he whirls from not liking either Brandi or inHim to complimenting Brandi and pressuring inHim.

Yesterday was my last final. I'll have much more time to post now.

[Furry]

I'm sorry I haven't been posting that much, I've been busy. For anyone whose attacking me because of my attack against inHim: I made a mistake. I thought inHim was implying something different than he truly was. Thus, the points I made against him are null.

Ok, so now you have no opinions on anything at all?

[Dr. Perry Cox]

A deadline has been instituted.

Day 1 will conclude at the latest in 6 days, at

Wednesday 6/10, 8pm (Central)

. I am sending notifications to each player. If no one has been lynched by deadline, day will end with a no-lynch.

Please PM me with any questions about deadline procedure.

Votecount

4 inHimshallibe

(Brandi, veerus, hp [leaves], Fishythefish)

3 Brandi

(Slicey, BrianMcQueso, inHimshallibe)

3 Slicey

(Maturin24, Tzeentch, Furry)

1 Gorrad

(Debonair Danny DiPietro)

Not voting: Gorrad

[veerus]

Hmm... looks like we need to start wrapping this up.

DDD, I understand your point about Gorrad but with the deadline looming and Gorrad's given reason for his behavior (finals), I think this is something we should look at tomorrow.

Looking at the vote counts, we have 3 top suspects. Of those, case on Brandi seems the least substantial right now. Two of the voters are our other suspects and BMQ's case is pretty weak and he's since disappeared so I'm not sure of his convictions.

The case on Slicey is a good one. His posts have been erratic and he's managed to dodge questions about his opinions for the entire day. If it wasn't for inHim, Slicey would likely be my top suspect.

As for inHim, I think I've made my case on him. His defense has been very unsatisfactory by any measure. He said he was going to reread and post his opinion. I'm looking forward to that.

[Gorrad]

My vote will be on inHim if deadline gets too near unless, as stated, his defense is of a nature not yet seen of him.

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

DDD, I understand your point about Gorrad but with the deadline looming and Gorrad's given reason for his behavior (finals), I think this is something we should look at tomorrow.

Deadline isn't looming, it's a full five days (and change) away.

[hp [leaves]]

InHim needs to reply. Slicey needs to post much more. I'm a bit confused about veerus. That's all.

InHim needs to be lynched, though.

[Brandi]

@Fishy, I would have rather you let inhim respond to all my attacks against him instead you do it all for him. Now when he responds who knows if he'll use something you said. Perhaps some of the things I said in regards to you were a bit unfair, I'll have to go back through again. It is entirely possible that while making that entire post I actually confused a few things you did with someone else. If I go back and find out I did do this, you can slap me with a fish. =P

[Brandi]

@Slicey: Read. My. Post. Thankyou. Quit trying to come on and only say things to defend YOURSELF. You are not the only one here and there are more issues than just what has to do with YOURSELF. THANK YOU. =P

[Brandi]

@Furry, did you read my entire post? IT went on for more than just the random stage. Now his vote on me is mostly OMGUS, that doesn't make him look any better.


Waiting for your response inHim.

[Furry]

@Furry, did you read my entire post? IT went on for more than just the random stage. Now his vote on me is mostly OMGUS, that doesn't make him look any better.

Maybe I should just make this definative instead of implying it at every turn. I am not going to vote for inhim since I think he is town. I am going to vote for slicey since he is the only person I have a scum read on who is even close to getting lynched.

Right now people are letting him get away because he isnt doing anything. Promises to reread, post, none of it ever comes. He has NOTHING in the form of a read on ANYONE, is scummy as hell, and people are just going after people they can actually argue with. I am not going to let inhim get lynched if I have anything to say about it, and will do my best (or maybe worst?) to make sure Slicey goes down.

So yeah, not voting inhim. Not stopping untill Slicey goes down.

[inHimshallibe]

I apologize to the players and mod in this game for my absence - I'll post on Saturday.

[Fishythefish]

@Fishy, I would have rather you let inhim respond to all my attacks against him instead you do it all for him.

Fair enough.

I felt my position on inHim wasn't very clearly expressed, and this would be a good opportunity to do so. But you're right, I should have waited until he responded.

[Brandi]

Furry, I get an ignorant townie read on slicey. Inhim has done far more scummy things, CONSTANTLY, throughout the game. I wont deny the fact that slicey could be scum, but he is NOT a good lynch today. He is NOT the only fence sitting lurker, so your vote on him holds little weight. Inhim is a much bigger hindrance to the town, as nothing he has done has been remotely helpful. Sure Slicey hasn't been helpful either, but his not helpfulness is still NOT AS BAD as the fact that everything inhim is constantly DETRIMENTAL to the town. That's fine if you don't want to vote for inhim, though you are clearly tunnel visioning at this point. You might retort and say that my being on inhim's wagon is just as tunnel visioning as well, but NO ONE has posted a more convincing CASE on any other player. If someone could present a better case on another player and prove that they deserve to be lynched more so than anyone else today, then I'll support it. However, I'm in much doubt that that could be even remotely possible at this time.

[Brandi]

Im going to be away until Tuesday =P