Newbie #358 - Big Trouble in Little Rome (Game Over!)

[Dr. Doom]

jack raises a good point, after all, someone has to be lynched first, and without a lynch -1, we can't have a lynch.

Yeah, but putting someone on Lynch -1 on Page three is Not Good. Pweople should be lynched (or put at minus three) if there is some kind of consensus to lynch them, not just to pressure a lurker.

[Dio]

Wouldn't you agree though that if the majority did decide to vote on him that'd be a consensus?

[Mr. Flay]

Fourth Vote Count of Day One:

Tendril

Dr. Doom - 1 (yakult)
Jack - 1 (Dio)
kabenon007 - 1 (vollkan)

Not voting - 4 (Battle Mage, kabenon007, Jack, Dr. Doom)

With seven alive, four votes will lynch.

[Dr. Doom]

Yes, I agree to that. But was majority in favor of putting

ElKabong

kabenon007 at three votes? Well, based on the reactions here, I'd say no (and rightly so - its far too early to risk a lynch): Jack unvoted immediately (so Elkabiong was just at two votes then), BM and yakult voted him, Volkan fossed him. Thats four apparently against it - a majority.

Some things: Where do you guys know from that he asked for replacement by PM? Why would that be inherently scummier(or inmherently more protown) than other methods (asking in-thread, just disappearing)?

Yakult, when you voted for Tendril, you quoted someone else and said "agreed", then put him at a "healthy" two. That could be a townie, but it also could be scum trying to deposit a vote somewhere safe without gaining too much attebntion. Basically, just quoting people and not giving more-or-less indepth own reasons is not good for the town, since if it becoems accepted behaviour, it becomes easier for scum to vote without giving reasons. So please, elaborate.

Volkan, it was your post that yakult quoted. Yet ypu Fossed, while yakult voted. You were/are voting kabenon007 at that moment. Why did you kept your vote on kabenon007 and did not switch to Tendril? Please, explain.

[vollkan]

Volkan, it was your post that yakult quoted. Yet ypu Fossed, while yakult voted. You were/are voting kabenon007 at that moment. Why did you kept your vote on kabenon007 and did not switch to Tendril? Please, explain.

My vote for ElKabong/kabenon007 was just a random starting vote. I didn't switch my vote because I wasn't entirely convinced that Tendril had done anything scummy; I merely wanted to get him to explain his actions to see whether there was anything suspicious or whether it was likely just a newb mistake, so I fossed to make him talk. I became more suspicious in the post following that one, but by that stage Tendril already had 2 votes and I did not want to put him at -1.

Where do you guys know from that he asked for replacement by PM? Why would that be inherently scummier(or inmherently more protown) than other methods (asking in-thread, just disappearing)?

I didn't know, and still don't if he actually requested by PM. In my previous post I said that I didn't think it was particularly significant if he did. Maybe other people think more of it than I do, but I think Tendril's request to leave is a non-issue.

[kabenon007]

it is a non issue, now that it has been explained that it isn't unheard of. And I knew he used PM because he never asked for a replacement in thread, and the mod said that Tendril was being replaced per request. No scumminess involved.

[Dr. Doom]

it is a non issue, now that it has been explained that it isn't unheard of. And I knew he used PM because he never asked for a replacement in thread, and the mod said that Tendril was being replaced per request. No scumminess involved.

Hm, I get a very defensive vibe from this, as if you try to put any discussion about it down.

Note: I know it is not an issue. I can't really imagine how the fact how you get replaced (by flaking, or by requesting it per PM or in-thread) is or can be a strong or even weak tell (either for summiness or innocence [Note to teh note: Asking in teh thread would be more open, and thus a very, very, very, weak protown tell, but thats all about it]), so I dont want to talk about if it was either a scum or town tell, but want I want to talk about is how the discussion about it runs, and how people talk about it (thats why I asked in teh first place).

Kabenon007, you were the one that brought about the topic in the first place, and now you seem to want to put it down as fast as possible. Plus, you did not just bring it up, but said in #97

this is just my own personal opinion, (but what on this forum isn't someone's personal opinion.) but I find it suspicious that Tendril requested replacement through PM.

It could be interpreted this way: You are a scummer, and tried to cast suspicion on someone, testing if that method would hold water. Even better, your potential target could not even defend himself, nor could his replacement, because the replacement can not know what motivated Tendril. As the method to cast suspicion on someone did not work out, you backed off, and when someone else dug it up, you tried/try to put it down as fast as possible.
Comments on that?

My vote for ElKabong/kabenon007 was just a random starting vote. I didn't switch my vote because I wasn't entirely convinced that Tendril had done anything scummy

Are you confident with your random vote? I guess we have left the random stage, so wouldn't it be better to take your vote off, just in case that person is innocent? And there is a metareason to do it:
If people were allowed to let their random initial votes rest for long, scum could use it as an excuse why they vote for someone. IE: I don't think that "It's a leftover from random voting stage" is an acceptable reason to vote for anyone anymore.

[kabenon007]

as far as I can tell, Dr. Doom, it has been put down. I was merely stating the fact about how I figured out that Tendril requested replacement through PM. I am not accusing, merely pointing out something that probably isn't scummy, but was just different. However, if you wish to argue the point further, ask me any questions you wish, I am ready to defend myself. You see, if I thought your, or Tendril's, actions were scummy, I would have voted for you, because you currently only have one against you.

[Dr. Doom]

No-no, sorry, you misunderstood me (I think). I don't think that it is good if we discuss wether someone left a game via PM ar Thread.

What was getting my attention is that your post #105 sounds like you want to hush the topic up, as if I had put a finger somewhere were you don't want it to be (Volkans post on that matter doesn't sound as defensive or "Let's sweep it under the rug", imho).

That's what I want to discuss, and what want to hear something about.

Btw, Jack, your post #95 is awfully short. I know it's your style of posting, but could you say some more stuff [not "more" in the SPAMSPAMSPAM-sense, but in the "more content"-sense]?

On another note, is everyone content with me/Tendril getting of the hook so easily? Does anyone have anymore questions about/towards me/her?

[Dr. Doom]

Ebwop

That's what I want to discuss, and what

I

want to hear something about.

[kabenon007]

if I seem like I am trying to hush it up, it's probably because I feel like an idiot. This is my first game, I know that is not an excuse.

Um, let me see... I probably am sounding like I am shoving it under the rug because I didn't post too much in post 105. If someone would use few words in a post, their response would concurrently seem to be short and abrupt. I did not mean to sound this way, and apologize if it seemed that way to anybody. I'm not sure why I didn't post much, probably because I didn't feel anymore explanation was necessary.

[Dr. Doom]

if I seem like I am trying to hush it up, it's probably because I feel like an idiot.

What the... Why do you feel like an Idiot? Because you thought that something coudl be a scumtell that isn't? Nah, doesn't sound like an Idiot to me, more like eager newb or scum trying to playing the newb card.

Um, let me see... I probably am sounding like I am shoving it under the rug because I didn't post too much in post 105. If someone would use few words in a post, their response would concurrently seem to be short and abrupt.

Its not just the number of words, it is also what Words are used. Well, of course, I can't think of a good example now, but I think you now what I mean, though.

I did not mean to sound this way, and apologize if it seemed that way to anybody.

Umm, there is no apology needed, since you did not do anything that would be considered morally wrong. This is not about mebeing hurt, this is about you seeming to cover something up.

I'm not sure why I didn't post much, probably because I didn't feel anymore explanation was necessary.

Okay, that sounds good, although the "I don't remember it well now"-routine is dangerous, because again, if it gets accepted too often, it's easy to (ab)use by the mafia. Plus, look at teh Timestamps:
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: 105
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 4:19 pm Post subject: 110
There is a difference of about twelve hours. Is your Shortterm-memory really

that

short?

On another Note: The thing with saying that you feel like an Idiot, and the apology are all stuff called "Appeal to emotion" [you can also look it up on Wikipedia], since they do not really have a thing to do with Logic (teh Apology part is more "appealing to emotion" than the I feel like an Idiot part). It si generally bad to use appeal to emotion, since it does not follow the Logical rules of reasoning, and thus will likely lead to false conclusions ("Foreigners are taking away our Jobs!", for example, is an appeal to fear, an emotion. People tend to believe that sentence (and the consequences of that: That foreigners should be expelled, or that it should be forbidden for them to work [at teh same time, many people that believe that one also believe that foreigners in general are lazy]), despite the lack of evidnece. Thus, it can be used to argue for anything and nothing, and again is (ab)usable for the mafia, so don't do it (although it is often used in small quantities to make arguments more appealing to the audience. If used sparingly, and - most importantly - not as the mainargument, it is okay).

[vollkan]

First up,

Are you confident with your random vote? I guess we have left the random stage, so wouldn't it be better to take your vote off, just in case that person is innocent? And there is a metareason to do it:
If people were allowed to let their random initial votes rest for long, scum could use it as an excuse why they vote for someone. IE: I don't think that "It's a leftover from random voting stage" is an acceptable reason to vote for anyone anymore.

Am I "confident" with my random vote? I don't quite follow you; it was random. I didn't consider the possibility that people would think I was scum because it is an easy excuse for a vote; I kind of just assumed that if people jumped on a bandwagon they were more likely scum but I do see your point.

unvote

. Also, Dio's vote on Jack is also a random from the start, so Dio might want to unvote as well.

Now, the matter of kabenon and the PM request.

Hm, I get a very defensive vibe from this, as if you try to put any discussion about it down.

Note: I know it is not an issue. I can't really imagine how the fact how you get replaced (by flaking, or by requesting it per PM or in-thread) is or can be a strong or even weak tell (either for summiness or innocence [Note to teh note: Asking in teh thread would be more open, and thus a very, very, very, weak protown tell, but thats all about it]), so I dont want to talk about if it was either a scum or town tell, but want I want to talk about is how the discussion about it runs, and how people talk about it (thats why I asked in teh first place).

Now, kabenon. Your posting has been odd. I don't think anybody else gave the request to leave a second thought, and yet you have actually commented that you think doing it by PM is suspicious (I'll leave it up to your imagination as to HOW a PM reuqest is more suspicious). I dismissed this issue back in post 98, to which you responded with:

okay. Just checking.

What were you trying to prove? Doom seems to feel the same way I do that it is a completely irrelevant point (I would like the thoughts of the other players in this regard in case Doom and myself are missing something). You then acted as though the whole thing was irrelevant and just a 'stupid' mistake on your part pointing out something 'different' though not 'scummy'. I don't know if it is particularly 'different' (it may be quite common) and there is no way which it could be scummy (He has left the game, he has no need to make scummy plots).

But let's move back a bit. Kabenon said:

We townies are more thoughtful. We think things through.

In your highly defensive post 110, you apologised, pleaded stupidity and "I am probably sounding like..." defense. In the above quote, you play the "we townies" card. I have been responding to Doom's questioning plainly, whereas your comments are always so defensive, even when you are not responding to criticism.

Now, kabenon post 83

but is tendril still a newbie? I mean, this is his fourth game, and that also doesn't include how many he might have played outside of forum.

So the newbie of "stupid mistake" is rock-solid for yourself, but dubious for tendril/Dr Doom?

Also from the above, we can see something else. kabenon has consistently been playing against Tendril/Doom: post 80

I don't know. Tendril's reluctance to defend himself seems a little scummy...
If he were town, he would want us all to believe he was town. If we all believed he was town, and he was, then we would have one less person to suspect as Mafia.

If Tendril's true goal is to expose the Mafia, what better way to do it than to clear each person, beginning with himself? That way we know one person who is not mafia.

Then in post 85, after Tendril had made a defence, you state:

I admit that you have defended yourself before. However, you clearly state that you are done defending. That's all I am pointing out.

In short, your effort here seems to have been to invalidate Tendril's defence and then make it seem odd that he would then make a second defence after having declared to have finished. Why would he make a second defence....possibly because he was under suspicion and had to. But, then you changed tact after I said Tendril's defence was suspicious but not provably. You said:

"tis true, tis true, this we are often told: that with virtuous deed and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself."

A good point, vollkan.

And, surprise surprise, kabenon dropped discussion of it. This has been repeated in regards to the PM issue, but because Doom has pressed kabenon on it (and kabenon started this issue) it has turned around full circle.

In short, I

vote: kabenon007

for the following reasons:
1) Your defensiveness and consistent use of emotional appeals
2) Your hypocritical use of the newbie defence
3) The fact that you consistently target Tendril/Doom for the most stupid of reasons.
4) The fact that you keep accepting everything I say as though you want to be agreeable (challenge me dammit)

I did not vote for Tendril in the first instance because I considered that his newbie defence may have been valid. However, since kabenon himself criticised Tendril's use the newbie defence, kabenon's right to rely upon equivalents of that defence (ie. stupid) is revoked. Kabenon's actions, unlike Tendrils, are not consistent with newbieness but, rather, reek of an agenda against Tendril whilst, simultaneously, playing as defensively as possible (and doing a very melodramatic job of it).

[kabenon007]

this is just my own personal opinion, (but what on this forum isn't someone's personal opinion.) but I find it suspicious that Tendril requested replacement through PM. I saw someone ask for replacement, but they did it in forum. I don't know if PM is the usual way or not, just thought I would throw that out there. Besides, if Tendril requested replace for some reason like a death in the family, I would feel like a total a**.

Okay, as you can see in this post, I am asking, not telling, whether or not asking for replace by PM is common or not. And then you vollkan, wrote this:

I don't think that his PM request to leave is particularly suspicious. I stand by my last post in regards to Tendril's suspicion in general, but I don't think requesting to leave via PM is particularly noteworthy. I mean, if he might have thought it was normal to request to leave by PM (I know it is what I would have done until reading what you said).

And then I agreed. That's it. Is it wrong for me to think that someone has made a good point?

And that whole "we townies" thing? That was way back when I first joined this game, people were still joking around, and I threw that one out on purpose, just to get a rise out of someone.

Alright, the newbie defense...

if I seem like I am trying to hush it up, it's probably because I feel like an idiot. This is my first game,

I know that is not an excuse.

See? See that bolded print? I know it is not an excuse!!!! I came right out and said it.

As for the emotional statements and melodrama...
Well, let's start with the melodrama. I am an actor. That's what I'm good at. And, if you knew me in real life, you would know what a random person I am, and so would see that I thrive on the melodrama. That is just how I am.
Same with the emotional things. I am one of those guys that is very in touch with my emotions. (no I'm not gay.) I try to be myself, and myself is emotional. Now if that is something that is thrown into suspicion while playing Mafia, maybe I will adjust my playing style.

3) The fact that you consistently target Tendril/Doom for the most stupid of reasons.

I beg your pardon? You wound me, sir. I do not target. If I targetted, I would have voted! Yet my vote remains uncast. And besides, one person has to continually target someone, otherwise nobody would get lynched.

Let me see...

In short, I vote: kabenon007 for the following reasons:
1) Your defensiveness and consistent use of emotional appeals
2) Your hypocritical use of the newbie defence
3) The fact that you consistently target Tendril/Doom for the most stupid of reasons.
4) The fact that you keep accepting everything I say as though you want to be agreeable (challenge me dammit)

1) check
2) check
3) check
How's that for a challenge?
oh and 4) check

[vollkan]

Wow, this just gets better and better.

1) check
2) check
3) check
How's that for a challenge?
oh and 4) check

1) You didn't actually address why you are playing defensively. In respect of your emotional language your excuse was "I am an actor". Much like what I said in regards to Tendril's "newbie" defence; it is a sufficient defence, but it is certainly not adequate. Thus, you have failed to explain your defensiveness and you have provided a flimsy excuse for your language. "check" overruled.

In any case, my thespian friend, I believe the words of Shakespeare himself do justice in proving why your emotional appeals and suchlike are suspicious: "An honest tale speeds best being plainly told."- The Tragedy of King Richard the Third (Queen Elizabeth at IV, iv)

Your tale has not been plainly told, therefore I must assume it is dishonest! Thankyou, Bard.

2) Being "aware that it is not an excuse" makes your reliance on the newbie "stupid mistake" card all the more interesting. Even in your most recent post (the one I am responding to now) you wrote:

I try to be myself, and myself is emotional. Now if that is something that is thrown into suspicion while playing Mafia, maybe I will adjust my playing style.

Again, you imply your suspicious behaviour is due to lack of knowledge. This is my second game kabenon and I have no prior experience with mafia. I refuse, however, to use my own inexperience/lack of knowledge as a defence because I know that I will eventually (and understandably) be lynched for it at some point because it is inadequate and evasive. Also of interest to me is why you did not address the little point I made regarding the hypocrisy inherent in you using the newbie defence. A tad evasive perchance? "check" overruled.

3) Your response to my point 3)

I beg your pardon? You wound me, sir. I do not target. If I targetted, I would have voted! Yet my vote remains uncast. And besides, one person has to continually target someone, otherwise nobody would get lynched.

Well firstly, not voting is most definitely NOT proof that your casting of suspicion is not scummy. Did you consider the possibility that maybe it would be smart for scum not to vote so that they do not appear to be rushing a lynch? Also, one person does not need to continually target people. Usually, as is the case now, it is more that somebody does something and gets challenged which exposes some sort of inconsistency which gives rise to suspicion. Furthermore, targeting ONE person as you acknowledge you have done is incredibly counter-productive. All you are doing in that case is narrowly attacking somebody whilst losing sight of the broader issues. The only people who benefit from targeting a single person for lynches are scum (providing they don't make it obvious). "check" most definitely overruled and has even enhanced my suspicion.

4) Ignoring my last post, you have agreed with me giving the reason that:

And then I agreed. That's it. Is it wrong for me to think that someone has made a good point?

It is not wrong for you to think someone has made a good point. Several people in this game have made excellent points. However, why bother stating your agreement? It looks as though you are trying to earn brownie points by complimenting people, so as to evade suspicion. This game is all about suspicion and not trusting people, so simply giving other people's comments your seal of approval has no possible rationale other than making a personal appeal. A good town will suspect everyone and try to reason their way through, a good scum will try and minimise suspicion against themself (to simplify). Thus, I still find you suspicious in this regard. I don't care if you agree with me, since all that leads me to think is that you are trying to influence me to adopt a particular position. "check" overruled.

[Battle Mage]

NB: Appeal to Emotion is rarely considered a scumtell. its more of a "i care about this game quite alot" tell.

[Dr. Doom]

unvote

Good.

Also, Dio's vote on Jack is also a random from the start, so Dio might want to unvote as well.

Trying to pass suspicion on to someone else? Noted.

I don't think anybody else gave the request to leave a second thought, and yet you have actually commented that you think doing it by PM is suspicious.

So? If you are the only one who finds something fishy, it does not mean that that thing is not fishy. Majority or Minority has nothing to do with the validity of a point - If everyone agreed that the sky and the grass had the same color, the sky would still be blue and the grass still be green, so anyone who would point that out would still be right, although being the only one who thinks so.

I dismissed this issue back in post 98, to which you responded with:

okay. Just checking.

What were you trying to prove?

Well, maybe he is just new and didn'thonestly knew if that was a tell or not? Well, maybe he was trying to find something that could be used to cast suspicion on someone, and as it did not play out, he retracted. Both scenarios are possible.

Doom seems to feel the same way I do that it is a completely irrelevant point.

Trying to buddy up to me? Noted.

You then acted as though the whole thing was irrelevant and just a 'stupid' mistake on your part pointing out something 'different' though not 'scummy'. I don't know if it is particularly 'different' (it may be quite common) and there is no way which it could be scummy (He has left the game, he has no need to make scummy plots).

I agree, although I find the language... odd. When you say "you acted..", you quietly/underhandedly imply that Kabenon was more or less lying. Noted.

but is tendril still a newbie? I mean, this is his fourth game, and that also doesn't include how many he might have played outside of forum.

So the newbie of "stupid mistake" is rock-solid for yourself, but dubious for tendril/Dr Doom?

And (a little out of context, but still)

I did not vote for Tendril in the first instance because I considered that his newbie defence may have been valid. However, since kabenon himself criticised Tendril's use the newbie defence, kabenon's right to rely upon equivalents of that defence (ie. stupid) is revoked.

Um, see this article for why this line of reasoning is Bad Logic (a scumtell, btw).

Also from the above, we can see something else. kabenon has consistently been playing against Tendril/Doom

Hm. I did not get that feeling from reading his posts. In fact, about 5 of his sistenn game-relevant posts had been about Tendril. The ones about/in respobnse to me were not at all aggressive. In teh same vein, you could accuse me of being overly aggressive towards him. Plus, whenever someone said something about his arguments against Tendril, he agreed with them both times (That is a thing that irks me somewhat, as if he wants to seem agreeable).

In short, I

vote: kabenon007

for the following reasons:
1) Your defensiveness and consistent use of emotional appeals

I agree, the former reason is slightly scummy, the latter more so. Btw, you use appeal to emotion a good bit yourself - Im not saying that it means that kabenon is left of teh hook on that one (that would be "tu quoque!"), just that you are on the hook now too.

2) Your hypocritical use of the newbie defence

Err, wait. If I am a newbie, and I see someone using that defense, but then see that that person has played about 500 Games, and said in his "get to know a scummer"-thread or his wikipage, that he has played onm Grey Labyrinth for years , and in Real life since he is nine, then I rightly accuse them of misusing the Newbie defence, but I'm still a newb myself, so IM more prone to errors due not thinking about consequences that are not apparent to happen on first glance.

3) The fact that you consistently target Tendril/Doom for the most stupid of reasons.

Err, again, where? What? Plus, I did it to him too, and with me it was A-okay? Oh, and buddying up to me again?

4) The fact that you keep accepting everything I say as though you want to be agreeable (challenge me dammit)

That is good. People, beware of people agreeing to you all the time - it's part of buddying up, and that is not good.

Phew.
*breaths in*

1) You didn't actually address why you are playing defensively.

I agree, though teh languiage irks me. You can't just "overrule" something, kay?

Your tale has not been plainly told, therefore I must assume it is dishonest! Thankyou, Bard.

Okay, everyone, could you please stop using Old English? Not everyone here is from an Englishspeaking Country, so they might have not read Shakespear in Original. Say what you mean, with your own words, in (mostly) modern English, okay?
I don't get what you try to say here. Do you imply that he is lying? Than we should lynch him, as there "Lynch all Liars" is a thing I adhere to.

2)I refuse, however, to use my own inexperience/lack of knowledge as a defence because I know that I will eventually (and understandably) be lynched for it at some point because it is inadequate and evasive.

Wait, you will not get lynched for using it, at kleast not in the beginning. People do make errors, and newbies more so. This is a newbie game, so at the beginning (say, the first few pages) it is okay, though you can't rely on it all the time.

Also of interest to me is why you did not address the little point I made regarding the hypocrisy inherent in you using the newbie defence. A tad evasive perchance?

More or less agreed: kabenon, you did indeed not address the "being defensive" issue, nor did you address my post.

On Number 3) I agree with Volkan for the most part (that notvoting does not mean you cast suspicion, that concentrating on one person allows scummers to hang in the background, etc), though it is not true that the only people who get something out of it are scummers. A good method to find scum is to apply pressure to someone, apply more, aplly more, until that person breaks under the pressure. The theory here is that townies react differently to it than scummers, since scummers

know

that they have something to hide, that the other people are right, while townies know that the people who accuse them are wrong. Still, that is only good, if nearly everyone gets looked at very closely, and if people don't loose other people out of their sight.

On Number 4) I disagree with Volkan. Saying that you agree with someone if that someone has proven you wrong or if someone has made a good point is not a scumtell in and of itself. Buddying up to someone is, as has pointed out before in this game (Battlemage to Jack, for example).

Pheeewwieeee.....

@Kabenon:
1) On the "we townies"-thing: It was/is on the first few pages, so I won't hold it against anyone.
2) If you know that something si not an excuse, don't use it as one. Either say that you are new, and thus prone to make errors, or don't. The same goes for "it may look scummy, but.."-type of posts. Yes, they look scummy, and you know it, so why post them? Scummy behaviour is practically never good for the town (at least, I can't think about instances were that is true).
3) Being in touch with your emotions does not mean that using appeal to emotion is okay. It's still Craplogic, that can be used by scu to lead people to false conclusions (or even townies can (unwillingly) use it that way), ie. false lynches. So don't.
4) This forum is one of the places where being gay and open about it is okay, so please leave it that way (ie: preemptively saying that you are not gay as if being gay is bad is not good). But that is a tangent, so lets leave it at that.

Kabenon, I still find your posts defensive, although that got better. Refrain from appeal to emotion, and don't play the IM a newb"-excuse anymore, wether true or not, because we can't possibly verify or falsify it. Plus, you did not respond to my last post.

"tis true, tis true, this we are often told: that with virtuous deed and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself."

Okay, what does this sentence mean?

Volkan, some of your points against kabenon hold water imho, but some of them don't. Not everything that kabenon says is false, allow for that, please. Yes, everyone here is a potential scummer, and that should always be kept in mind (I lost my last game since I forgot that), but people could also be townies. I find your pouncing on kabenon very odd, since it is so vicious. Whats up with that?

[quote="Dio""]Wouldn't you agree though that if the majority did decide to vote on him that'd be a consensus?[/quote]Btw. do you care to comment on that? What did you wanted to say/What was your point? Did you want to defend Tendril, or attack his attackers? Or what?

Battlemage, Jack, Dio, yakult: Post!
..

[vollkan]

Since kabenon has not yet responded to my comments, this post will focus on the comments made at me by Doom...

Quote:
Also, Dio's vote on Jack is also a random from the start, so Dio might want to unvote as well.
Trying to pass suspicion on to someone else? Noted.

That wasn't an attempt to pass the blame. Doom you stated:

Are you confident with your random vote? I guess we have left the random stage, so wouldn't it be better to take your vote off, just in case that person is innocent? And there is a metareason to do it:
If people were allowed to let their random initial votes rest for long, scum could use it as an excuse why they vote for someone. IE: I don't think that "It's a leftover from random voting stage" is an acceptable reason to vote for anyone anymore.

You said it yourself, it is better to take the votes off. I was merely suggesting that Dio do it also because, as you say, it is better that way since it could protect an innocent person. In your post you didn't mention Dio, so I thought that I should suggest your advice to him also.

So? If you are the only one who finds something fishy, it does not mean that that thing is not fishy. Majority or Minority has nothing to do with the validity of a point - If everyone agreed that the sky and the grass had the same color, the sky would still be blue and the grass still be green, so anyone who would point that out would still be right, although being the only one who thinks so.

I did not mean that the majority was right. Your point is valid, equally as valid as the possibility that kabenon made his PM discussion in order to raise suspicion against Tendril. I was just pushing him on that point to see how he would explain it, trying to find if it would lead to anything.

Quote:
Doom seems to feel the same way I do that it is a completely irrelevant point.
Trying to buddy up to me? Noted.

No I was not trying to buddy up to you (you wish!) As I was writing that I had a feeling that somebody would later suggest I was being chummy. All I was trying to get across there was that you had also expressed similar thoughts so that I wasn't saying it was irrelevant with no other authority for that position.

I agree, although I find the language... odd. When you say "you acted..", you quietly/underhandedly imply that Kabenon was more or less lying. Noted.

I can't believe we are debating semantics, but oh well. In that context my use of "acted" was in reference to kabenon's comments at the prima facie level. I don't know whether he was telling the truth or lying, but his actions, prima facie, were that he then started to play down the significance of what he had said.

Doom, you just tried to make a suspicion of me based on a narrow interpretation of language. To use your parlance, noted.

Um, see this article for why this line of reasoning is Bad Logic (a scumtell, btw).

For starters, I did not invoke the Tu quoque fallacy. In the article you linked me to they define the inconsistency version of the fallacy as: " A makes claim P. A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P. Therefore, P is false (or is dismissed). " They give the example of: ""You say airplanes are able to fly because of the laws of physics, but this is false because twenty years ago you also said airplanes fly because of magic."

Now, my logic is: Kabenon uses newb defence. Kabenon has also criticised others for using the newb defence. Therefore, Kabenon is hypocritical to use the newb defence.

I have not used the fallacy. I am not making any conclusion regarding the newb defence being true or false, I am merely stating that it is hypocritical. In simplified terms, my logic is: Person A says theft is wrong. Person A steals. Therefore, Person A is a hypocrite. There is nothing faulty in my logic, in fact, if my logic were a fallacy than the concept of hypocrisy would be based on a fallacy (which it is not).

Maybe my understanding of this fallacy is different to yours and I am wrong, though I really don't think that can be the case. You then try to construct this as a scumtell? Noted.

Hm. I did not get that feeling from reading his posts. In fact, about 5 of his sistenn game-relevant posts had been about Tendril. The ones about/in respobnse to me were not at all aggressive. In teh same vein, you could accuse me of being overly aggressive towards him. Plus, whenever someone said something about his arguments against Tendril, he agreed with them both times (That is a thing that irks me somewhat, as if he wants to seem agreeable).

Very true but you have missed my point. Until kabenon came under criticism, I counted 6 out of 9 posts solely focussing on Tendril. The difference between your accusations against kabenon and kabenon's against Tendril is that you, Doom, have targeted a large number of people whereas kabenon, after making two very short statements regarding Dio and Battle Mage began to solely focus on Tendril.

Btw, you use appeal to emotion a good bit yourself - Im not saying that it means that kabenon is left of teh hook on that one (that would be "tu quoque!"), just that you are on the hook now too.

Examples, please?

Err, wait. If I am a newbie, and I see someone using that defense, but then see that that person has played about 500 Games, and said in his "get to know a scummer"-thread or his wikipage, that he has played onm Grey Labyrinth for years , and in Real life since he is nine, then I rightly accuse them of misusing the Newbie defence, but I'm still a newb myself, so IM more prone to errors due not thinking about consequences that are not apparent to happen on first glance.

I don't understand what you mean here. Could you please explain it a bit more clearly so I can answer it.

Quote:
3) The fact that you consistently target Tendril/Doom for the most stupid of reasons.
Err, again, where? What? Plus, I did it to him too, and with me it was A-okay? Oh, and buddying up to me again?

Again, I am pinged on a matter of semantics. When I said "Tendril/Doom" read the / sign as "who has now become Doom". I didn't actually mean kabenon had targeted Doom. Like when the mod writes the name with the cross-out line, but I can't do the cross out line. Probably confusing so I won't write like that again.

I agree, though teh languiage irks me. You can't just "overrule" something, kay?

*jk* I can do what I want. You're complaint is overruled */jk*

Quote:
Your tale has not been plainly told, therefore I must assume it is dishonest! Thankyou, Bard.
Okay, everyone, could you please stop using Old English? Not everyone here is from an Englishspeaking Country, so they might have not read Shakespear in Original. Say what you mean, with your own words, in (mostly) modern English, okay?
I don't get what you try to say here. Do you imply that he is lying? Than we should lynch him, as there "Lynch all Liars" is a thing I adhere to.

You clearly have no idea about what I said, but you say you aren't from an English-speaking country so that would explain it. kabenon said he was an actor. I, jokingly, then inserted a quote by Shakespeare on lying as a humourous means of criticising the newb defence. I was not trying to start a "Lynch all liars". Other English speakers, please explain to Doom that what I said is not what he has interpreted it as.

And, finally,

I find your pouncing on kabenon very odd, since it is so vicious. Whats up with that?

It's not vicious. I play by waiting until I find some sort of inconsistency and then I try and pressure the person into explaining themself. That way, it may open something up which can determine if they are scum. Kabenon acted inconsistently, I questioned him. Kabenon's responses were inadequate, so I pressed further.

And, also Kabenon remember to address the issue of defensiveness since it is an important one.

[kabenon007]

alright guys. *jk*Seeing as how I have a life, (unlike you guys)*jk* I have to go to school, and therefore will only address the defensiveness issue at the moment.

Let me put this out there for you. "The best offense is a good defense." I follow that quote. If someone is accusing you, what do you do? Do you roll over and take it, admit that everything they are saying is true, or do you fight, or "go on the defensive?"

oh, and vollkan, before I have to leave, might I say that in your post 117, you claim to be going after Doom, but I see more of an underhanded attempt to make more plugs at me. In fact, you seem to talk more about me than Doom as you attempt to refute what Doom has asked you. Dodgy answers, and over-zealousness in your want to accuse me.

Please post: Jack, Dio, BM and yakult!

[Dr. Doom]

I have not used the fallacy. I am not making any conclusion regarding the newb defence being true or false, I am merely stating that it is hypocritical. In simplified terms, my logic is: Person A says theft is wrong. Person A steals. Therefore, Person A is a hypocrite. There is nothing faulty in my logic, in fact, if my logic were a fallacy than the concept of hypocrisy would be based on a fallacy (which it is not).

However, since kabenon himself criticised Tendril's use the newbie defence, kabenon's right to rely upon equivalents of that defence (ie. stupid) is revoked.

As I understand it, you basically said that since kabenon said to Tendril that "being a newb" is not really a good defense, he can't use it for his (kabenons) own defense, right? Well, that is wrong. A thief may very well go to the police when he gets robbed, and a murderer is still protected by law against being killed (xept in rare circumstances). Thats what I wanted to say with my confusing paragraph as well - Even if you do something that is criticizable, you are still allowed to critizise others for it, and only you critized others for something does not mean you can't do it yourself (especially in this example, where Tendril could/can very well have been/be a liar and kabenon in fact a newbie).

Very true but you have missed my point. Until kabenon came under criticism, I counted 6 out of 9 posts solely focussing on Tendril. The difference between your accusations against kabenon and kabenon's against Tendril is that you, Doom, have targeted a large number of people whereas kabenon, after making two very short statements regarding Dio and Battle Mage began to solely focus on Tendril.

I still don't get that feeling. I have harped on practically only on kabenon, and made only few statements/questions about/towards others. Mhm, maybe the sample size is too small (IE, if there only a few posts, results like counting 6 out of 9 are likely to be heavily skewed). I think I will wait and see how kabenon (and others) post in the future of this game.

Btw, you use appeal to emotion a good bit yourself

Examples, please?

Accusing someone of Hypocrisy, for example. This game is nopt about being morally wrong or right, or clean or amoral. Its about who the scum is, and hypocrisy is not an indicator of scumminess (at least not per se), imho.
Or using Shakespear quotes to further your point, although teh use of rethorics could always be called "appeal to emotion", but it makes for a more enjoyable game, and as long your main argument is not "I can use Shakespear quotes, too, so kabenon is scum", all is fine (I think).

Again, I am pinged on a matter of semantics. When I said "Tendril/Doom" read the / sign as "who has now become Doom". I didn't actually mean kabenon had targeted Doom. Like when the mod writes the name with the cross-out line, but I can't do the cross out line. Probably confusing so I won't write like that again.

Oh, no, it has nothing to do with teh / thingie, and I understood what you wanted to say. Its not in the least confusing (to me, at least). Whenever someone defends a person that got replaced, they defend the replacement, too, since the role is the same. Even without the "/Doom" thing, it would have been buddying up to me (well, but not a severe case).
Fyi:

Text

gives you

Text

.

I agree, though teh languiage irks me. You can't just "overrule" something, kay?

*jk* I can do what I want. You're complaint is overruled */jk*

You clearly have no idea about what I said, but you say you aren't from an English-speaking country so that would explain it. kabenon said he was an actor. I, jokingly, then inserted a quote by Shakespeare on lying as a humourous means of criticising the newb defence. I was not trying to start a "Lynch all liars". Other English speakers, please explain to Doom that what I said is not what he has interpreted it as.

Whooie, no need to call others in. I'll believe your explanation (as it would not make sense to lie to me about that in this manner). I still don't get what you were trying to say, then. Plus, you did say that you must assume that that what kabenon said (whatever you were refferring to, btw) is a lie [Okay, after rechecking, dishonest does not strictly mean outright lying]. Oh, and I did not say that you were trying to get kabenon lynched on "Launch all Liars", just that you seemed to say that he lied.

Kabenon acted inconsistently

You mean the part about him questioning someone elses newb-defense, while trying to defend himself with that defense? I don't think thats inconsistent, for the reasons stated above (where i atlk about Hypocrisy).

I still get the impression that your attacks on kabenon and your defence against my attacks is pretty hefty, but it rings more of an eager newbie bell with me, so no FoS.

@BT: Well, Bad Logic like Appeal to emotion can and probably will lead to false conclusions, ie false lynches.

[Jack]

Do I have to read all that?

[kabenon007]

alright, vollkan. Now it's my turn.
First of all, get rid of the agree/buddying up accusation. I agreed with you in one post and you jump all over it. You have agreed more with Dr. Doom than I have agreed with you. Your hypocritical use of the buddying up accusation nullifies your right to use it as well.

You call me inconsistent. Inconsistency is defined as:
the quality of being inconsistent and lacking a harmonious uniformity among things or parts. Now, my gameplay has been uniform throughout this game, if maybe a little defensive in the beginning. Yours, vollkan, changed dramatically. You started out with shorter posts, and now your posts have reached book length, all over strange and bizarre reasons...

1.) see the whole paragraph above about agreeing with you

once

2.) Emotional Appeals
Alrighty. As I told you, I am an actor, but I suppose that would pertain more to real life Mafia than forum based, but I am also a writer. I have been conditioned to add inflexion and feeling into my writing to make it more palatable for my audience. That is how I have written for the past five years of my life, and it is engrained within me. I automatically formalize my writing, you know, embellish it. My whole "I apologize" thing could have simply been written as "oops, soory 'bout that." which I have seen used many times. But because my writing was more formalized made it seem more emotional than it actually was.

3.)Defensive play. Let me ask you a question. How else do you defend yourself except defensively?

Quote:

I try to be myself, and myself is emotional. Now if that is something that is thrown into suspicion while playing Mafia, maybe I will adjust my playing style.

Again, you imply your suspicious behaviour is due to lack of knowledge. This is my second game kabenon and I have no prior experience with mafia. I refuse, however, to use my own inexperience/lack of knowledge as a defence because I know that I will eventually (and understandably) be lynched for it at some point because it is inadequate and evasive. Also of interest to me is why you did not address the little point I made regarding the hypocrisy inherent in you using the newbie defence. A tad evasive perchance? "check" overruled.

How is being myself attributed to your accusation of my lack of knowledge? Please explain.

What were you trying to prove? Doom seems to feel the same way I do that it is a

completely irrelevant point

(I would like the thoughts of the other players in this regard in case Doom and myself are missing something).

You then acted as though the whole thing was irrelevant

and just a 'stupid' mistake on your part pointing out something 'different' though not 'scummy'. I don't know if it is particularly 'different' (it may be quite common) and there is no way which it could be scummy (He has left the game, he has no need to make scummy plots).

Please observe the bolded parts. Vollkan says casually that the whole PM against Tendril was a "completely irrelevant point." Vollkan says that! And then, in the very next sentence, he accuses me with this "you then acted as though the whole thing was irrelevant." Didn't you yourself in the preceding sentence admit that the whole thing was irrelevant?


Therefore, I finally cast my vote:

vote: vollkan

[kabenon007]

oh, and Dr. Doom, in answer to your question:

Quote:
"tis true, tis true, this we are often told: that with virtuous deed and pious action we do sugar o'er the devil himself."
Okay, what does this sentence mean?

This is a quote from one of my favorite movies: V for Vendetta. It simply means that in the acts of trying to drive out evil, "with virtuous deed and pious action," we actually pass evil over and do evil ourselves, "sugar o'er the devil himself."

Oh, and in regard to this

4) This forum is one of the places where being gay and open about it is okay, so please leave it that way (ie: preemptively saying that you are not gay as if being gay is bad is not good). But that is a tangent, so lets leave it at that.

That was not meant in that context. I myself have a few homosexual friends, and in no way mean any disrespect. It is their own choice, and I will not judge them for that.

[Jack]

I swear, neither kabenon nor vollkan are making ANY SENSE to me. Does anyone what the hell they are talking about?

I'm going to assume it's distancing, especially from vollkans list of points against kabenon which is just bizarre

vote:vollkan

[Dr. Doom]

@Jack: Well, if you want to contribute to it - Yes.
@the others: Please comemnt on this. the probability that no scum is between kabenon, volkan and me is 1 in 6 (roughly). So if you want to catch scum, pick one of us and dissect their/my arguments and look for scumminess.

For the case that the two scummers have decided to lurk and are among teh remaining four people, let's not allow that to happen and participate, everyone. Oh, and please don't lurky by way of posting (looking at you, Jack).