Totally insane-y,
Chicken Chow Mein-y:
These are the Facts:
Blake Judge – 1 – JDodge
Fuldu – 1 – VitaminR
With
Not Voting – 6 – Blake Judge, chamber, Foolster41, Fuldu, HurriKaty, mole
How in the world would he be qualified to answer this question?JDodge wrote:Is it a coincidence that the only person you're suspicious of you is the only person voting for you?Blake Judge wrote:If we're talking about gut instincts, I've found JDodge's last few posts strange for some reason. I really need to catch up on the rest of the thread, however.
Sorry. I meant "Is it a coincidence that the only person you're suspicious of is the only person voting for you?". If that isn't what you mean, then at least it'll be entertaining watching him grasp for an answer.Thesp wrote:Thanks, mod!
How in the world would he be qualified to answer this question?JDodge wrote:Is it a coincidence that the only person you're suspicious of you is the only person voting for you?Blake Judge wrote:If we're talking about gut instincts, I've found JDodge's last few posts strange for some reason. I really need to catch up on the rest of the thread, however.
Why can't they be both? Certainly it could be the former under the benefit of the latter, correct? I'm also highly doubtful Sailor Jerry would have been so blatant as to phrase it in the manner you have suggested would have been obviously scummy.Fuldu wrote:I have to say that I maintain mole's "Please explain why I shouldn't vote you" was an attempt to offer the benefit of the doubt rather than providing SJ with an out.
ItThesp wrote:Why can't they be both? Certainly it could be the former under the benefit of the latter, correct? I'm also highly doubtful Sailor Jerry would have been so blatant as to phrase it in the manner you have suggested would have been obviously scummy.Fuldu wrote:I have to say that I maintain mole's "Please explain why I shouldn't vote you" was an attempt to offer the benefit of the doubt rather than providing SJ with an out.
I agree with the premise, yet the fact that Sailor Jerry was indeed scum makes it more likely mole had ulterior motives. It is an inductive argument rather than a deductive one, but I think it merits consideration that it's more likely mole was doing bad things.Fuldu wrote:Itcouldbe that mole was doing both, but I don't think that doing the former is inherently scummy or even poor pro-town play, so barring evidence of the latter, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that mole did anything worthy of suspicion.
I'm not sure I understand the significance of this part of your post.Fuldu wrote:In a large game with multiple scum teams, trying to get scum lynchedcouldindicate one scum team trying to gain an advantage over the other, but that shouldn't be the first conclusion you jump to without some evidence above and beyond the simple attempt to lynch scum.
You even say the argument is MORESO sound because of SJ's alignment. But later:thesp wrote:That's the thing - I agree it was a sound argument (even moreso given SJ's alignment now), and I think mole summed it up in an easy package for SJ to rebut so SJ wouldn't go all over the place. SJ certainly could explain himself without mole's help, why the prompt from mole? That's what gets me - it was fairly clear that SJ needed a defense, and mole is giving SJ the opportunity to not be voted. I don't think that's a throw-away statement, I think it's very deliberate.Fuldu wrote: I actually found that to be a sound argument against SJ. Giving players the opportunity to explain themselves, especially on Day One, is just common sense. I don't think that mole was providing Jerry with any particular foothold on which to build a defense, just pointing out that if he had one, everyone would like to hear it.
So you say he is MORE likely because of SJ's revealed alignment. This sounds like a contradiction to me. I like irony, so I'll say it. Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you thesp?Thesp wrote:I agree with the premise, yet the fact that Sailor Jerry was indeed scum makes it more likely mole had ulterior motives. It is an inductive argument rather than a deductive one, but I think it merits consideration that it's more likely mole was doing bad things.Fuldu wrote: It could be that mole was doing both, but I don't think that doing the former is inherently scummy or even poor pro-town play, so barring evidence of the latter, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that mole did anything worthy of suspicion.
I don't think it makes you suspicious personally. I do think however its a pretty damn silly statement to say that we have little info when we managed to lynch mafia on day 1.VitaminR wrote:Why does that make me suspicious?Thesp wrote:Really? I think it gave us plenty.VitaminR wrote:SJ got lynched so quickly that we don't have that much info, really.FOS: VitaminR.
It hasn't stopped me voting or explaining my actions. I've mostly used it to undermine my own vote.
It's not like I FOSed you three weeks ago, is it? Nothing's changed on that front.JDodge wrote:Is it a coincidence that the only person you're suspicious of you is the only person voting for you?Blake Judge wrote:If we're talking about gut instincts, I've found JDodge's last few posts strange for some reason. I really need to catch up on the rest of the thread, however.
Ah, I see what you're saying. I do, however, contend that in your argument/analogy, the actual likelihood of a person being more likely to be scum because "trying to get scum lynchedFuldu wrote:The problem with your line of reasoning is that the "arguably more likely" involved is a tenuous argument and of, in my opinion, little predictive power.
How is it OMGUS, exactly?Fuldu wrote:And, frankly, that's the most suspicious thing I see going on right now. As the object of VitaminR's suspicion, it's hard to disengage such concerns entirely from the notion of OMGUS, but really. a) VitaminR has repeatedly suggested that we didn't get any useful information from yesterday's lynch.
This is nice and patronising. My gut feeling is that you're scum. Rather than attempting to construe a case against you around that, I think it's fairer that I just say that.Fuldu wrote:b) VitaminR has voted for me on the basis of an, ummm, unusual read of information from yesterday's lynch.
I've said that you could see it that way. They don't for me.Fuldu wrote:c) VitaminR has acknowledged that he recognizes that these two facts are in competition and that the former undermines the latter.
I did read the post, and I've just now read it again, and unless I'm missing something, all the questions in it are directed at Thesp. You even end with "Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you thesp?"Foolster41 wrote:Thanks for ignoring my post Fuldu. (Actually it seems everyone missed it)
Vot4e: Fuidugot your attention? Please answer my questions. (Scrolll up to my last post)
I don't understand this whole argument about multiple scum groups. This is a mini game, so isn't it moot?
I didn't vote, but you have the other part right at the beginning of what you quoted.VitaminR wrote:You didn't vote me, nor have you expressed suspicion of me.
Except that, in rereading the post in question, I can see how the word "that's" lacks clarity and might be seen as referring to Thesp. But it wasn't, that was me expressing suspicion of VitaminR.Fuldu wrote:And, frankly, that's the most suspicious thing I see going on right now.
Why? I really don't understand how you're playing this game.Foolster41 wrote:Oh crap. How did I do that? unvote Sorry about that. Vote: Thesp
Foolster41 wrote:I feel Thesp is shoehorning Mole in to a place of suspicion.
You yourself admited that it's not the thing he said in itself, but the timing more or less, yes?
You even say the argument is MORESO sound because of SJ's alignment. But later:thesp wrote:That's the thing - I agree it was a sound argument (even moreso given SJ's alignment now), and I think mole summed it up in an easy package for SJ to rebut so SJ wouldn't go all over the place. SJ certainly could explain himself without mole's help, why the prompt from mole? That's what gets me - it was fairly clear that SJ needed a defense, and mole is giving SJ the opportunity to not be voted. I don't think that's a throw-away statement, I think it's very deliberate.Fuldu wrote: I actually found that to be a sound argument against SJ. Giving players the opportunity to explain themselves, especially on Day One, is just common sense. I don't think that mole was providing Jerry with any particular foothold on which to build a defense, just pointing out that if he had one, everyone would like to hear it.
So you say he is MORE likely because of SJ's revealed alignment. This sounds like a contradiction to me. I like irony, so I'll say it. Tell me why I shouldn't vote for you thesp?Thesp wrote:I agree with the premise, yet the fact that Sailor Jerry was indeed scum makes it more likely mole had ulterior motives. It is an inductive argument rather than a deductive one, but I think it merits consideration that it's more likely mole was doing bad things.Fuldu wrote: It could be that mole was doing both, but I don't think that doing the former is inherently scummy or even poor pro-town play, so barring evidence of the latter, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that mole did anything worthy of suspicion.