Mini #367: Endgame'd

[Norinel]

Note - this is what I perceive to be your reasons for not wanting a deadline.

1. If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch.
2. A deadline has been set.
3. Therefore, there will be No Lynch.

This is

still

a strawman. See post 401.

unvote: tsq, vote: Wuffles

, for ignoring logic while professing to use it.

This isn't to say that I don't think Arafax is scum, but the way Wuffles is going about it has gone from bad to worse, to the point where I'm willing to let tsq and Arafax off for it.

[Arafax]

But you've tried...hmm, three different ways to put me under suspicion now?
1. Wuffles is scum cuz he won't take a position up versus TSQ - Fair enough.
2. Wuffles is scum because he hasn't posted content - Bollocks.
3. Wuffles is scum because he wanted a deadline - Bollocks.

2. I never said you weren't posting content...What I said (Post 355) was that you were posting a lot, but not saying anything, and what I meant by this is clarified in the second sentence in the post as posting a lot but never coming up with a solid opinion...I further clarified what I meant by that in Post 367. Apparently you aren't interested in what I actually said and meant, because it was never that you aren't posting content, it was that within your content, I couldn't find a solid opinion, and I think that's scummy.

3. I think wanting a deadline is not a protown thing to do, and I assumed everyone would know why a deadline isn't protown...Mostly, it could lead to a no lynch. Plus, it shortens the day, shortens the discussion, puts pressure on the town, and could also lead to a lynch without a claim. Anyone who asks for a deadline will be suspicious to me...I think this is both a reasonable and common opinion, and not bollocks.

Spectrumvoid: A lot of what you've said was that I'm acting like a confused townie and have played too many games to be that, which is complete opinion of my playstyle and I don't take that argument seriously...I don't even get why you keep saying I'm a confused townie....I forgot about your PBPA of me, though, so you're right, it wasn't a quick vote...I retract my statement.

[Thestatusquo]

Arafax, I agree with spectrums assessment of your 'confused townie'dom. I don't buy it either.

[Elias_the_thief]

At this point Arafax, the day could use some shortening. We've been going at this for A long time now. 17 pages, and day1.

I just want to move on.

vote: Arafax

As TSQ showed earlier on, you've been playing too long to be acting so confused. I mean, its hard to be a confused townie when youve been playing as long as you. And besides, you only have 2 votes, and a little pressure never hurt anybody.

[Arafax]

Arafax, I agree with spectrums assessment of your 'confused townie'dom. I don't buy it either.

I mean, its hard to be a confused townie when youve been playing as long as you.

Someone please show me where you get the "confused townie" stuff...I have asked, now will one of you three please answer.

[Thestatusquo]

I will when I'm not sitting in class.

[Wuffles_II]

Note - this is what I perceive to be your reasons for not wanting a deadline.

1. If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch.
2. A deadline has been set.
3. Therefore, there will be No Lynch.

This is

still

a strawman. See post 401.

unvote: tsq, vote: Wuffles

, for ignoring logic while professing to use it.

This isn't to say that I don't think Arafax is scum, but the way Wuffles is going about it has gone from bad to worse, to the point where I'm willing to let tsq and Arafax off for it.

Norinel.

That was what I perceived Arafaxes reasons for not wanting a deadline to be, nothing more.

If that argument was put in any other form, then it would result in Arafax's " this does not take away any of my suspicions of you...This does not come across as pro town at all!” statement being much less…I guess “effective” is the word I’m looking for.

1. If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch.
2. A deadline has been set.
3. Therefore, there will be No Lynch.

What I am saying is that this is what Arafax has to be saying for his points about me to be at all logical, from his point of view. The fact that I absolutely disagree that No Lynch will eventuate from this deadline is irrelevant. I was putting the strongest light on ‘faxes suppositions specifically to AVOID a strawman.

A Straw man fallacy is when you are misquoting someone’s arguments or deliberately not placing them in the strongest possible light in order to make their arguments seem weaker or less logical.

I hope you now understand EXACTLY what I was trying to do – put Arafax’s unspecified suppositions in a more concrete form so that I could better refute them.

Seriously, Nel, this is logic 111 here. No way is my argument a strawman fallacy.

I apologise in advance to everyone who reads this post and goes…”huhhh?” but I assure you, it makes logical sense, unlike what Norinel is trying to imply, for reasons I am unsure of.

[Lowell]

Vote Wuffles

I like Norinel's reasoning, actually. Or, most of it. I think Wuffles has gone out of his way to (1) try to lead conversation, and (2) accuse others for specious reasons. The fact that this has CONTINUED despite the deadline makes me think it's more than just idle chatter.

[Wuffles_II]

Lowell, support your positions, please. Don't make suppositions without providing proof, it makes it harder for me to defend against them. -_-"

1. Norinel is wrong for accusing me of a fallacy I have gone out of my way to avoid committing.

2. Arafax is wrong for being suspicious of me for wanting the game to move on.

3. Arafax is DEFINITELY wrong for accusing me of "posting a lot but not saying much". If anything, I have said too much of what I think. And I think too much. Just look at my posts toward TSQ. -_-"

So, right now, I am awaiting replies to the following:

1. My post referring to the strawman fallacy.
2. Lowell, to show where I have been accusing others for specious reasons.

[Norinel]

A Straw man fallacy is when you are misquoting someone’s arguments or deliberately not placing them in the strongest possible light in order to make their arguments seem weaker or less logical.

I hope you now understand EXACTLY what I was trying to do – put Arafax’s unspecified suppositions in a more concrete form so that I could better refute them.

And you're specifying them in a way that directly contradicts something that he actually said to make it into an arguments that's logically flawed ("Weaker or less logical", as you put it). Here's what Arafax has actually said about a deadline being suspicious:

Arafax ends post 393 with:

Mod, can we have a deadline, please?

Wuffles, this does not take away any of my suspicions of you...This does not come across as pro twon at all!

This was vague, I'll admit. Wuffles says in 397 that requesting a deadline is neither inherently pro-town or anti-town. In post 398, Arafax clarifies his position: (Emphasis mine)

Sometimes

a deadline without a lynch equals a no lynch...A no lynch is never a pro town move...You asking for a deadline makes me find you scummy...Not trying again, you're doing it well yourself to become more scummy to me.

Dictionary.com defines "sometimes" as "on some occasions; at times; now and then." In other words, not at all occasions. In post 400, Wuffles somehow gets from this to "If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch." as a key part of Arafax's argument, and the only conclusion as "There will be No Lynch".

In post 413, after a bit more discussion, Arafax adds:

Wuffles - I think that a speed lynch or a no lynch is never good for the town...That's why I am suspicious of you for asking for a no lynch.

And then corrects a typo/slip a few posts later:

My apology...This is a typo...I meant "deadline" not "no lynch" - That's what my argument was and still is.

In post 426, he clarifies further, and adds some new points (Which Wuffles' argument also doesn't address):

3. I think wanting a deadline is not a protown thing to do, and I assumed everyone would know why a deadline isn't protown...Mostly, it could lead to a no lynch. Plus, it shortens the day, shortens the discussion, puts pressure on the town, and could also lead to a lynch without a claim. Anyone who asks for a deadline will be suspicious to me...I think this is both a reasonable and common opinion, and not bollocks.

I don't agree that a no lynch is never a pro town move. On Day 1, it almost certainly isn't, but there are situations where it's the best thing to do, and there are situations where it's better than other options. That's a blanket statement I disagree with, but Wuffles has invented a blanket statement in his argument that I don't think anyone in this game agrees with ("If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch"), and demonstrates how an argument based on that false premise is false. That's a strawman. You're not going out of your way to avoid a fallacy, you're going out of your way (Maybe possibly unintentionally, but I doubt it) to commit it.

Also, Wuffles, please tell me what's wrong with my characterization of Arafax's point regarding deadlines and no lynch from post 401:

1. Sometimes, if a deadline is set, there will be no lynch.
2. No lynch is bad for the town.
3. Therefore, setting a deadline can hurt the town.
4. Wuffles is asking to set a deadline.
5. Therefore, Wuffles might be trying to hurt the town.

[lunalovegood]

Omg I am so sorry i've been gone so long I've been really sick please don't replace me. I'll read over the thread tonight.

[Elias_the_thief]

I'm sorry I'm an ignoramus...
but what is a strawman fallacy?

[Thestatusquo]

This site is about athiesm, but it has a fairly good list of logical fallacies that are very well explained.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... logic.html

In a nut shell, a strawman falacy is saying that a person said something besides what they said, in order to make it more easily defeatable. For instance. I say "My car is blue." And you respond "HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY SAY ALL CARS ARE BLUE, THAT'S REDICULOUS!!!" A little extreme, but a good example of the general idea.

[Wuffles_II]

A Straw man fallacy is when you are misquoting someone’s arguments or deliberately not placing them in the strongest possible light in order to make their arguments seem weaker or less logical.

I hope you now understand EXACTLY what I was trying to do – put Arafax’s unspecified suppositions in a more concrete form so that I could better refute them.

And you're specifying them in a way that directly contradicts something that he actually said to make it into an arguments that's logically flawed ("Weaker or less logical", as you put it). Here's what Arafax has actually said about a deadline being suspicious:

Arafax ends post 393 with:

Mod, can we have a deadline, please?

Wuffles, this does not take away any of my suspicions of you...This does not come across as pro twon at all!

This was vague, I'll admit. Wuffles says in 397 that requesting a deadline is neither inherently pro-town or anti-town. In post 398, Arafax clarifies his position: (Emphasis mine)

Sometimes

a deadline without a lynch equals a no lynch...A no lynch is never a pro town move...You asking for a deadline makes me find you scummy...Not trying again, you're doing it well yourself to become more scummy to me.

Dictionary.com defines "sometimes" as "on some occasions; at times; now and then." In other words, not at all occasions. In post 400, Wuffles somehow gets from this to "If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch." as a key part of Arafax's argument, and the only conclusion as "There will be No Lynch".

In post 413, after a bit more discussion, Arafax adds:

Wuffles - I think that a speed lynch or a no lynch is never good for the town...That's why I am suspicious of you for asking for a no lynch.

And then corrects a typo/slip a few posts later:

My apology...This is a typo...I meant "deadline" not "no lynch" - That's what my argument was and still is.

In post 426, he clarifies further, and adds some new points (Which Wuffles' argument also doesn't address):

3. I think wanting a deadline is not a protown thing to do, and I assumed everyone would know why a deadline isn't protown...Mostly, it could lead to a no lynch. Plus, it shortens the day, shortens the discussion, puts pressure on the town, and could also lead to a lynch without a claim. Anyone who asks for a deadline will be suspicious to me...I think this is both a reasonable and common opinion, and not bollocks.

I don't agree that a no lynch is never a pro town move. On Day 1, it almost certainly isn't, but there are situations where it's the best thing to do, and there are situations where it's better than other options. That's a blanket statement I disagree with, but Wuffles has invented a blanket statement in his argument that I don't think anyone in this game agrees with ("If a deadline is set, then there will be no lynch"), and demonstrates how an argument based on that false premise is false. That's a strawman. You're not going out of your way to avoid a fallacy, you're going out of your way (Maybe possibly unintentionally, but I doubt it) to commit it.

Also, Wuffles, please tell me what's wrong with my characterization of Arafax's point regarding deadlines and no lynch from post 401:

1. Sometimes, if a deadline is set, there will be no lynch.
2. No lynch is bad for the town.
3. Therefore, setting a deadline can hurt the town.
4. Wuffles is asking to set a deadline.
5. Therefore, Wuffles might be trying to hurt the town.

I'm going to have to repeat myself again, I see.

I don't see the possibility of a no lynch at even 1% right now, with this many people already at 2 (or three !!) votes already.

That is why I am fervently denying that my wish for a deadline was for any reason other than to MOVE THE GAME ON.

Here is the way I perceive your attempts to clarify fax's argument. Note well that I fully believe anyone who goes for this argument is resting their propositions upon a flawed base - that is, that there is a possibility worth considering that a deadline today will result in a no lynch.

Even a freaking muppet could see that, with this many people this close to lynch (assuming a deadline is in place, three votes is all thats needed) the chance of everyone suddenly going "SCREW THIS I CANT DECIDE" is infinitessimal.

1. Sometimes, if a deadline is set, there is a very small chance that there will be no lynch.
2. No lynch is bad for the town. (no disagreements here)
3. Therefore, setting a deadline has a very small chance of hurting the town.
4. Wuffles is asking to set a deadline. (True, obviously)
5. Therefore, there is a very small chance Wuffles might be trying to hurt the town.

This is how I would phrase Arafax's claims, were I in his shoes and attempting to tell the truth about Wuffles' deadline comments. Of course, this also shows that if I were Arafax, I would not be placing suspicion on wuffles because of this.

I stand by my claim that for Arafax to remain suspicious of me based upon my deadline request, his opinions would have to AT VERY, VERY LEAST be:

1. If a deadline is set, there is a decent chance of a no lynch.
2. A deadline has been set
3. Therefore, there is a decent chance of a no lynch.

I just see premise one to be totally false. There is not a good chance of no lynch at all.

I just don't see how Arafax can be suspicious of me because of this, or the other reason he provided relating to my content. I still say that his suspicion of me based upon my TSQ opinions is somewhat justified, but also that it is not something that he should continue to pursue when I am making this much of an attempt to make my opinions clear.

If anyone here sees good reason to believe that there is a better chance of no lynch than I thought, please, make your thoughts clear.

Come on, guys, once more, I just don't see how this is......at all hard to understand...

Perhaps I am just a legend in my own mind, norinel, but that really seems to me to simply be the correct way of looking at my actions regarding a deadline.

rawr.

[Arafax]

Wuffles, I admit that you are most definately animated and fun to play with....I love people who post a lot. - PS: I'm not joking.

However, I find you scummy for 2 things...The same things that have been stated over and over...This is a game of opinion and my opinion is that you're being scummy...You can say your opinions and why you think I am scummy, etc etc, but I am getting the impression that you are fascinated with lynching me because I find you scummy....I'm getting that vibe from you; any thoughts on that?

PS - Just a thought of frustration...It's looking like either Wuffles or myself will be the lynch of the day (unless we go with the no lynch)....This kinda stinks because we are actually playing...Now,

MOD

can we get some prods or replacements and extend the deadline?...The game seems to be getting somewhere now too...I'm annoyed because I may get lynched while people who don't even seem to want to play the game are going to keep playing....Thanks!

[Wuffles_II]

Arafax, I admit that you are most definitely interesting - but I hate people who try to lynch me a lot. - PS: I AM Joking.

and no, it's not because you are finding me scummy that I am going after you. It is because you are finding me scummy for what I believe to be bd reasons. I will throw down with you, Norinel (a decidedly more experienced player), Lowell or TSQ if needs be to attempt to prove myself.

^_^

[spectrumvoid]

Arafax: Fine, I'll explain why.

Confused post = CP
Normal post = NP

NP: Arafax's early posts sound like he's not confused. (Sept 8, 2 posts on Sept 9, 1st post Sept 12)

Confused townie part kicks in.
Sept 20, the post about being confused about lurking.
Sept 21, post about being confused about whether accusation is directed towards him.
Sept 21, post about not understanding which posts TSQ is referring to.

NP
Sept 21, post about Wuffles.
Sept 22, first post.
Posts on Sept 24-30.

CP: Oct 2, post about not understanding why he's scummy.
NP: Logical post Oct 3.
CP: Confused post saying he thinks Wuffles is 'weird'
NP: Oct 6, 10.
CP: post Oct 12 saying he doesn't understand what lowell is saying.

It's normal to be confused about some posts, but Arafax has been playing this 'confused townie' thing way too much. Also, even after some people explain to attempt to clear up his confusion, he evades the original question. It seems scummy to me because he just says 'I'm confused' most times he's dealt a difficult question.

It's really difficult for me to think Wuffles is scummy for directing the town and pushing for 'fax's lynch, when I'm on the same wavelength. I'll do a good read of Nor's posts, and post my opinions about that later.

[lunalovegood]

Okay I read over what I missed which took me like an hour but here is what I've come up with.

1. I know this has passed but the whole TSQ and Elias being brothers thing should have nothing to do with this game.

2. Wuffles keeps changing his mind over issues and it's pissing me off so I'm going to have to

vote: Wuffles

.

3. I think a deadline is a good idea because this first day has been going on for almost twenty pages now and people are getting bored. If we lynch a townie, at least we'll know a lot more about everyone's playing styles. Also we have the chance of actually lynching the mafia. We can afford a mislynch right now because we have enough townies.

4. I really wish i had someone that I knew to play mafia with .

[Elias_the_thief]

Thanks for clearing the whole strawman thing up guys. And glad to see your posting again Luna.
I dont really have anything of importance to add now, but I thought I'd check in. Any chance of a

vote count

, mod?

[Wuffles_II]

Okay I read over what I missed which took me like an hour but here is what I've come up with.

1. I know this has passed but the whole TSQ and Elias being brothers thing should have nothing to do with this game.

2. Wuffles keeps changing his mind over issues and it's pissing me off so I'm going to have to

vote: Wuffles

.

3. I think a deadline is a good idea because this first day has been going on for almost twenty pages now and people are getting bored. If we lynch a townie, at least we'll know a lot more about everyone's playing styles. Also we have the chance of actually lynching the mafia. We can afford a mislynch right now because we have enough townies.

4. I really wish i had someone that I knew to play mafia with .

Luna, I think everything you've said in this post has "passed".

Also, I have been making a conscious effort in the last few pages to be consistant, as my slightly zealous posts recently have described.

Please, do try to post content, rather than just regurgitate other people's comments - only 'fax appears to still hold me to blame for the wishy-washyness over TSQ. Hell, even now, I am still undecided on where his allegiance lies. While I acknowledge that this WAS scummy on my part, I think that this does not in itself acknowledge a vote.

It's probably good that you don't have anyone you know in this game - the temptation to talk to them about stuff you really shouldn't is really tempting. I would know. I have been tempted by that in the past.

I THINK I am at 4 votes. Lowell's vote on me without anything to back up his claim of my "leading" the town is very suspicious also.

Lowell, Norinel, Arafax and now, Luna.

[Wuffles_II]

EBWODP - CDB has not yet discovered where he stands. He's been active since tuesday. I hate people that claim to be "busy" and are still able to post on every other thread they're involved in.

God.

[Wuffles_II]

Ah, I mean...Claim to be "lax"...tee hee.

[spectrumvoid]

Luna: What do you think of the 'fax issue?

[Primate]

The Neraly, Probly The Last One Vote Count

Thestatusquo -

1

- (CDB)
Wuffles -

3

- (Ziliu, Arafax, Norinel)
Elias -

1

(TSQ)
Arafax -

5

(Wuffles, Spectrumvoid, Elias, Lowell, Luna)

6 to do the final deed.

I have not recieved 1/2 PM's yet, nor had to replace anyone, so the deadline sticks.

Deadline will hit as soon as I get to a computer after 12 midnight on the 16th.

[Wuffles_II]

Er, Primate, Lowell is still voting for me.

Ah, wait a sec, he didn't unvote, right?