Open 238: Trendy and Subversive Game Over

[podium123456]

It's fine to say that he's lying, but even in the alien example you can't accuse him of contradicting himself. Lying and contradiction are not the same thing. For example, if I told you that I have seven eyes I would be lying, but unless I had told you earlier that I didn't have seven eyes there would still be no contradiction. Even if you assumed that I had only two eyes, there is no contradiction unless I actually made two contradictory statements.

You keep sidestepping the big points. His statement implied that there was only

one

thing that prevented him from hammering... 2 people posting. Your argument would be valid if he had said 'i'll probably hammer in a little bit' or something... what he said was 'i'm hammering after these 2 people post'.

In addition to that, he was responding to someone that asked if he was unsure.... not only does he

not

say that he is still unsure, he says that he is going to hammer once those people post.

When you consider those 2 points, he conveys the attitude of someone who's mind is made up. Therefore, when he later says he was still undecided, it contradicts the impression he conveyed earlier.

If there is no response to my rebuttal, i consider the point refuted.

Only objective statements can be refuted. In a subjective argument like whether or not you were excessive, both sides can be presented and then it is up to each person to draw their own conclusions.

Yes, it's a debate, and people present arguments/explanations. If you dont/cant respond to rebuttals, then your original case becomes flimsy.

You agreed with nearly everything i said about millars actions... therefore it is hypocritical for you to criticize my reaction as excessive.

[Orochi]

The first one is an admitted play weakness of mine that translates pretty badly to replacing into games. I tend not to have the best eye for things as an outside observer.

I think that's a pretty common thing. It's very tough to replace into a game and be as interested/connected to it as if you had been playing from the start. I run into the same thing every time i look up meta on someone... after like the first two pages i say 'man this is boring' and stop. haha. I feel like i should replace into games more, because it really is helpful to the site... but so far i haven't been able to do it for fear of not giving a damn about the game once i get in.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

@ everyone.

Id say right now my strongest scumpick is teejay... followed by orochi (mallow). i question gonnano's cases against myself and sawyer... but (right now) i just dont feel that mafia would be trying to build a case on sawyer when teejay is such low hanging fruit. could be wrong, of course... he might be doing it for just that reason... still, i dunno.

True, actually. It's actually one of the major reasons I generally try to replace into games more often than I sign up from the start, try and train that problem out of myself. Plus, I generally feel like far more of a jackass if I have to replace back out of a game I already replaced into.

Of course, it's still not ideal, especially not when I spend the weekend celebrating my birthday, which just makes keeping myself caught up and thinking clearly a lot harder.

Anyways, help me out a little. I know I'm on a few lists here, but I'm apparently not the main tick on peoples radars right now, from what I'm seeing.

A couple of questions for the group.

1: I don't mind putting myself under scrutiny here, so since most of you were harbouring suspicions about my playerslot, what case, in your own words, would you make against me? The hope is that I can settle some doubts and get myself into the game at the same time, so I figure this is a good way for me to be productive.

2: Were you surprised by who was NKed during the night? Do you think Taz/Equinox would have been a major target for you during this day phase had they lived, given the nature of the hammer D1?

3: Looking at the person you're most suspicious of, who makes sense as a scum partner for them?

I'm trying to get a grasp of everyone's big picture assessment at this point.

[podium123456]

1: I don't mind putting myself under scrutiny here, so since most of you were harbouring suspicions about my playerslot, what case, in your own words, would you make against me? The hope is that I can settle some doubts and get myself into the game at the same time, so I figure this is a good way for me to be productive.

2: Were you surprised by who was NKed during the night? Do you think Taz/Equinox would have been a major target for you during this day phase had they lived, given the nature of the hammer D1?

3: Looking at the person you're most suspicious of, who makes sense as a scum partner for them?

I'm trying to get a grasp of everyone's big picture assessment at this point.

1. Most of my concern regarding mallow was summed up here. Excessive and illogical AtE referred to how he was claiming being new as a reason for some of his erratic/poor behavior... even though he wasn't that new.

2. Yes, i was surprised. The only reason i can see is that they knew that the backup doctor more than likely wouldnt be on taz, so they went for it.

3. Hmmm... that's actually interesting, because i havent looked at the remaining list and thought about the fact that there are 2 scum in it. It's actually troubling to me. It could be gonnano and sawyer... with gonnano bussing sawyer. Gonnano and teejay is a strong possibility, of course. As well as any combination of you, gonnano, teejay. Sawyer has appeared town to me... but that's only because he hasn't made any mistakes and is saying what a townie should. Tough to say, overall.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Perhaps we should have the backup doctor claim? At least that would give us a clear and narrow our choices down for a better chance of making the right decision today. ...actually, isn't that our best move now? i think the backup is more useful to us as a clear today, than as a roll of the dice doc save tonight.

[gonnano]

His statement implied

As I said before, you can't include your assumptions in determining whether or not there was a contradiction. Implied meanings would fall under the category of trying to figure out if he is lying or not, not whether he contradicted himself or not.

If you dont/cant respond to rebuttals, then your original case becomes flimsy.

Or maybe it's because I don't think that your response did any significant damage to my original case, so I am satisfied with leaving the arguments the way they are and letting everyone else decide.

You agreed with nearly everything i said about millars actions... therefore it is hypocritical for you to criticize my reaction as excessive.

Any early-game vote is going to be weak. That doesn't mean that they deserve a response as aggressive as the one that you gave millar.

Re: Orochi's questions:
1.Most of my suspicion of mallow is because he posted basically no real content, but I'm not going to hold it against you because it seemed more VI than scummy to me
2.I wasn't really surprised, because I thought it was pretty obvious that no role with a night action would go through two replacements during D1
3.I could maybe see podium and Sawyer as scum partners, because they seem to have been on the same side of just about everything, and reluctant to pressure each other. Other than that I would say mallow the wild card would be more likely than TJ as a partner.

Perhaps we should have the backup doctor claim? At least that would give us a clear and narrow our choices down for a better chance of making the right decision today. ...actually, isn't that our best move now? i think the backup is more useful to us as a clear today, than as a roll of the dice doc save tonight.

Agreed. (see my post # 330)
I'd be willing to start a popcorn claim if everyone is on board.

[podium123456]

His statement implied

As I said before, you can't include your assumptions in determining whether or not there was a contradiction.

Says who? You? Why can't i compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude that they are conveying?

I feel the context and tone of his language establish

quite

clearly that his mind was made up when he made that statement. To behave in the way he did, and still be unsure about the vote, it would require logic that was stretched to the max.

The context/tone of his language clearly show that the attitude he conveyed at the end, contradicts his earlier attitude in regards to whether or not his mind was made up.

If you dont/cant respond to rebuttals, then your original case becomes flimsy.

Or maybe it's because I don't think that your response did any significant damage to my original case, so I am satisfied with leaving the arguments the way they are and letting everyone else decide.

You agreed with nearly everything i said about millars actions... therefore it is hypocritical for you to criticize my reaction as excessive.

Any early-game vote is going to be weak. That doesn't mean that they deserve a response as aggressive as the one that you gave millar.

You agreed with nearly 100% of my response. Explain what was so aggressive about it.

(note that you have never explained anything... all you have said is 'it was too aggressive'... which is vague)

Agreed. (see my post # 330)
I'd be willing to start a popcorn claim if everyone is on board.

If one other person agrees, then just start claiming.

[gonnano]

Says who? You? Why can't i compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude that they are conveying?

Says the meaning of the word contradiction. If you are trying to find somewhere that he has contradicted or "spoken against" himself, you can only deal with his actual statements, otherwise you only find places where his statements conflict with your original assumptions. This is not to say that your assumptions are unreasonable or baseless, only that they aren't statements coming from TJ.

Explain what was so aggressive about it. (note that you have never explained anything... all you have said is 'it was too aggressive'... which is vague)

Well, instead of trying to figure out why millar thought it was enough of a reason to vote or trying to gain some information from him, you went straight to the offensive, basically saying that he must be an idiot to not realize that the first person the mod noticed quoting from an ongoing game wasn't actually the first one to do it. Then you imply that the only option other than what you did would have been to vote for yourself, a huge exaggeration that as far as I can tell was meant to belittle millar and helped the town not at all. Then, you top it all off with a vote that is based on two sentences from millar, a case that is at least as weak as the one that he made on you.

I thought people would have been smart enough to see this, which is why my earlier explanation was more general, referencing something that I thought everyone could see.

Here is the explanation I'm talking about, since podium didn't see it the first time (yet responded somehow):

it seems like someone who is trying to look for scum would have said something like "What is your opinion of the part that gonnano played in the situation that you voted me for?", whereas your post came off as "Nononono get your vote off me and put it on gonnano, he did it!"

[podium123456]

Says who? You? Why can't i compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude that they are conveying?

Says the meaning of the word contradiction. If you are trying to find somewhere that he has contradicted or "spoken against" himself, you can only deal with his actual statements, otherwise you only find places where his statements conflict with your original assumptions. This is not to say that your assumptions are unreasonable or baseless, only that they aren't statements coming from TJ.

You're telling me that people cant compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude?

Well, instead of trying to figure out why millar thought it was enough of a reason to vote or trying to gain some information from him, you went straight to the offensive,

As sawyer pointed out, i didn't go straight to the offensive... i asked him if he was serious before i reacted.

(1)basically saying that he must be an idiot to not realize that the first person the mod noticed quoting from an ongoing game wasn't actually the first one to do it. (2)Then you imply that the only option other than what you did would have been to vote for yourself, a huge exaggeration that as far as I can tell was meant to belittle millar and helped the town not at all.

You are misrepresenting/exaggerating.

1. I didn't call him an idiot, i informed him why his first statement was 100% inaccurate.

2. That was obviously a rhetorical question to show how bad the logic was behind his second statement.

Then, you top it all off with a vote that is based on two sentences from millar, a case that is at least as weak as the one that he made on you.

You agreed with every reason i listed. Are you telling me that i am prohibited from placing a vote on someone based on valid reasons? His case was MUCH weaker than mine... why did you overlook what he did to put pressure on me?

Here is the explanation I'm talking about, since podium didn't see it the first time (yet responded somehow):

it seems like someone who is trying to look for scum would have said something like "What is your opinion of the part that gonnano played in the situation that you voted me for?", whereas your post came off as "Nononono get your vote off me and put it on gonnano, he did it!"

I saw this... but it is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.

[gonnano]

You're telling me that people cant compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude?

It's fine to do that but you can't pretend that your inferences have the same status as a direct statement from the actual person in question.

As sawyer pointed out, i didn't go straight to the offensive... i asked him if he was serious before i reacted.

Straight to the offensive meaning in this case that as soon as you had verified that the vote wasn't an accident or a joke you went for millar's throat. It's a good thing that you did bother to check first, but that's not really an impressive attempt at trying to get information from the vote. There's still a whole lot of middle ground that you skipped over.

miller's case was weak, and I agree with many of your criticisms of it to some degree. I don't see how that is supposed to keep me from seeing that the same arguments can be applied to your vote.

I saw this... but it is a misrepresentation of what actually happened.

I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said that I had never explained anything.

[podium123456]

You're telling me that people cant compare/contrast someone's underlying attitude?

It's fine to do that but you can't pretend that your inferences have the same status as a direct statement from the actual person in question.

Attitudes are based on inferences, so that's irrelevant. Therefore the attitude he claimed to have at the end contradicts the attitude he gave when he made the statement.

Case closed.

As sawyer pointed out, i didn't go straight to the offensive... i asked him if he was serious before i reacted.

Straight to the offensive meaning in this case that as soon as you had verified that the vote wasn't an accident or a joke you went for millar's throat. It's a good thing that you did bother to check first, but that's not really an impressive attempt at trying to get information from the vote. There's still a whole lot of middle ground that you skipped over.

A. What more was there to get? He specifically told me what his reason was.

B. Since when are people

required

to interrogate others before they can place a vote? So anyone that places a vote without 'trying to get information from it' first, is acting overly aggressive?

miller's case was weak, and I agree with many of your criticisms of it to some degree. I don't see how that is supposed to keep me from seeing that the same arguments can be applied to your vote.

Technically you agreed with

all

of them to some degree.

And the logic behind what you are doing doesn't make sense. If you agree that his vote was weak, incorrect, and not well thought out... then it is an ACCURATE description of his vote. That automatically makes his case much weaker than mine.

[gonnano]

Attitudes are based on inferences, so that's irrelevant. Therefore the attitude he claimed to have at the end contradicts the attitude he gave when he made the statement.

Case closed.

Not quite. Attitudes are based on inferences, therefore they can't be treated as actual statements from the person who supposedly had that attitude, therefore they can't be used to prove a contradiction. It's fine to compare/contrast the attitudes that you infer, but no matter how believable it is it's still based on guesses and can't be used to establish something as solid as a flat-out contradiction.

What more was there to get? He specifically told me what his reason was.

You could have tried to find out

why

he voted for you over me based on the reason that he told you, or you could have asked him for some examples of places where you disputed something too much, etc. These are just off the top of my head but you get the idea.

If you agree that his vote was weak, incorrect, and not well thought out... then it is an ACCURATE description of his vote. That automatically makes his case much weaker than mine.

Considering that your vote was also weak (based on two sentences from millar), incorrect (he was town), and not well thought out (a judgment call, but I don't think that the approach you took with your response/vote was anywhere close to the best path), I don't consider your case and millar's case to really be all that different.

[podium123456]

You're one of those people that can never admit when they are wrong, eh? It's cool.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attitudes are based on inferences, so that's irrelevant. Therefore the attitude he claimed to have at the end contradicts the attitude he gave when he made the statement.

Case closed.

Not quite. Attitudes are based on inferences, therefore they can't be treated as actual statements from the person who supposedly had that attitude, therefore they can't be used to prove a contradiction. It's fine to compare/contrast the attitudes that you infer, but no matter how believable it is it's still based on guesses and can't be used to establish something as solid as a flat-out contradiction.

Everything you said is irrelevant. If you agree that i can compare/contrast attitudes, and i determine that the attitudes he presented are not the same, then by definition they contradict each other.

He didn't present the attitude of someone who's mind wasn't made up, no matter how much you try and deny it. Give it up.

What more was there to get? He specifically told me what his reason was.

You could have tried to find out

why

he voted for you over me based on the reason that he told you, or you could have asked him for some examples of places where you disputed something too much, etc. These are just off the top of my head but you get the idea.

Well, of course you can come up with something that could have been asked... duh.

I'll ask again... since when are people required to interrogate others before they can place a vote? What is the required number i must do before i place a vote? Tell me. Also, why does me placing a vote on him magically prevent us from discussing the situation further? ???

Or better yet, explain this. You did the SAME EXACT THING that you are criticizing me for doing. At least i hesitated

some

before i 'went for his throat'... YOU didn't at all.

Lemme guess... your going to try and weasel your way out of it with some crappy/false logic.

If you agree that his vote was weak, incorrect, and not well thought out... then it is an ACCURATE description of his vote. That automatically makes his case much weaker than mine.

Considering that your vote was also weak (based on two sentences from millar),incorrect (he was town), and not well thought out (a judgment call, but I don't think that the approach you took with your response/vote was anywhere close to the best path), I don't consider your case and millar's case to really be all that different.

Sigh. You are so desperate to keep from having to say you might be wrong, that you start using horrible logic to try and prove your point.

incorrect (he was town)

Are you REALLY using that as support for your argument? Really? It is a TOTALLY different situation than when i used the term to describe what he did that was incorrect. Give me a break... you are really stretching for anything here. That is an illogical reason to criticize me, and you are an amateur for using it.

your vote was also weak (based on two sentences from millar)

More fail logic. IT WAS THE SECOND PAGE. What in the hell did you expect? It was a LEGITIMATE case, unlike his WEAK/INCORRECT case.

I don't consider your case and millar's case to really be all that different.

Yeah. Except for the fact that my case ACCURATELY DESCRIBES HIS ACTIONS as weak/incorrect/not well thought out, and his IS weak/incorrect/not well thought out. So, actually they are COMPLETE OPPOSITES.

Do you understand that if his case IS weak/incorrect/not well though out, then you can't say that my case is weak/incorrect/not well thought out? Do you really not get this? You are calling a case that is 100% accurate weak/incorrect/not well thought out.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But peep this, this is the icing on the cake.

You are trying to justify your vote on me because my case was weak, incorrect (fail logic), and not well thought out. WHICH IS THE SAME CRITERIA I USED TO VOTE MILLAR. DING DING DING HELLOOOOOOO ANYBODY HOME???

Srsly dude, what are you thinking?

Even if

you wanted to dance around and make some technical/semantic/subjective argument about how you think my vote is weak/not well thought out... you have LESS of a case than what i used in my case against millar.

And that's not counting your hypocrisy about 'being so quick to go for the throat'.

Your move, chief.

[TeeJay]

Essentially the argument has continued between Podium and Gonnano.

Podium - Haven't really thought much more about him being scum. His initial scumminess has worn off into simply an argumentative and defensive player.

Sawyer - He hasn't really seemed scummy the whole game. I have known 2 or 3 mafia members that gave off the aurora that Sawyer is now.

Gonanno- Continues to argue with Podium about me contradicting myself. Honestly Gonanno, this argument isn't going anywhere. I am actually getting conserned that you are attempting to buddy with me. I can argue my own case if I find that I need to. Currently everything that is being said are only reiterations, you and Podium are talking past each other.

The fact that you continue to tunnel Sawyer and at the same time argue my case for me in such away as to not get anywhere with game is drawing my suspicion.

Orochi - The person you replaced was mostly scummy for his rash voting and lack of content. Currently I will give you the better bit of a doubt though, as you cannot defend yourself against the actions of your predecessor.


As to your other questions:

2) Was I surprised by who was night killed, honestly not really. I've played enough games to realize that who is killed hardly ever lines up with my thinking (unless I am mafia). I gave my analysis of the vote at the beginning of day 2. I forget whether or not I mentioned this in the post, but the scum could have killed him to help continue the game as he asked to be replaced.

3) Looking at the person I am most suspicious of... I am still undecided about who I find scummier as no one is putting out any strong vibes. That being said, you and Gonanno are the two that are the most suspicious to me.

If Gonanno is scum:
He doesn't really talk much about you.
He's tunneling Sawyer.
He argues a lot with Podium.

That kind of leaves Podium out of the question. He could be attempting to distance himself from Sawyer (while trying to buddy with me). Or he could be avoiding you (Orochi) in hopes that no one notices you.

As far as you being scum - Due to the lack of content, I cannot begin to imagine who your partner in crime would be (at least through reading your posts).

[podium123456]

teejay, you think we should mass claim? if you do, then go ahead and start.

[TeeJay]

You go first.

Srsly. What kind of comment is that.

[podium123456]

gonnano and i believe that mass claim is our best move here. if one other person agrees, then it is a majority and we will do it.

Perhaps we should have the backup doctor claim? At least that would give us a clear and narrow our choices down for a better chance of making the right decision today. ...actually, isn't that our best move now? i think the backup is more useful to us as a clear today, than as a roll of the dice doc save tonight.

[gonnano]

Everything you said is irrelevant. If you agree that i can compare/contrast attitudes, and i determine that the attitudes he presented are not the same, then by definition they contradict each other.

Sure. Fine. Whatever. If you want to make a guess about TJ's attitude at different points and then say that he has contradicted himself based on your guesses, go ahead. Ignore the fact that the things that he

actually said

all fit together.

I'll ask again... since when are people required to interrogate others before they can place a vote? What is the required number i must do before i place a vote? Tell me. Also, why does me placing a vote on him magically prevent us from discussing the situation further?

You're not required to act townie at all. But without some sort of investigation, it looks like an OMGUS vote. Discussing the situation doesn't

have

to happen before the vote, but if all you've got to go off of are two sentences some discussion would be nice.

Or better yet, explain this. You did the SAME EXACT THING that you are criticizing me for doing. At least i hesitated some before i 'went for his throat'... YOU didn't at all.

I feel like my information was considerably more solid than "Millar's stupid vote millar".

Lemme guess... your going to try and weasel your way out of it with some crappy/false logic.

Care to reconcile that with this?

What was i supposed to do? Not try to get him to understand it? And allow his incorrect criticism to stand?

What should i have done?? Agreed with him??

You are trying to justify your vote on me because my case was weak, incorrect (fail logic), and not well thought out. WHICH IS THE SAME CRITERIA I USED TO VOTE MILLAR. DING DING DING HELLOOOOOOO ANYBODY HOME???

Lol, that's sort of the point. But thanks for going through and showing how my "case" on you is crap, because it's essentially the same case you made against millar. I'm sorry that the "incorrect" part I used was more solid than the "incorrect" part that you used, but I couldn't find an exact match. Oh, btw, which vote is this that I'm justifying?

Gonanno- Continues to argue with Podium about me contradicting myself. Honestly Gonanno, this argument isn't going anywhere. I am actually getting conserned that you are attempting to buddy with me. I can argue my own case if I find that I need to. Currently everything that is being said are only reiterations, you and Podium are talking past each other.

I tried to end it earlier, but Sawyer and podium didn't like that so I'm back in the saddle again. And I disagree about the argument not moving forward, because if you look you can see the points that they've dropped in response to my explanations. We're down to one last little piece about how podium's inferences are as good as a flat-out statement from the player that he's inferencing about, and as soon as that's gone I'll have proved my point.

The fact that you continue to tunnel Sawyer and at the same time

Oh, so you're saying that I'm tunneling, and in addition to tunneling I'm discussing other things. What did tunneling mean again? Cause I thought it was focusing exclusively on one thing.

[Orochi]

Something I wanted to consider for a minute, post 330 where Gonnano comments about my entry into the game in mallow's place, he comments that he couldn't even begin to guess what my

role

is. Not my alignment, my role. Phrasing doesn't feel right there. Already know my alignment and trying to figure out if I'm the nurse?

Also, this contradiction argument is just bugging me, all I'm reading at this point is a couple of guys looking for every dropped word to pick on without it really making any headway into being a convincing case on each other, it's distracting.

And as far as the claim goes... I'm on the fence with it, my standard MO is to avoid claiming unless absolutely necessary, so it's generally against my sensibilites, but I'll go with it if there's enough support.

[podium123456]

Sure. Fine. Whatever. If you want to make a guess about TJ's attitude at different points and then say that he has contradicted himself based on your guesses, go ahead.

Yeah, well... since this is a game based on lying, inferring attitudes is kind of a required element. He didn't display the attitude of someone who was still unsure about their vote, and you know it.

Ignore the fact that the things that he

actually said

all fit together.

Things fitting together, and attitudes present while saying them, are two different things. Any scum can easily craft their language so that it 'all fits together'... however attitudes are more of a challenge.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'll ask again... since when are people required to interrogate others before they can place a vote? What is the required number i must do before i place a vote? Tell me.

You're not required to act townie at all. But without some sort of investigation, it looks like an OMGUS vote.

This doesn't surprise me... you are shifting the argument because i showed that you were more guilty of what you accused me of than i was. You have never mentioned OMGUS until just now... conveniently after i showed that your original point was hypocritical/bogus.

Also, why does me placing a vote on him magically prevent us from discussing the situation further?

Discussing the situation doesn't

have

to happen before the vote, but if all you've got to go off of are two sentences some discussion would be nice.

This has nothing to do with what i asked. You have said that by voting him i 'skipped over middle ground' and 'didnt try to get information about the vote'... i ask again, why does my placing a vote mean that none of that discussion will take place?

Or better yet, explain this. You did the SAME EXACT THING that you are criticizing me for doing. At least i hesitated some before i 'went for his throat'... YOU didn't at all.

I feel like my information was considerably more solid than "Millar's stupid vote millar".

Again you shift the argument. The quality of the case had nothing to do with that particular criticism that you made... until i showed it was a bogus criticism, of course. It was the criticism that instead of having a dialogue with millar about my case, i went 'straight to the offensive' with a vote. You did the same thing.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Lemme guess... your going to try and weasel your way out of it with some crappy/false logic.

Care to reconcile that with this?

What was i supposed to do? Not try to get him to understand it? And allow his incorrect criticism to stand?

What should i have done?? Agreed with him??

???

What does the first statement have to do with what you quoted? Those are rhetorical questions made to highlight the poor logic of whatever i was referring to. Do you not understand that?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You are trying to justify your vote on me because my case was weak, incorrect (fail logic), and not well thought out. WHICH IS THE SAME CRITERIA I USED TO VOTE MILLAR. DING DING DING HELLOOOOOOO ANYBODY HOME???

Lol, that's sort of the point. But thanks for going through and showing how my "case" on you is crap, because it's essentially the same case you made against millar.

*facepalm*

You just admitted that your case on me is crap. (except that there is a difference between my case and yours... mine was accurate, yours isn't... as i explained earlier)

Also understand that i have never proclaimed that my case on him was rock solid mega super. What i have done is argue that my activity was not excessive, as well as show that your case on me is comparatively weaker than mine on millar (with poor logic, you could say that they are at best equal).

I'm sorry that the "incorrect" part I used was more solid than the "incorrect" part that you used, but I couldn't find an exact match.

Wow. You are comparing an apple to an elephant. My incorrect point referred to something i had been accused of that was known to be 100% false. Your incorrect point refers to something that no one had any knowledge of at the time i made the statements you are criticizing.

You're saying 'one of the reasons you might be scum is because you thought somebody was mafia, and it turned out they weren't'... which is absolutely ridiculous.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I tried to end it earlier, but Sawyer and podium didn't like that so I'm back in the saddle again.

You're just as guilty of furthering this discussion as i am.

We're down to one last little piece about how podium's inferences are as good as a flat-out statement from the player that he's inferencing about, and as soon as that's gone I'll have proved my point.

You can't prove something you're wrong about. You're biggest problem is that you have several points mixed up/intertwined... in addition to being wrong about several other things.

[podium123456]

Also, this contradiction argument is just bugging me, all I'm reading at this point is a couple of guys looking for every dropped word to pick on without it really making any headway into being a convincing case on each other, it's distracting.

The base of it is that i feel that teejays attitudes contradict each other, and gonnano feels that it is impossible to determine that. If there is a contradiction, then it means his case on sawyer pretty much falls apart. What's the consequence of that? Not much, really. If there isn't a contradiction, then his case on sawyer has merit. What's the consequence of that? Not much, really.

Still, i feel that attitudes are able to be inferred/compared/contrasted... and so does he. By definition, then, it would be valid to say that two attitudes contradict each other, if the situation dictates. He just refuses to actually say it. At this point, it's basically just an argument between two people that like to argue... but that's part of mafia.

And as far as the claim goes... I'm on the fence with it, my standard MO is to avoid claiming unless absolutely necessary, so it's generally against my sensibilites, but I'll go with it if there's enough support.

The reasoning is that if the nurse claims, we get a clear today... which can improve our chances of lynching scum today. Due to the fact that the protecting role is kind of a dice roll at night, they really aren't that important to us in that aspect.

If we dont claim, and take someone to L-1, we risk the possibility of scum faking nurse. Then we would be left to choose between the two claims, and have to pick correctly to continue... a 50/50 chance of hitting scum with nobody clear. If nurse claims now, before anyone is at L-1, it is less likely that scum will counterclaim and we would have a 50/50 chance of hitting scum while knowing a clear.

I could go either way, i guess... i wish sawyer would return and weigh in on it.

[gonnano]

You're just as guilty of furthering this discussion as i am.

You're right. It's getting old and I won't further it any more.

Something I wanted to consider for a minute, post 330 where Gonnano comments about my entry into the game in mallow's place, he comments that he couldn't even begin to guess what my role is. Not my alignment, my role. Phrasing doesn't feel right there. Already know my alignment and trying to figure out if I'm the nurse?

I tend to think about things in terms of roles, not alignment. Obviously you have only my word on this, though, so all I can say is that it makes more sense to me to consider possible night actions that a person might have when I am looking at their motivation for doing something.

[TeeJay]

The reasoning is that if the nurse claims, we get a clear today... which can improve our chances of lynching scum today. Due to the fact that the protecting role is kind of a dice roll at night, they really aren't that important to us in that aspect.

If we dont claim, and take someone to L-1, we risk the possibility of scum faking nurse. Then we would be left to choose between the two claims, and have to pick correctly to continue... a 50/50 chance of hitting scum with nobody clear. If nurse claims now, before anyone is at L-1, it is less likely that scum will counterclaim and we would have a 50/50 chance of hitting scum while knowing a clear.

I could go either way, i guess... i wish sawyer would return and weigh in on it.

The question is whether or not we should actually have the nurse claim. If the nurse does that, they are dead come night fall.

I tend to think about things in terms of roles, not alignment. Obviously you have only my word on this, though, so all I can say is that it makes more sense to me to consider possible night actions that a person might have when I am looking at their motivation for doing something.

Which gives the impression that you are role fishing.

[gonnano]

uhh no, I didn't ask about his role, I just said that I didn't have a good guess as to what it was.

[podium123456]

The question is whether or not we should actually have the nurse claim. If the nurse does that, they are dead come night fall.

That is somewhat canceled out by the fact that the nurses ability really isn't that big of a help to town... it's pretty much a roll of the dice if she/he were to protect the person that mafia decided to hit.

The role is more useful to us as a clear during the day, than as a nurse at night. Since this is lylo, it might be best to make use of it now.

As an aside, perhaps the best way to play this setup would be to have doc claim early, have nurse protect doc, and then force mafia to nurse hunt.

[gonnano]

have nurse protect doc ?

[podium123456]

yeah i forgot that nurse has no powers until doc dies.

i hate setups that have no investigative roles, and only protective roles... for town it's like having a mustang with a V6 engine (instead of a V8)... useful, but just barely.