Mini 896 - Jekyll Mafia - Game Over

[Green Crayons]

As far as I can tell, the focus of a Gerhard lynch was pretty much all but over. Therefore, if your claim is true, then 1 heavily indicates that either ML or Nacho is your partner (those two having the most critical attention on them at the moment) or, to a lesser extent, peanut or myself (the other two players with critical attention focused on them, just to as great of an extent). There was no real threat of a GK-lynch, so forcing the town's hand into lynching GK suggests that your partner was on the verge of being outed.

Secondly, scum aren't burdened by a lurker if that lurkerscum is able to get by without being lynched. Claiming scum out of the blue is actual antithetical to any player's win condition. Your play here is exceptionally poor regardless of your alignment.


GK - if you're really scum and not just a town tired of playing and so are therefore screwing us over - what were your real night targets?

[Gerhard Krause]

Why would you doubt my scum claim? It may or may not satisfy mmy win condition, but what if I'm a jester?

[Green Crayons]

Because only assholes attempt to get themselves lynched in a mafia game - jesters are a crap role that are hardly used and I consider them to always be a red herring. Mods who don't want to make a crap setup don't include jesters. As it stands, I'm just trying to figure out what kind of asshole you are: A lazy town who just wants himself removed from the game or a scum who just doesn't care.


The comical third option is that you aren't an asshole at all - nor are you a jester; instead, you have some sort of ability that is jump-started by your lynch. If you were town you would have already mentioned it instead of lying, so if this is the case you must be of an anti-town role. The most immediate speculation in this possible scenario that comes to me is a lynch immunity ability. This would waste a town's lynch for a single day and give scum another free town kill.

[Nachomamma8]

The most immediate speculation in this possible scenario that comes to me is a lynch immunity ability. This would waste a town's lynch for a single day and give scum another free town kill.

He could also be Vengeful Mafia or a mafia-aligned supersaint...

[Green Crayons]

Perhaps. I'm up for lynching him, at any rate. Does anyone have any suggestions as to lynch order just in case there is a kill command on the hammer? (My vote goes to peanut.)

[Green Crayons]

unvote

, by the by. The other option might be either Nacho or ML hammering, since both are convinced the other is scum and we can just lynch the non-hammer if the hammer is town - assuming there is some sort of kill switch.

[peanutman]

GC, why are you misleading with your comments? You basically state that given Nacho and ML are both convinced the other is scum, if one turns up town, the other must be scum (i.e. "we can just lynch the non-hammer if the hammer is town"). You completely ignore the fact that there is a possibility of two townies arguing against each other. Ignoring that is one thing. However, what is worse is that you could potentially be setting up two mislynches and, with 7 players left, that spells a town loss. Of course, there could be one scum amongst them, or even both, the fact they that are accusing each other of scum doesn't determine anything. So stop making these misleading and dangerous comments, it really doesn't help your "town-cred". It would be more productive to look at the case for each (and, btw, try building one on me if you're still convinced that I'm SK) on its own merits than just watch the fight from the sidelines and assume if a townie falls, the other must be scum.

[Nachomamma8]

False dilemma, Crayons >.>

[Green Crayons]

words

You have ignored all the points I have made against you and you have ignored my responses to your bogus claims against my play. Please attempt to do something more constructive than - for example - "omg GC wanted me to read minds! Scum!" and then when I respond about how wonky and inaccurate the logic is behind your accusations you just move on to another crazy fingerpointing session.

False dilemma, Crayons >.>

No. I should explain my thought process more.

I still stand by my original suspicions of ML, but your attacks on ML

have

been incredibly scummy. I'm slowly coming around to the notion that one of you is scum - you both have done some pretty scummy things independent of one another that I believe may be indicative of anti-town alignment. However, I have to couple with this with the the fact that I am fairly certain that if one of you is scum then the other is not just because I don't think that two scum would drag themselves into the limelight and get into a big old argument this late into the game so that the attention focuses solely on them (especially considering that attention could have been redirected elsewhere).

Furthermore and separate from the above, I'm also warming to the notion that if GK flips scum one of you two most definitely is scum (also assuming there is no "trigger" ability in his lynch that would overrule his claim that his lynch would mask the attention of his scummate).

So, I'm looking at it like this: ML and Nacho have both acted in a scum-like fashion. However, they are not acting as if they are on the same scum team. If one flips town that does not have any bearing on if the other is town or scum (therefore: my suspicions of that other player being scum are still valid). If one flips scum that does affect how I view the other player because I do not believe that they are acting as if they are on the same team.

This would be a false dilemma if I did not allow for another possibility: That neither of you are town. However, I have already considered this possibility and I'm convinced this is not the case (for reasons previously stated/agreed with/summarized in the past 3-5 pages). Therefore, what I face

is

a dichotomy, but it is not false because there is plenty of information in-thread that supports the notion that one of you are scum.

[Green Crayons]

tl;dr: Not all dichotomies are false. This one isn't - and you, Nacho, specifically, attempting to paint it as such is a bit of irony seeing as how you are espousing the situation that you are town and Macavity is scum (thus your position for the past four pages has been that the dichotomy I just espoused is true).

[Nachomamma8]

I'm slowly coming around to the notion that one of you is scum.

Why? Hasn't the way you view MacavityLock been changed based on his reactions to my attacks on him?

you both have done some pretty scummy things independent of one another that I believe may be indicative of anti-town alignment.

Hmm... I'm pretty sure you had a town read on me before I began attacking MacavityLock.

Furthermore and separate from the above, I'm also warming to the notion that if GK flips scum one of you two most definitely is scum (also assuming there is no "trigger" ability in his lynch that would overrule his claim that his lynch would mask the attention of his scummate).

Alright, so what makes you believe that GK is trying to save his partner, as opposed to him just getting bored of the game and claiming? Does this mean you believe Slaxx is town?

If one flips town that does not have any bearing on if the other is town or scum (therefore: my suspicions of that other player being scum are still valid).

This is inconsistent with the rest of your posting. You said before that you're coming around to believing that one of us have to be scum, so if one of us flips town, wouldn't that make you more likely to believe that the other is scum?

[Gerhard Krause]

@Nacho - Why haven't you voted me?

@peanutman - Why haven't you voted me?

[Nachomamma8]

@Nacho - Why haven't you voted me?

You're too hot.

[MacavityLock]

Perhaps. I'm up for lynching him, at any rate. Does anyone have any suggestions as to lynch order just in case there is a kill command on the hammer? (My vote goes to peanut.)

Can you explain? I really don't understand your meaning here.

GC, I understand your point on the false/not false dilemma. However, one problem I have here is that this is based solely on your reads. From your perspective, I see it. But if someone doesn't agree with your case on me or my case on Nacho, to them it will absolutely be a false dilemma. In 605, you're acting as if me vs Nacho is true for the whole town. Response?

----

Gerhard, I'd like to hear your true night actions as well.

[Green Crayons]

Why? Hasn't the way you view MacavityLock been changed based on his reactions to my attacks on him?

Yes, they have be atrocious. Just based off of recollection of my scanning of the Nacho-Macavity back and forth I recall maybe two points you made against him that were legitimate (and not just really transparent and suspicious), but even those were made after your shifted your rhetoric against Macavity after he challenged you on your points.

Hmm... I'm pretty sure you had a town read on me before I began attacking MacavityLock.

It's not something you need to be "pretty sure" about. My player list read from a few pages back still exists. "Independent from one another" means I find that you two have done scummy things that are not dependent upon the other being scummy.

Alright, so what makes you believe that GK is trying to save his partner, as opposed to him just getting bored of the game and claiming? Does this mean you believe Slaxx is town?

Warming to the idea, Nacho. Not convinced. As the situation stands there isn't going to be a light bulb, epiphany moment. Things are what they are - you either believe Gerhard (for whatever reason) or you don't (for whatever reason) on any of his claims. I'm mulling over the possibilities.

If one flips town that does not have any bearing on if the other is town or scum (therefore: my suspicions of that other player being scum are still valid).

This is inconsistent with the rest of your posting. You said before that you're coming around to believing that one of us have to be scum, so if one of us flips town, wouldn't that make you more likely to believe that the other is scum?

Full quoting this because you're inaccurately forcing a conclusion to my statement. As far as I am concerned, you have both acted in a scum-like manner. This scenario produces the following conclusion: This in and of itself means that regardless of what one of you flips (either scum or town), then my suspicions for the other player are still in effect.

However, I am adding an additional layer to the situation - that I do not believe you two to be on the same scum team. This additional factor to the scenario necessitates that the conclusion be modified. The modified conclusion: If one of you flips town it (still) does not affect my suspicions of the other; however, if one of you flips scum it does affect my suspicions of the other (that they are not scum).


-----

Can you explain? I really don't understand your meaning here.

If Gerhard's reason for getting himself lynched isn't that he's a complete douche, then I'm speculating that he might have some sort of lynch-triggered ability (such as being able to take the hammer with him). I think we should consider this a potential scenario and act accordingly.

As a side note: it may be that he has the ability to take any one player who voted him out with him, so this planning would be moot; however, the possible number of scenarios that we cannot verify is pretty so it's impossible to predict/prepare for them all. Ultimately, this may just be more trouble than it's worth.

GC, I understand your point on the false/not false dilemma. However, one problem I have here is that this is based solely on your reads. From your perspective, I see it. But if someone doesn't agree with your case on me or my case on Nacho, to them it will absolutely be a false dilemma. In 605, you're acting as if me vs Nacho is true for the whole town. Response?

The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy)

involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered

, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are

failing to consider a range of options

and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two".

When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned

, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

...

When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore,

the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive

, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.

I bolded the portions that relate to why someone would mistakenly label my dichotomy a false dilemma. I have already explained that I have considered, assessed and dismissed the potential for both of you being town (see response to Nacho above in this very post for even more explanation). Furthermore, I have explained why I believe that, while one of you are scum (for independent reasons), I do not believe that both of you can be scum. Therefore, my suggestion is a dichotomy - but, to me, not an incorrect one.

Now, people are free to disagree with any of the points along my reasoning path (1. my suspicions of ML; 2. my suspicions of Nacho; 3. my reasons why ML and Nacho cannot be on the same scum team), but if they do then they just disagree with me and think I am incorrect with the premises of my argument. That does not inherently make my dichotomy a logical fallacy - which, invoking "false dilemma," insinuates (for it to be a logical fallacy the logical form of my argument would need to be invalid) - it just means they view my argument as unsound.

[Budja]

Votecount

2 - Nachomamma8: (MacavityLock, Pulindar)
1 - MacavityLock: (Nachomamma8)
1 - GreenCrayons: (peanutman)
1 - Pulindar: (Slaxx)

Not Voting: Gerhard Krause, GreenCrayons

With

7

alive it will take

4

to lynch.

Deadline: 10pm, 20th February AEST (36hrs FYI)

[Green Crayons]

Why? Hasn't the way you view MacavityLock been changed based on his reactions to my attacks on him?

Yes, they have be atrocious. Just based off of recollection of my scanning of the Nacho-Macavity back and forth I recall maybe two points you made against him that were legitimate (and not just really transparent and suspicious), but even those were made after your shifted your rhetoric against Macavity after he challenged you on your points.

I misread what you originally wrote (I thought it was along the lines of "Hasn't the way you view me changed based on my attacks on him.") To correctly answer your questions: No. Any change in my perception of Macavity is due to his responses to my accusations. Any change in my perception of you, Nacho, is due to your behavior towards Macavity.

[MacavityLock]

If Gerhard's reason for getting himself lynched isn't that he's a complete douche, then I'm speculating that he might have some sort of lynch-triggered ability (such as being able to take the hammer with him). I think we should consider this a potential scenario and act accordingly.

Yes, I understand that. I don't understand what you mean by "lynch order" and choosing peanut.

Therefore, my suggestion is a dichotomy - but, to me, not an incorrect one.

Right. I understand why you don't think it's a false dilemma, and I'm fine with that. But in 605, you are suggesting that the town acts as if it's a true dilemma.

[Pulindar]

GC, why are you misleading with your comments? You basically state that given Nacho and ML are both convinced the other is scum, if one turns up town, the other must be scum.

This isthe same thing that Nacho did between GC and ML. I don't like how they're ripping each other off.

As for a lynch on Gerhard, I can agree to it.

[Pulindar]

Ah but I am scum, and I claim scum for several reasons. 1) it forces you to lynch me, and takes away any chance for you to learn who my actually scum parter(s) are, which there is no harm in me telling you, and because I told you, everyone's reactions to this must be null tells, and my fellow scum will go anonymous.

Not at all true. How do you figure all responses must be null reads?

2) it is going to force at least some activity in this game so that I do some good and satisfy my win condition on my way out. I have not been an active player, due to some real life issues, so I am creating the best position or my fellow scum so that they will not be burdened with a lurker.

So by quiting now you may draw suspicions away, while at the same time you may die peacably, and since you thought you were going to die anyway it's all good. I have a question though. Could it also be that you're trying to draw more suspicion on the two people who were already suspect and trying to keep people like GC from suspecting others, like Slaxx and myself?

3) I can openly communicate with my fellow scum before the night phase and help direct the NK, forcing you to either let me do it or end the day by killing me and forfeiting whatever information you might have gaining.

Yet you haven't done that, why not?

@ Slaxx

Your vote is still on me, do you still suspect me?
Before you said that everyone had come out of the woodwork, yet you have not said anything. Please answer Nacho's question towards you, Who do you think are Scum?

[Green Crayons]

Yes, I understand that. I don't understand what you mean by "lynch order" and choosing peanut.

The order by which we vote for Gerhard's lynch, since I'm speculating that GK might have a lynch-triggered ability. The suggestion of peanut being the hammer is because if Gerhard has a "kill the hammer on my lynch" ability, I would want it to be peanut.

Right. I understand why you don't think it's a false dilemma, and I'm fine with that. But in 605, you are suggesting that the town acts as if it's a true dilemma.

Yes, I am suggesting that the town act in the manner I believe is true. Do you find it so unbelievable that a player would want the town to act in the manner they believe to be the right way to go about catching scum? I don't understand the basis of your questioning. I want the rest of the town to see and understand my arguments and then agree with them.


-----

This isthe same thing that Nacho did between GC and ML. I don't like how they're ripping each other off.

And I don't like how you're giving credence to peanut's asinine commentary. Nacho's "either ML or GC because of process of elimination" and my "both ML and Nacho look suspicious because of x, y and z reasons but aren't on the same scum team" is far from being one in the same.

[Pulindar]

And I don't like how you're giving credence to peanut's asinine commentary. Nacho's "either ML or GC because of process of elimination" and my "both ML and Nacho look suspicious because of x, y and z reasons but aren't on the same scum team" is far from being one in the same.

But I do like how you answered it.

Anyway, If that's the case I'd prefer nacho to be the hammer, but I could accept peanut being it. I suppose a Gerhard lynch is inevitable

Unvote

Vote: Gerhard

[MacavityLock]

Yes, I understand that. I don't understand what you mean by "lynch order" and choosing peanut.

The order by which we vote for Gerhard's lynch, since I'm speculating that GK might have a lynch-triggered ability. The suggestion of peanut being the hammer is because if Gerhard has a "kill the hammer on my lynch" ability, I would want it to be peanut.

Gotcha. It was saying "lynch order" as opposed to "hammer-er" that was crossing me up.

Yes, I am suggesting that the town act in the manner I believe is true. Do you find it so unbelievable that a player would want the town to act in the manner they believe to be the right way to go about catching scum? I don't understand the basis of your questioning. I want the rest of the town to see and understand my arguments and then agree with them.

It was a pressure question. I'm satisfied with this answer.

[Pulindar]

It was saying "lynch order" as opposed to "hammer-er" that was crossing me up.

Yeah, that got me too. I'm actually really glad that you had asked that Macavity.

[Nachomamma8]

"Independent from one another" means I find that you two have done scummy things that are not dependent upon the other being scummy.

Oooh, I see. I thought you meant we were scummy for reasons independent of one another (i.e., not based on our interactions).

Psst, my question about Slaxx still stands.

To correctly answer your questions: No. Any change in my perception of Macavity is due to his responses to my accusations.

Then you need to look closer at our interactions.