Mini 404: Diablo Mafia (Game Over)

[Thestatusquo]

Stoofs, I just got you on deliberately weak argument. I'm not sure if that makes you scum or not.

[al_kohaulec]

Stoofs, I don't see anything scummy in the way I reacted to the DoS, TJM thing. Three things.
1) I didn't defend TJM. I posted a case against DoS, because I thought he was clearly scum. Doesn't it make sense that I would be more inclined to believe my own research on DoS?

2) Pointing out a flaw in an argument against someone is not defending that person, it is only pointing out a flawed argument. Not only that, you AGREED with my analysis in your VERY NEXT post. So if you're using that as offense, you might as well vote yourself.

3) It is not my fault you read my role wrong. Voting me because you thought I was a cop when I wasn't is hardly a reason to vote someone.

Seeing as I'm two from lynch, I'd appreciate some unvotes for the moment. I don't see significant reason for me to claim right now.

1.) You did defend TJM. You also apparently posted the case against DoS and forced a roleclaim from him it sounds like (I haven't seen it, but I'll check it out later). But you did have posts that clearly were defending TJM.

2.) I'm not sure what flaw you're talking about. Since this was a response to Stoofer's post, the only thing I can see you'd be talking about is Stoofer's quotes from you talking about how scum wouldn't fake claim such a terrible claim, which isn't really a flaw. So I'm assuming you're referring to something else, if so, please point out to me what you were referring to.

3.) Players can deliberately try to give off power role tells to other players. So if you did do this, then it can be your fault. As Stoofer already mentioned, he's not voting you because he misinterpreted you as the cop, but because when he realized you weren't the cop and read over your posts, he found you incredibly scummy.

[Thestatusquo]

1) My posts were not defensive of TJM. They were offensive towards DoS, which seemed like I was defending TJM because the fact that there were two wagons, of which I was clearly in support of one.

2) Yes, it is. There was the clear attack that LG should be voted because he had heavily defended TJM. I pointed out a flaw in that logic, which stoofer agreed with in his next post.

3) That was the deliberately weak argument. Stoofer fell for it, you did not. A DWA is something that I picked up from reading seols games. You insert a diliberately weak claim amongst stronger ones, and see which one gets attacked, and by whom, and in what combination.

Stoofer completely ignored the valid points I made, and attacked the one that was easy to score a point on. This leads me to believe that he's not actually interested in determining whether I am scum or not, but rather is just trying to win the argument.

You on the other hand addressed everything substantively, which leads me to believe you're a pro town player putting pressure on me.

I am not sure if this makes stoofer scum or not. But it certainly makes him look bad in my eyes.

[al_kohaulec]

Also, N1 there were no deaths, and N2 there was what seemed to be a delayed death and an immediate death. Does anybody think it's likely that since there was no death last night, that it was another slow acting poison one?

[Thestatusquo]

It's possible, but I have never found speculating about deaths without something concrete (I.E. I am a RB and I blocked XYZ last night kind of speculation) to be anything other than a distraction.

Specifically, why do you bring it up, Alko?

[al_kohaulec]

Because I haven't finished reading through the thread yet. I wasn't sure if there was some hint in the DPs at a delayed death, or if it just happened, or maybe if you guys discovered something a while ago that I haven't read yet.

[Zindaras]

StallingChamp

has been prodded. If you feel anyone else should be, please tell me.

[StallingChamp]

Yeah, I managed to replace into a game then forget about it.

*brb reading*

[Save The Dragons]

EBWODP:

Std, do you do anything besides sit on the fence?

Nope!

[Save The Dragons]

1. I knew Frozenstein is actually in Diablo II, having played it myself.

And I know Robert Paulson is in Fight Club but that doesn't mean I am Robert Paulson if I say I am.

2. Remus who has said Diablo II is is favorite game knew Frozenstein was in Diablo, and believed that he would be aligned that way. This second reason may be misguided, but I feel that remus is town and so am willing to believe him, especially based after yesterdays actions.

1) You believe his opinion because he is town? Please tell me you also believe it on grounds that it is logical.
2) Once again. Robert Paulson's not really a bad guy. I could probably convince you as such in a game of Fight Club Mafia. Doesn't make it true.

Did you have any reason to trust Skruffs after he edited wikipedia to incorporate his claim and then claimed something else?

TSQ has, on the other hand, made a good point on StD. His playstyle is often fairly aggressive as town and sitting-on-the-fence-ish as scum.

That's not what he said!

hiya. People get your votes of TJM, theres a better case on DoS:

This is the only instance I can find of anything close to a defense of TJM, if I'm wrong someone find it for me.

This is why I'm on the fence; I air on the side of caution. Most of the time.

[Mr Stoofer]

Stoofs, I just got you on deliberately weak argument. I'm not sure if that makes you scum or not.

No I didn't. As alko has already said:

As Stoofer already mentioned, he's not voting you because he misinterpreted you as the cop, but because when he realized you weren't the cop and read over your posts, he found you incredibly scummy.

hiya. People get your votes of TJM, theres a better case on DoS:

This is the only instance I can find of anything close to a defense of TJM, if I'm wrong someone find it for me.

Go back and read my post and follow the links I gave.

[remussaidow]

[quote="Save The Dragons]
1) You believe his opinion because he is town? Please tell me you also believe it on grounds that it is logical.

TSQ has, on the other hand, made a good point on StD. His playstyle is often fairly aggressive as town and sitting-on-the-fence-ish as scum.

That's not what he said!


This is why I'm on the fence; I air on the side of caution. Most of the time.[/quote]

Agree, I hope that he's agreeing with me because its logical as well. HOWEVER

No, but it is an extrapolation of what he said. It's what I'm saying based on what he said.

StD, from my playing with you, you only err on the side of caution as scum. Are you claiming that you are scum most of the time?
Not sure if was this game or not that I directed poeple to Star Wars mafia on Magic4you.nu. Read it, I'm sure you'll see my point. Or just read the post differences between std 1.0 and std 2.0.

[DragonsofSummer]

1. I knew Frozenstein is actually in Diablo II, having played it myself.

And I know Robert Paulson is in Fight Club but that doesn't mean I am Robert Paulson if I say I am.

This is true, but the fact that I knew the character was in the game made it more believable for me than if I didn't know it to be true. Through the same train of thought I would be more inclined to believe a Robert Paulson claim in Fight Club Mafia than say a claim of Marv (from Sin City).

2. Remus who has said Diablo II is is favorite game knew Frozenstein was in Diablo, and believed that he would be aligned that way. This second reason may be misguided, but I feel that remus is town and so am willing to believe him, especially based after yesterdays actions.

1) You believe his opinion because he is town? Please tell me you also believe it on grounds that it is logical.
2) Once again. Robert Paulson's not really a bad guy. I could probably convince you as such in a game of Fight Club Mafia. Doesn't make it true.

1. Yes, the fact that it was logical played into it.
2. I already addressed this point.

Did you have any reason to trust Skruffs after he edited wikipedia to incorporate his claim and then claimed something else?

That was scummy of him I have to agree with you, but still just because a Wiki page doesn't exist for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist (he should not have made his own for it though). I never believed his second claim was serious. I thought it was a joke from the beginning and treated it as such.

[Thestatusquo]

Stoofs, I just got you on deliberately weak argument. I'm not sure if that makes you scum or not.

No I didn't. As alko has already said:

As Stoofer already mentioned, he's not voting you because he misinterpreted you as the cop, but because when he realized you weren't the cop and read over your posts, he found you incredibly scummy.

hiya. People get your votes of TJM, theres a better case on DoS:

This is the only instance I can find of anything close to a defense of TJM, if I'm wrong someone find it for me.

Go back and read my post and follow the links I gave.

And stoofer continues to fall for the deliberately weak argument. I KNOW thats not why you're voting me. That isn't the point the fact that you ignored the valid points I made, and went after the one that I made up, that was weak, and threw in there just to see if it got attacked is the point. Now, you've continues to attack me on that one point, ignoring not only the other valid points I made, but also my explanation of what the point I made that you are attacking meant in relation to everything else.

I can't buy you as pro town right now. You're not trying to find scum, you're trying to score points in an argument.

Vote: Stoofer

[Mr Stoofer]

And stoofer continues to fall for the deliberately weak argument. I KNOW thats not why you're voting me. That isn't the point the fact that you ignored the valid points I made, and went after the one that I made up, that was weak, and threw in there just to see if it got attacked is the point. Now, you've continues to attack me on that one point, ignoring not only the other valid points I made, but also my explanation of what the point I made that you are attacking meant in relation to everything else.

I thought I had responded to the points which did not amount just to saying I was wrong. I don't like get into arguments which just go "You are wrong" / "No I'm not" / "Yes you are"...

If you would repeat your "valid points", please, I will respond to them individually.

[Thestatusquo]

Stoofs, I don't see anything scummy in the way I reacted to the DoS, TJM thing. Three things.
1) I didn't defend TJM. I posted a case against DoS, because I thought he was clearly scum. Doesn't it make sense that I would be more inclined to believe my own research on DoS?

2) Pointing out a flaw in an argument against someone is not defending that person, it is only pointing out a flawed argument. Not only that, you AGREED with my analysis in your VERY NEXT post. So if you're using that as offense, you might as well vote yourself.

3) It is not my fault you read my role wrong. Voting me because you thought I was a cop when I wasn't is hardly a reason to vote someone.

Seeing as I'm two from lynch, I'd appreciate some unvotes for the moment. I don't see significant reason for me to claim right now.

The biggest things, which you completely ignored are a) The fact that my 'defense of TJM' was actually just me thinking the case was stronger on someone else. STD has already posted to that effect as well.

You will notice about this, also, that the posts you quote of mine do not actually showcase me defending TJM, but instead:

1) Saying my opinion on a claim
2) VOTING HIM(WTF!)
3) Saying I don't like either of our current lynch candidates.

I do not see how any of this could be even remotely seen as defending someone.

And point b) Where you quote a post I made in reference to livingod's claim, and cite it as evidence that I was defending him, ignoring the fact THAT YOU AGREED WITH THAT POST after it was made. I expect to see you FOSing yourself sometime soon.

You instead focused on 3, which, as I have already explained, was the deliberately weak argument. I think I've explained what that is at great length.

Carry on.

[Thestatusquo]

"You are wrong" / "No I'm not" / "Yes you are"...

I'd also like to point out the rediculous nature of this statement. All arguments take that form. The difference is that people, you know, support their arguments with proof.

An actual argument goes something like this:

Claim: X/ Claim X is wrong because of Y/ claim y is wrong, irrelevant, because of z

And so on. You've basically just said "If you think I'm wrong, then tough." Which I don't think I have to explain why it's stupid.

[Mr Stoofer]

Thestatusquo's First Point

:

1) I didn't defend TJM. I posted a case against DoS, because I thought he was clearly scum. Doesn't it make sense that I would be more inclined to believe my own research on DoS?

a) The fact that my 'defense of TJM' was actually just me thinking the case was stronger on someone else. STD has already posted to that effect as well.

I don't agree with this interpretation of your posts. I set out my interpretation in detail, with quotations, in my post 540. At the time, TheJiveMachinescum and DragonsofSummer were both in the firing line. Your posts consistently* tried to push the bandwagon towards DragonsofSummer and away from TheJiveMachine.

[* It wasn't quite consistent; your post 354 went the other way, but you immediately retracted.]

You will notice about this, also, that the posts you quote of mine do not actually showcase me defending TJM, but instead:

1) Saying my opinion on a claim
2) VOTING HIM(WTF!)
3) Saying I don't like either of our current lynch candidates.

I do not see how any of this could be even remotely seen as defending someone.

As to these 3 points:

1) My point is that your opinion was to lynch DoS and not TJM-scum
2) I noted that in my post 540 - I also noted how you immediately retracted
3) That's not a fair reflection, but in any event TJM's claim was lynchworthy, so saying you didn't want to lynch him after his claim is scummy.

Thestatusquo's Second Point

:

2) Pointing out a flaw in an argument against someone is not defending that person, it is only pointing out a flawed argument. Not only that, you AGREED with my analysis in your VERY NEXT post. So if you're using that as offense, you might as well vote yourself.

And point b) Where you quote a post I made in reference to livingod's claim, and cite it as evidence that I was defending him, ignoring the fact THAT YOU AGREED WITH THAT POST after it was made. I expect to see you FOSing yourself sometime soon.

First, this is evidence, nothing more. I didn't suggest it was conclusive. Secondly, I did

not

agree with you: my next post said that I thought you were mistaken.

[Thestatusquo]

Don't have time to respond to all of that this instant, but I'd like to point out that you called it "A fair point." Last time I checked, a fair point != a scum tell. When will that self FOS be coming down?

[Mr Stoofer]

Oh I've finally understood what you have been going on about! I

didn't

agree with the post you said I agreed with: but I

did

say that say a

later

post (which was a correction of your earlier post) was a "fair point".

As it turns out, your point was wrong - livingod was scum after all.

And so this is evidence against you. Making fair points in defence of scum is still evidence of scumminess. It doesn't prove it scumminess; and it's not as bad as making bum points in defence of scum; and I didn't make much of a feature of the point in my post 540 anyway.

[Thestatusquo]

Exactly. You used it as a means of 'piling on'

In my opinion, making fair points is never a scum tell.

[Mr Stoofer]

Meh. That's not a key reason why I'm voting you anyway.

[remussaidow]

Don't have time to respond to all of that this instant, but I'd like to point out that you called it "A fair point." Last time I checked,

a fair point != a scum tell

. When will that self FOS be coming down?

Exactly. You used it as a means of 'piling on'

In my opinion,

making fair points is never a scum tell

.

TSQ, explain.

[Mr Stoofer]

a fair point != a scum tell

means the same as

making fair points is never a scum tell

.

!=

means "is not equal to"

[remussaidow]

ah, ok.

nevermind then