NY 164: Maniacal Street Mafia (Anticlimatically finished.)

Desperado · Post Post #2300 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 6:18 am

In post 2293, Bulbazak wrote:
In post 2289, Desperado wrote:Bulb, if you're going to play the reading comprehension card, then what does this mean:

"He also easily found other things to look at and didn't stall in coming up with scumreads and townreads, regardless of his massclaiming shenanigans."
"He didn't just push the massclaim and then do nothing else. He actively engaged in the thread and was able to scumhunt and find scumreads and townreads."

It is referring to CTD actively engaging in the thread, instead of just being generally useless after his massclaim push (unlike Oversoul).

Yes it is. Now that activity...what does it include? What's the only read that CTD has developed that did not stem from the massclaim push? His case on DLG!

Except when I asked him about it later, he said CTD's case on DLG had "absolutely nothing to do with" his townread. When I reminded him that he had, in fact, included said case in his townread on CTD, his answer to that was that it wasn't just the case, but the way he pushed it. Which is both a) inconsistency, and b) moving goalposts.

And Ceph, I am not "arguing with what the word means." I'm well aware of the definition of confirmation bias, or I wouldn't have used the term. What I am arguing against is the notion that only town players can exhibit confirmation bias. It's ludicrous. If every player's wincon depends on them appearing town, and players unquestionably exhibit confirmation bias, how do you reconcile that conclusion?

Nothing

prevents

a scum aligned player from using confirmation bias in their argument, and no one has satisfactorily told me why not. "Scum already know everyone's alignment, and confirmation bias requires that they not know" does not fly

when scum must appear to be town in order to win.

Nacho started with the premise "Desperado is scum" and has fit all of the evidence to his conclusion. Textbook confirmation bias. Has nothing to do with his alignment.

ISO · Post Post #2301 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 6:22 am

A possibility on the CTD thing: even if his reads were based on the massclaim thing, he didn't hesitate to provide them, despite how they were generated (hence "regardless of his massclaiming shenanigans")

If a scum aligned player is pretending to use confirmation bias you wouldn't say that they have confirmation bias you'd say they were faking confirmation bias. Your post implied he actually had it, and don't tell me that's not what you meant because all the words around those two point to the same thing iirc.

ISO · Post Post #2302 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 6:23 am

I'm getting sick of arguing a point I barely care about though

Desperado · Post Post #2303 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 6:26 am

In post 2301, Cephrir wrote:If a scum aligned player is pretending to use confirmation bias you wouldn't say that they have confirmation bias you'd say they were faking confirmation bias. Your post implied he actually had it, and don't tell me that's not what you meant because all the words around those two point to the same thing iirc.

And now we're back to word choice and telling me what I meant. My scum read on Nacho never wavered, yet you and Bulb and Nacho are trying to say that by saying he exhibits confirmation, I was subconsciously

admitting

that he's town.

Are you seriously suggesting that all I needed to say was "faking confirmation bias" as opposed to "he has confirmation bias" to render this whole argument moot?

Bacde · Post Post #2304 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 6:27 am

In post 2303, Desperado wrote:
In post 2301, Cephrir wrote:If a scum aligned player is pretending to use confirmation bias you wouldn't say that they have confirmation bias you'd say they were faking confirmation bias. Your post implied he actually had it, and don't tell me that's not what you meant because all the words around those two point to the same thing iirc.
And now we're back to word choice and telling me what I meant. My scum read on Nacho never wavered, yet you and Bulb and Nacho are trying to say that by saying he exhibits confirmation, I was subconsciously
admitting
that he's town.

Are you seriously suggesting that all I needed to say was "faking confirmation bias" as opposed to "he has confirmation bias" to render this whole argument moot?

is desp somehow misrepping the case on him?

because the case seems pretty shitty based on this post

ISO · Post Post #2305 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 6:38 am

I can't speak for anyone else but that would have been sufficient for me. Bacde, it would be a shitty case if this was the whole case but it's like 1% of the case

Bulbazak · Post Post #2306 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 6:44 am

In post 2302, Cephrir wrote:I'm getting sick of arguing a point I barely care about though

I'm starting to feel the same way.

In post 2303, Desperado wrote:
In post 2301, Cephrir wrote:If a scum aligned player is pretending to use confirmation bias you wouldn't say that they have confirmation bias you'd say they were faking confirmation bias. Your post implied he actually had it, and don't tell me that's not what you meant because all the words around those two point to the same thing iirc.
Are you seriously suggesting that all I needed to say was "faking confirmation bias" as opposed to "he has confirmation bias" to render this whole argument moot?

It depends on how you're reading the other person. If you read them as scum, then they are faking, or are just tunneling, if you read them as town, then it's real. That's the point. The claim of confirmation bias depends on a third party looking in (town rarely acknowledges it themselves), therefore, you were the one calling it confirmation bias, whose very definition (which, yes, you were arguing against) means the person stuck in it is town.

In post 2304, Bacde wrote:
In post 2303, Desperado wrote:
In post 2301, Cephrir wrote:If a scum aligned player is pretending to use confirmation bias you wouldn't say that they have confirmation bias you'd say they were faking confirmation bias. Your post implied he actually had it, and don't tell me that's not what you meant because all the words around those two point to the same thing iirc.
And now we're back to word choice and telling me what I meant. My scum read on Nacho never wavered, yet you and Bulb and Nacho are trying to say that by saying he exhibits confirmation, I was subconsciously
admitting
that he's town.

Are you seriously suggesting that all I needed to say was "faking confirmation bias" as opposed to "he has confirmation bias" to render this whole argument moot?
is desp somehow misrepping the case on him?

Yes he is. Rather badly, I might add. He's flailing scum, and should be lynched post haste.

Desperado · Post Post #2307 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 6:54 am

In post 2138, Bulbazak wrote:This is about you claiming that Nacho has confirmation bias, instead of just saying that he is scummily tunneling you.

This has been your position the entire time. Word choice. When I asked, you clarified again:

But it is word choice crucial in presenting your perception of events and alignments. Instead of saying that Nacho was scum that was tunneling you, you instead said he was succumbing to confirmation bias, which betrays a perception of Nacho as town, which contradicts everything you've said.

So what am I misrepping? Even though I've been completely transparent about what I meant when I said that Nacho is exhibiting confirmation bias, you are telling me that because I said "He is using confirmation bias" and not "he is faking confirmation bias" or "he is scummily tunnelling me" it is proof positive of me being scum, when

all three of those are functionally identical in my opinion and I have no wavered from this stance throughout the entire exchange regarding this issue

.

Desperado · Post Post #2308 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 6:56 am

In post 2305, Cephrir wrote:I can't speak for anyone else but that would have been sufficient for me. Bacde, it would be a shitty case if this was the whole case but it's like 1% of the case

Explain the other 99% in detail please

Desperado · Post Post #2309 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 6:59 am

The reason I'm asking you, specifically, Cephrir is because you had me "winning" the original argument with nacho, and only started voting me after Bulb started pushing the conf bias case really hard. So...what are you referring to exactly?

Bulbazak · Post Post #2310 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 7:24 am

Words mean something, Desperado. That's why sometimes it's important to find out why someone said X instead of Y. It's why it is possible to catch scum slipping. What a person said and what that means is just as important a scumhunting tool as examining a player's actions (which, incidentally, we must also interpret in order to catch scum). So, no, I'm not going to look the other way, just because you say to. You made a deliberate word choice which betrayed your actual thoughts and knowledge. I caught you, and no amount of "No. That's not what I said/meant. I'm using a different definition than all of you." is going to stop me from actually looking into the motives of why you would do so. You are telling us to stop delving into the meaning of what you said, which is, in fact, telling us to stop scumhunting and looking at you, which is scummy in and of itself.

mastin2 · Post Post #2311 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 7:27 am

I have a mild cough, am running a high temperature (especially around the neck and shoulders), have experienced a loss of appetite (and a related loss in energy), have a mild soreness in my hips and neck, and yet, I'm

still

here to give y'all a votecount*.

I am a hardcore mod.

Forty-eighth Votecount

:

(

AKA, the "As mod--not god--I am not invincible" votecount

)

Desperado - 6 (Cephrir, ArcAngel9, Thor665, Bulbazak, Syryana, Amethyst Kitty)

penguin_alien - 4 (Nachomamma8, Kublai Khan, Red Ryu, Om the Destroyer)

Nachomamma8 - 3 (Seanald, CrashTextDummie, Bacde)
Haylen - 2 (thezmon221, Oversoul)
BeautyAndTheBeast - 1 (Nero Cain)
Thor665 - 1 (Slandaar)
Nero Cain - 1 (BeautyAndTheBeast)
Oversoul - 1 (Desperado)

Not Voting - 5 (ThAdmiral, EddieFenix, PeregrineV, penguin_alien, Haylen)

With

24

players alive, it's

13

to lynch.

If deadline were to hit now, Desperado would be lynched.

New deadline is Tuesday, May 28th, @ 12:30 PM PST, which is in (expired on 2013-05-28 12:31:59).

Nero Cain is V/LA until Thursday, May 23rd.
Haylen is finishing her final exams.
Thor665 is on V/LA until Sunday, May 26th.

Spoiler: changes from last official votecount

Spoiler: Player Vote History

Spoiler: Voting History

*Don't worry, I'm not going to exert myself. I'm going to get a nice long nap and keep any physical activity to a low-stress level.

Desperado · Post Post #2312 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 7:32 am

In post 2310, Bulbazak wrote:Words mean something, Desperado. That's why sometimes it's important to find out why someone said X instead of Y. It's why it is possible to catch scum slipping. What a person said and what that means is just as important a scumhunting tool as examining a player's actions (which, incidentally, we must also interpret in order to catch scum). So, no, I'm not going to look the other way, just because you say to. You made a deliberate word choice which betrayed your actual thoughts and knowledge. I caught you, and no amount of "No. That's not what I said/meant. I'm using a different definition than all of you." is going to stop me from actually looking into the motives of why you would do so. You are telling us to stop delving into the meaning of what you said, which is, in fact, telling us to stop scumhunting and looking at you, which is scummy in and of itself.

I've never once questioned you for asking me why I said what I said, I have consistently been questioning the conclusions that you have drawn from our discussion. Please show me where I have told you to stop delving into the meaning of what I said.

ISO · Post Post #2313 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 7:33 am

In post 2309, Desperado wrote:The reason I'm asking you, specifically, Cephrir is because you had me "winning" the original argument with nacho, and only started voting me after Bulb started pushing the conf bias case really hard. So...what are you referring to exactly?

No I didn't I had you winning one point of said argument (but decided Nacho's response later was sufficient). This just isn't true.

Slandaar · Post Post #2314 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 7:37 am

In post 2305, Cephrir wrote:I can't speak for anyone else but that would have been sufficient for me. Bacde, it would be a shitty case if this was the whole case but it's like 1% of the case

Show me the other 99%.

ISO · Post Post #2315 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 7:42 am

Are you readin the thread? I mean I can go quote half of Nacho's posts in the last 10 pages if you insist. Do you really need me to do that?

Desperado · Post Post #2316 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 7:45 am

So your case against me is a bunch of (unspecified) things that Nacho said?

Desperado · Post Post #2317 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 7:46 am

Just making sure that you are committing to sheeping Nacho for future reference

ISO · Post Post #2318 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 8:21 am

In my book sheeping means following someone's vote because you think they're so great. I'm following someone's vote because I've read their argument and agree with it. In principle though, yeah, basically.

ISO · Post Post #2319 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 8:21 am

Your reactions to his case have also been less than stellar

Desperado · Post Post #2320 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 8:22 am

Could you be any more vague about it?

thezmon221 · Post Post #2321 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 8:26 am

In post 2259, Desperado wrote:
In post 2151, thezmon221 wrote:Confirmation bias itself, I will agree with Bulb, generally pertains to the fact that the person committing confirmation bias (in this case, Nacho) is town, since generally scum doesn't need to fit the read to a case as they know your alignment. Due to this, it seemed that you submitted to him being town in this instance with the belief of his confirmation bias.
What the hell? You just said this:

In post 2148, thezmon221 wrote:I know I personally have been able to deduce in an argument I am in that a person has succumbed to confirmation bias when I am town. Just because he says that Nacho is succumbed to such doesn't entirely mean that Despo is scum. While the part where he flipped his read on Nacho is scummy itself, the confirmation bias point simply is weak. Scum and town alike can come to the same conclusion. Scum are going to be more accurate, yes, because they know the alignments. However, a town can make the same conclusion if they are able to get into a third perspective of the argument, which is what a townie should be able to do in such an argument.
So you have personal experience, as town, with being able to deduce that another player is resorting to confirmation bias, and that me saying that Nacho is using confirmation bias doesn't necessarily make me scum. So which is it?

Your question doesn't make sense. It sounds like it's all the same statement, to me. I never believed you were scummy for declaring usage of confirmation bias. I said you were scummy because of the exact reason of the first quote. Generally when one states the other is using confirmation bias, it is submitting to the fact that they are town. In this case, you submitted to Nacho being town. However, you kept your scumread on him, which shows an abnormal waver in your read. It appeared as if you had an unjustified 180 flip on him, but now it looks like your application of confirmation bias is merely shit.

Confirmation bias is just about always going to be a town/pro-town (including most survivors and other roles that fit in this category, but are not explicitly town) action. As I said before, the scum knows whether you are town or scum. This means that the factor of confirmation bias is completely taken out with them, since they already know your alignment. Confirmation bias is the conceived notion that they have already determined your alignment and developed a case around it. They don't know your alignment, but they think you are X alignment, which is generally scum. It is very hard to feign for most mafia players unless they are very scummy.

@Waylan: Do you still want my actual, typed case, or are you content with the quote that Cephrir (?) provided?

Desperado · Post Post #2322 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 8:37 am

In post 2321, thezmon221 wrote:
In post 2259, Desperado wrote:
In post 2151, thezmon221 wrote:Confirmation bias itself, I will agree with Bulb, generally pertains to the fact that the person committing confirmation bias (in this case, Nacho) is town, since generally scum doesn't need to fit the read to a case as they know your alignment. Due to this, it seemed that you submitted to him being town in this instance with the belief of his confirmation bias.
What the hell? You just said this:

In post 2148, thezmon221 wrote:I know I personally have been able to deduce in an argument I am in that a person has succumbed to confirmation bias when I am town. Just because he says that Nacho is succumbed to such doesn't entirely mean that Despo is scum. While the part where he flipped his read on Nacho is scummy itself, the confirmation bias point simply is weak. Scum and town alike can come to the same conclusion. Scum are going to be more accurate, yes, because they know the alignments. However, a town can make the same conclusion if they are able to get into a third perspective of the argument, which is what a townie should be able to do in such an argument.
So you have personal experience, as town, with being able to deduce that another player is resorting to confirmation bias, and that me saying that Nacho is using confirmation bias doesn't necessarily make me scum. So which is it?
Your question doesn't make sense. It sounds like it's all the same statement, to me. I never believed you were scummy for declaring usage of confirmation bias. I said you were scummy because of the exact reason of the first quote. Generally when one states the other is using confirmation bias, it is submitting to the fact that they are town. In this case, you submitted to Nacho being town. However, you kept your scumread on him, which shows an abnormal waver in your read.
It appeared as if you had an unjustified 180 flip on him, but now it looks like your application of confirmation bias is merely shit.

Confirmation bias is just about always going to be a town/pro-town (including most survivors and other roles that fit in this category, but are not explicitly town) action. As I said before, the scum knows whether you are town or scum. This means that the factor of confirmation bias is completely taken out with them, since they already know your alignment.
Confirmation bias is the conceived notion that they have already determined your alignment and developed a case around it.
They don't know your alignment, but they think you are X alignment, which is generally scum.
It is very hard to feign for most mafia players unless they are very scummy
.

@Waylan: Do you still want my actual, typed case, or are you content with the quote that Cephrir (?) provided?

@ Bolded: or yours is too narrow. Confirmation bias is approaching an argument with a preconceived conclusion and then fitting the evidence to fit your conclusion. If the scum's job is to secure MLs, and they must do this while also appearing to be town, then please,

please

tell me why it is

completely implausible

for scum to employ confirmation bias in their argument, and how this correlation is so strong that, even though I've repeatedly said the opposite, I just don't know what the fuck I'm talking about and I scumslipped end of story why aren't more people voting him.

Also, my understanding is that Nacho IS a very good player who WOULD be fully capable of feigning it, so why is it so hard for you and Bulb and Ceph to see my side of this? Why are you so content to just tell me what I meant and vote me on a nonexistent scumslip? It's lazy, and its narrow minded.

thezmon221 · Post Post #2323 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 9:01 am

In post 2322, Desperado wrote:@ Bolded: or yours is too narrow. Confirmation bias is approaching an argument with a preconceived conclusion and then fitting the evidence to fit your conclusion. If the scum's job is to secure MLs, and they must do this while also appearing to be town, then please,
please
tell me why it is
completely implausible
for scum to employ confirmation bias in their argument, and how this correlation is so strong that, even though I've repeatedly said the opposite, I just don't know what the fuck I'm talking about and I scumslipped end of story why aren't more people voting him.

It's impossible for scum to employ confirmation bias because they

already know

your alignment. The only way they could possibly commit confirmation bias is through saying that you are so townie and everything you do is townie, however you accused Nacho of the very obvious. Scum already know that X person is town, so they can't go in with a confirmation bias that said person is scum, because they know that this person isn't scum. The only preconceived notion they may possess is that the person is obvtown. The only possible instance where they could ever actually commit confirmation bias in a scum way (being what Nacho supposedly did) would be a bus, because he then actually has the notion that you are scum, and is able to fit his evidence to scumminess.

Also, my understanding is that Nacho IS a very good player who WOULD be fully capable of feigning it, so why is it so hard for you and Bulb and Ceph to see my side of this? Why are you so content to just tell me what I meant and vote me on a nonexistent scumslip? It's lazy, and its narrow minded.

I never knew I was voting for you. And by that I mean, I never voted for you. I don't think you realized that I was on your side in this instance until you unnecessarily blew it up. I challenged Bulb's point against you by saying it was weak, but then I made a side statement saying how confirmation bias is submitting to the fact that a person is town.

Haylen · Post Post #2324 (ISO) » Thu May 23, 2013 9:09 am

Just to check, the game has fucking started now right? Jesus merciful christ.