Not sure what to say about this, I didn't realize I repeated myself so many times. The only real point in mentioning it was to say that if I succomb to any obvious logical fallacies here, let me know. I think it's somewhat relevant whether a player is basing their arguments on several games experience vs one.Seven, you seem pretty hellbent on making sure everyone knows you're new at this. Why is that? Do you think that people will not critique you as hard if you say that? If not, then what could you possibly gain from telling everyone that you're new?
[continued]
Because thusfar you've either referenced or blatantly stated your new-ness in at least four separate posts. Not to mention all the hedging in your posts. For someone trying to feign confidence, you don't seem to be doing so well at it.
This goes back to the same thing I asked DRK at the beginning of the game while we were still in RVS... (why he was voting SP instead of Cue at that point). Even if it was RVS I think it's interesting that he chose to vote with SP and at this point they seem to be siding. I'm not saying this is a tell, just interesting to point out.And Cuet's vote here is pretty weird... if he's assuming you're scum then he should be advocating your lynch with Seven being a potential candidate for lynch the next day depending on what you would flip. So Cuet's vote being on Seven bothers me... logically, it doesn't follow from his post.
Again, I will defend anyone I think is town. Thor pointed out a good reason not to answer for SP at that time, and I realize it was a mistake now but I stand by everything else.And again, this makes me think there's a Seven-SP scumteam here. DRK is acting a little jumpy with his suspicions but he seems to just be trying to scumhunt to me, though some of his points seem a little forced. Meh.
And then Seven's 125 is another thing... the scum would be able to answer for their buddies on most questions I'd think.
127-128 Seven is being too defensive. Townies wouldn't care as much if they got lynched - there's a lot more of them and you don't have to be alive to win as town. These are not townie responses to suspicions.
And yet a lack of scumhunting, I'd assume?
I simply don't agree with his reasonings at all. He started off with his rant on SP for stuff that seems completely ridiculous IMO and once the focus was shifted from their petty argument to me he jumped right in. I consider that wagoning.DRK provided pretty good reasons for you being scum. His posts don't come off as bandwagoning. Your particular statement here comes off as deflecting.
At the time I didn't see this. I really thought I was helping out, someone even stated earlier on in the game that answering for someone else was scummy and I ignored it. I think I've probably answered questions for someone else at a couple other points in the game as well, I'd have to look back and check but anyway... Thor explained why it was a bad call and I get it now.Do you understand why this is scummy? Answering for another player makes it seem like you're trying to cover that other player's actions and defend them. Plus, scum could easily answer for each other because they have the same goal and likely the same target.
Apparently.Hmm, yes, Cuet's posts are a little... odd... but you're really only making yourself look bad at this point.
1. If I were trying to "lie low", I would have just voted X-| Honestly...Eek, don't like this at all...
1. It's not really a moral high ground as much as an attempt to lie low.
2. Self defense and trying to make yourself look more townie is a scum thing to do, really. Townies will look townie because they are townie and don't have to try to look townie.
3. Noobclaiming is a terrible terrible thing to do. Regardless of alignment you should never do this, it's just so... pointless.
I don't know if sarcastic is the word, exactly, but yeah I definitely thought the answer was pretty damn obvious.It may be that that post was made as a sarcastic post; possibly the answer to the post he answered was so obvious it didn't even need the person it was directed towards to answer?
Helpful. Really. *rolls eyes*Most of this isn't even worth responding to. I mostly posted it just to say that. Hope you don't mind. Just for the fun of it though, my answer to two things from this post are "no" and "you."
I was talking about two separate posts.Also, I italicized two of the sentences because I found them funny when read in tandem.
Care to say why?SP now seems genuine to me. Probably town. But very misinformed town.
Sentence doesn't really make sense... I was saying it's interesting DRK decided to vote SP instead of Cue at that point in RVS, and then continued to jab at SP, and is currently siding with Cue. (My use of "siding" here is to be taken loosely...)This goes back to the same thing I asked DRK at the beginning of the game while we were still in RVS... (why he was voting SP instead of Cue at that point).Even if it was RVS I think it's interesting that he chose to vote with SP and at this point they seem to be siding.I'm not saying this is a tell, just interesting to point out.
)Glad you pointed this out.. my thoughts exactly as I was reading those posts of his. I don't believe you've addressed this yet, Seven.Idiotking #140-141 wrote:Seven, you seem pretty hellbent on making sure everyone knows you're new at this. Why is that? Do you think that people will not critique you as hard if you say that? If not, then what could you possibly gain from telling everyone that you're new?
Because thusfar you've either referenced or blatantly stated your new-ness in at least four separate posts. Not to mention all the hedging in your posts. For someone trying to feign confidence, you don't seem to be doing so well at it.
Not exactly, it was your unwillingness to commit to a vote. Just to clear that up.Seven #11 ISO wrote:HomerSimpson:
Second vote (first serious vote, I think): I'm suspicious for not participating in RVS.
Are you suggesting that SP might have special knowledge of who is scum and who isn't (ie he is scum) based on his actions toward Flare? I'm not sure I agree with that analysis, but I'd like to hear you elaborate on it (beyond what you said in 118 if you can) if I'm understanding you right.DRK #116 wrote:Scummy. SP seemed intent on putting unwarranted suspicion on Flare. SP was implicitly affirming his statement from his previous post that Flare was a "detriment to the town," even though his reason, that Flare hadn't read the game, wasn't true.
Well...define 'keeping' I suppose is my answer.HomerSimpson wrote:@Thor: Your vote for Seven was originally to start/sustain a bandwagon. Are you comfortable keeping your vote there?
Seven wrote:Responding continues...
IK:
Not sure what to say about this, I didn't realize I repeated myself so many times. The only real point in mentioning it was to say that if I succomb to any obvious logical fallacies here, let me know. I think it's somewhat relevant whether a player is basing their arguments on several games experience vs one.Seven, you seem pretty hellbent on making sure everyone knows you're new at this. Why is that? Do you think that people will not critique you as hard if you say that? If not, then what could you possibly gain from telling everyone that you're new?
[continued]
Because thusfar you've either referenced or blatantly stated your new-ness in at least four separate posts. Not to mention all the hedging in your posts. For someone trying to feign confidence, you don't seem to be doing so well at it.
I get terribly annoyed when people try and use their own concepts of how the game should be played and build a "case" against someone else whose only fault is that their playstyle is different. Not one of the accusations leveled against me hadHomerSimpson wrote:
I also want toFOS: IdiotkingYou're very abrasive, especially when suspicion is placed on you, like your conversation with danakillsu. Why do you react so badly? Does it scare you when votes are cast against you?
Except that aggressiveness is a playstyle choice that is equally functional and disastrous to both scum and town.Idiotking wrote:If a player is aggressive, they're trying to push a point harder than most would, or trying to make someone slip. This means to me that they are putting more energy and emotion into their play, meaning that they have a higher chance to screw up and use logical fallacies. If the town catches on to this, momentum switches to the aggressive player.
I disagree.SP wrote:I continue to assert that I am not misreading or misrepping DRK. I may not have pin-pointed him as scum, but my reasons are certainly valid, would you not agree?
Ironically, SP is the first player this game I've said is probably town. I'm disappointed in myself for failing to use my self-given easy way out of legitimately attempting to discern his alignment.Thor wrote:My read on DRK is that I'm not too fond of his 4th post (post number via iso) because all of his 'find you scummy no matter what' stuff left me offput
Just a feeling. He sounds more like overanxious newb-town who thinks he's caught scum than like newb-scum pushing a ridiculous case.7 wrote:Care to say why?DRK wrote:SP now seems genuine to me. Probably town. But very misinformed town.
Something in the form "I am7 wrote:Also I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to claim? I thought that's what I was doing, I've tried to respond to each of your statements individually. I'll do this tomorrow as well, I just need to know what exactly I'm supposed to do besides reiterate what I've already said.
If you don't see the point in him claiming, why do you want him to claim?HS wrote:I don't really understand the point of him claiming.. what, to see if he claims a power role? If he is scum he will lie about it anyway. But could definitely be interesting, so I await what he says. I'm a little concerned we may be tunneled on him, but as I've pointed out, he does seem the scummiest. So for now, pending claim my vote stands.
I was saying he was trying to make Flare look bad with no good reason, which is scummy. I now believe I just misunderstood him on this point.HS wrote:Are you suggesting that SP might have special knowledge of who is scum and who isn't (ie he is scum) based on his actions toward Flare? I'm not sure I agree with that analysis, but I'd like to hear you elaborate on it (beyond what you said in 118 if you can) if I'm understanding you right.DRK wrote:Scummy. SP seemed intent on putting unwarranted suspicion on Flare. SP was implicitly affirming his statement from his previous post that Flare was a "detriment to the town," even though his reason, that Flare hadn't read the game, wasn't true.
To be honest, it looks likeSeerPenguin wrote:...If he is going to call me out for not explaining jokes and then wait almost 2 entire pages (21 to 67, granted, these were two consecutive DRK posts.) to explain that this may or may not have been a joke (He states that it was reasons for his RVS vote, which again, looks like he is trying to legitimatize his RVS vote on his very first post of the game. It's super scummy to do this, please at least look at this from the perspective that he called it a joke only after it had blown up in his face.)
Depends exactly how you define reasons - but yes. For example - I voted for the "reason" that I didn't like werdna's username. This is a reason. It is a bad reason to vote. And it is a random vote.SeerPenguin wrote:Thor, do you believe that a random vote can have logic (Even bad logic) based reasons (Such as DRK's confirmation speculation) and still be considered a random vote?
Catch it and bring it up so you could then do what? Admit that you wanted someone to catch it?Just saying, I left the random out to make a point, I was actually hoping someone would catch that.
Well, rather you interpret it as a scum tell and I interpret it as not a tell at all (or perhaps a null tell - whichever you prefer to define it as). I didn't write him off for joking - I just didn't suspect him for joking. For the record I also didn't suspect you for joking. I'm not sure what you're driving at here...oh wait, apparently you're suggesting I'm part of some bad logic hypocrite organization;So, I joke, then DRK uses the fact that I did not immediately explain such a joke as reasons for a vote. He later calls this a joke and then you write it off as not a scumtell. You see, I joke and he calls me out for it, but then when he jokes, you right him off?
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, but not all actions are hypocritical.and you decide that his hypocrisy in this matter doesn't matter because it was only joking hypocrisy. There's a flaw in your logic there. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
I would say the majority of the time, it's not relevant. For one, it's really easy to claim inexperience as an excuse for scummy play. Secondly, you can't expect people to treat you differently because you are inexperienced. Also, treating an inexperienced player the same as everyone else and playing hard is how one gains good experience. I've used that defence before, legitimately, so it is something of a nulltell.. but using it repeatedly is something of a scumtell (easy excuse for scum to use). In your case, I could really see it either way, but I already think you're scummy and to my gut it does come of as excuse making.Seven wrote:IK:
Not sure what to say about this, I didn't realize I repeated myself so many times. The only real point in mentioning it was to say that if I succomb to any obvious logical fallacies here, let me know. I think it's somewhat relevant whether a player is basing their arguments on several games experience vs one.Seven, you seem pretty hellbent on making sure everyone knows you're new at this. Why is that? Do you think that people will not critique you as hard if you say that? If not, then what could you possibly gain from telling everyone that you're new?
[continued]
Because thusfar you've either referenced or blatantly stated your new-ness in at least four separate posts. Not to mention all the hedging in your posts. For someone trying to feign confidence, you don't seem to be doing so well at it.
Um it means you tell us your role... Vanilla townie, doc, etc etc... (but be sure not to quote your PM from the mod, per the rules)Seven wrote:Also I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to claim? I thought that's what I was doing, I've tried to respond to each of your statements individually. I'll do this tomorrow as well, I just need to know what exactly I'm supposed to do besides reiterate what I've already said.
I was just trying to ask if you really think he is scum now, or if your vote is just lingering from your trying to get discussiong going. I definitely consider my question answered now, thanks.Thor wrote:Well...define 'keeping' I suppose is my answer.
Yes.danakillsu wrote:Does a perceived inability to back up my statements necessarily make me scum any more than being aggressive makes Idiotking scum?
Well I kind of answered my own question of what the point might be in that quote, in a semi-rhetorical manner. I don't want to state my thinking behind that yet, so as not to give Seven any help if he is scum. Suffice it to say (as I did) that I think it will be "interesting."DRK wrote:If you don't see the point in him claiming, why do you want him to claim?HS wrote:HS wrote:
I don't really understand the point of him claiming.. what, to see if he claims a power role? If he is scum he will lie about it anyway. But could definitely be interesting, so I await what he says. I'm a little concerned we may be tunneled on him, but as I've pointed out, he does seem the scummiest. So for now, pending claim my vote stands.
Yes and Chamber, your RVS vote, is voting with me too. Look, my initial vote on you was based on a soft scum tell. I wasn't sure if you were scum or not, but it could make for some good discussion. Since I vote for you Seven, both you and SP have strengthened my argument that you both are scum buddies. I mean you defended SP when I asked him a direct question intended for him only. You answered for him, even after I accused you of attempting to deflect attention away from him in the RVS. Also, SP claimed that you weren't acting very scummy at all when there wasn't that much content to make such a bold judgment. At that point in the game, we were barely out of RVS and the jist of what you posted was your opinion about RVS. You also made an outrageous claim that SP was town and that you answered my question for SP because you don't want to see a town get lynched. How the **** do you know that SP is town at this point in the game? Basically, the entire game, he has been bickering back and forth with DRK. FMPOV, there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that either of them are town. In mafia, only scum know who everyone is aligned with, so you and SP suggesting that each other is town is very scummy to me. Especially since there has been very little content to go by thus far.Seven wrote:EBWOP:
Sentence doesn't really make sense... I was saying it's interesting DRK decided to vote SP instead of Cue at that point in RVS, and then continued to jab at SP, and is currently siding with Cue. (My use of "siding" here is to be taken loosely...)This goes back to the same thing I asked DRK at the beginning of the game while we were still in RVS... (why he was voting SP instead of Cue at that point).Even if it was RVS I think it's interesting that he chose to vote with SP and at this point they seem to be siding.I'm not saying this is a tell, just interesting to point out.
SP claimed that DRK had been pushing suspicion on anyone; meaning, FMPOV, that DRK had been trying to make cases on multiple people. I reread the thread and decided that DRK had only been pushing suspicion on SP only. I asked SP to cite where DRK had pushed suspicion on people because I knew that DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP and I wanted to get his reaction. What I got was both you and SP's reactions and they both were fail. Both of you only cited where DRK had pushed suspicion on SP. No where did I find where DRK had pushed suspicion on other people. Thus, I think SP's initial claim was an example of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy is an attack of an exaggerated position. SP exaggerated DRK's position by claiming that he had been pushing suspicion on anyone. In actuality, DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP himself.Seven wrote:Cuetlachtli wrote:Can you cite where DRK pushed suspicion on people please?SeerPenguin wrote:Btw peeps, Seven isn't looking very scummy,however, DRK is. He is, in fact, the only person in this game that looks to be pushing suspicion on anyone, and I agree with him on that one fact, pushing unwarranted on someone is pretty freaking scummy.
...
DRK post 1:
Vote: SeerPenguin
You and Cuetlachtli confirmed too close together (and were 10th and 11th). You must be scum. Discuss.
Also, you get my vote for not explaining your jokeDRK post 4:
Not only did he simul-confirm with Cuet, he also gave a joke without explanation. Withholding information is scummy.I srongly suspect from this post that I'm going to find you scummy no matter what you do. I recently encountered someone with a similar tone to his posts and played the entire game (okay, so it only lasted two days...) thinking he was scum. Do you think it's scummy that I just gave myself an excuse to suspect you whenever I want?DRK post 9:
Scummy. SP seemed intent on putting unwarranted suspicion on Flare. SP was implicitly affirming his statement from his previous post that Flare was a "detriment to the town," even though his reason, that Flare hadn't read the game, wasn't true.DRK post 10:
SP seemed more like he was trying to push suspicion onto Flare, whereas Parama just wanted a policy lynch. Wanting a policy lynch is a null tell (well, I think so anyway). Pushing for suspicion on someone, especially while saying he didn't want a lynch for it, just looks like scum trying to make a townie look bad.
I didn't claim you were attacking me (though not an unreasonable read I'll concede). I claimed you were lumping me in with a group of bad logic hypocrites. You did specifically say there was a flaw in my logic which is why I translated it that you were saying I had bad logic. I will concede you didn't outright call me a hypocrite but I read the inference between the lines of this part of your post;SeerPenguin wrote:Thor, you aren't the one being hypocritical, DRK is. That's what I'm driving at here...I don't see how you could think that this discussion about DRK could be me attacking you.
You use a substitution here with this juxtaposition by showing that he voted for a joke and that I wrote someone off (which I didn't), and are clearly attempting to somehow connect the two actions - which is why I thought you were implying me as a hypocrite and derided the idea and tore at the logic problems I saw therein.You see, I joke and he calls me out for it, but then when he jokes, you right him off?
Thank you. But since you didn't address my issues raised with the concept of DRKs hypocrisy and then called him a hypocrite again I take it you still disagree with me vis'a'vi his hypocrisy?Also, I wanted someone to catch it so that I could ask them the very question you answered in the first quote. You seem to have done so very gracefully.
By your logic as I understand it if one is hypocrisy so is the other and whether or not we were joking has no bearing. - and I disagree with that and would like to hear you address this.and you decide that his hypocrisy in this matter doesn't matter because it was only joking hypocrisy. There's a flaw in your logic there. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
Oxford disagrees with you regarding the "actual" definition since there are multiple definitions for most given words (I submit for RVS they use the statistical one). That said, I do agree with you that within the game of Mafia on this site, RVS tends to popularly translate as you state rather then a specific definition. I believe SeerPenguin accepts this as well, as he has no issue with other joke RVS votes that he has expressed. The disagreement is whether or not DRK was 'serious' when he stated his reasons in RVS.HomerSimpson wrote:Just to help clear up all this stuff about "random" ...by the strictest/actual definition of "random", NO having any reason is technically NOT random. But words in English aren't always used strictly according to their definition..
I'm going to get more into the DRK thing later when I go through his posts again, but yeah right now my feelings on him aren't great and they haven't been pretty much since game start. Even before he started going after SP for what I perceive to be bullshit reasons. Anyway I'll have a lot more to say about him once I get through reading, I expect... so far he's probably at the top of my list.I also feel like you're attacking DRK a lot, who seems to be SP's 'nemesis' of sorts, which strengthens the scumpair idea. Note that your pattern of defending SP, and vice versa, was (correctly) picked up by Cue before you answered the question (see his ISO post 5). I picked this up too as I was getting caught up. But this is heavily circumstantial speculation at this point.
I think it's always a bad idea to look for scumpairs before scum is lynched because it's harder to be objective on day 2. Even if I get lynched and flip town, you're still likely to go after SP next. Setting up a chain like this can only advantage mafia.I disagree.. I think looking for scumpairs is always useful, but definitely more useful after one of the pair has been confirmed scum. But the greater point is that his constant defense of you is scummy in general, especially within a theory where you are hypo-scum.
I realize you posted this probably at the same time as my response, I just want to make sure you've got my answer now.Glad you pointed this out.. my thoughts exactly as I was reading those posts of his. I don't believe you've addressed this yet, Seven.
Understood.Not exactly, it was your unwillingness to commit to a vote. Just to clear that up.
I've been waiting for more from you as well, chamber. ISO later, anyway... I'm sure I'll have questions.@Chamber: You seem to be lurking pretty hard. I know I disappeared too, but your posts are devoid of any analysis. Please post more, right now I have no read on you whatsoever other than suspicion for lurking.
I look forward to hearing about these at some point.I have a few more reads on potential scum now then I did then
I think it's debatable whether something is done because it's one's playstyle vs a tell. You could be playing that way because you always play that way, or you could be playing that way because you're scum. It's a bit of a toss-up. And if your playstyle is always scummy that can be a problem.I get terribly annoyed when people try and use their own concepts of how the game should be played and build a "case" against someone else whose only fault is that their playstyle is different.
Dammit I'm going to hate myself every time I agree with SP now, but he makes sense about 50% of the time, what can I say... How can you write off SP as newb? What happened to a tell being a tell, newb or no? *more DRK frustration, must save for later*Also DRK, saying that you write me off as town because you think I am newbish is invalid for two reasons. One, I am an alt of iaretheman, and am therefore not a newb, and have played mafia more than just here, as well. Two, writing something that could very well be a scum tell as a newb tell simply isn't good, and a newb scum shouldn't be able to just flail like crazy and be written off as town for being a newbie.
I do not believe my play to be scummy, overall. It doesn't help that I've been stuck playing defense this whole time.For one, it's really easy to claim inexperience as an excuse for scummy play.
Agreed.Secondly, you can't expect people to treat you differently because you are inexperienced.
That's irrelevant. I'm talking about you and DRK. I realize there are several people voting for me at this point.Yes and Chamber, your RVS vote, is voting with me too.
The answer to said question seemed blatantly obvious. As previously stated by someone else, I did not give my opinion. I quoted directly, and I really can't see how SPs answer would have been any different than mine. Granted, this was still a mistake on my part... and I'm paying for that now.I mean you defended SP when I asked him a direct question intended for him only.
You mean the comment about why DRK was voting for him instead of Cue? I stand by that statement, even though it was meant as more of a joke at the time. Now I see it as something else. I'll go into it more later, but I do think it's strange that he would go for SP and not you, and then maintain his grudge against SP beyond the RVS stage (and all of sudden claiming SP is probably noob-town...)You answered for him, even after I accused you of attempting to deflect attention away from him in the RVS.
You're right, there wasn't much content. There were still people saying I was scum, why is it any different for someone to state they get a town vibe? From what you're saying it's ok to state someone is likely scum straight out of RVS, but not to state someone feels town? Doesn't make much sense to me.SP claimed that you weren't acting very scummy at all when there wasn't that much content to make such a bold judgment. At that point in the game, we were barely out of RVS and the jist of what you posted was your opinion about RVS.
I did not say "SP is town". I said I would defend anyone I thought was town. I don't really consider my answering your question "defending" him, as I said before it was a stupid question. I don't know if he's down. He's done some townish things, I can say that much at this point.You also made an outrageous claim that SP was town and that you answered my question for SP because you don't want to see a town get lynched. How the **** do you know that SP is town at this point in the game?
Again, where did SP say "Seven is town"?In mafia, only scum know who everyone is aligned with, so you and SP suggesting that each other is town is very scummy to me.
You're right. In DRK post 1 heSP exaggerated DRK's position by claiming that he had been pushing suspicion on anyone. In actuality, DRK had only pushed suspicion on SP himself.
