Mini 404: Diablo Mafia (Game Over)

[Thestatusquo]

YARR! To Ces.

Awwwwww, Flay, I don't get any free passes? PWEAAASE!?

Anyway, really happy that the content started on page 1, pretty much. Heres a list of talking points.

Obviously town: C_D, STD, Me,

Obviously scum: Livingod, ces, scope, dragonsofsummer.

I see no reason to change my previous personages vote.

Now. The reasons why will come when asked. Particular person by particular person. Some of it is gut (C_D and ces, for instance) but the rest of it is backed up by cold hard logic. LOGIC OF DOOM.

[Thestatusquo]

Hi to you too ces.

Let me guess. It's a gut feeling?

[Thestatusquo]

Ah. FTW.

Also, don't you think that dragons would be a better bandwagon choice? I mean, considering he's scum and I'm not. OH WAIT. You must be his scum buddy. Got it now. Also, I make a very bad d1 bandwagon target, because it is not within my realm of inclination to claim to random pressure.

[Thestatusquo]

And you're my only vote, whereas dragons would have 2 if you voted him. Therefore, by your own bandwagoning logic, he's the better choice.

[Thestatusquo]

See. That bandwagoning makes sense. it's pretty scummy, but it makes sense.

[Thestatusquo]

I haven't seen enough of you for you to be 'obviously' anything yet. You want me to make gaurentees I can't keep?

[Thestatusquo]

Zindie, you'd never beat town of suspicion. I'll get to it when I sleep, dragon.

[Thestatusquo]

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

GoGo random.org!

It tells me to

Vote: Pata

.

This post isnt significant yet, but it will be later, specifically, by this post.

D) Proven by who? You?

This statement really bothers me. It almost seems to me like even if C_D has proven his point, which I like his evidence more than yours right now, you won't care specifically because it is him.

FoS:TheJiveMachine

Doesn't seem very town oriented to me.

Now, I would expect a town player, in any situation, to change off of a random vote to a non random vote very quickly. Townies on principle do not like the random voting stage, as it is, well. random, and often lets scum force a lynch which no one can really be blamed for the next day(I.E. Free lynch) THis means that I will be taking as an assumption that townies will try to place non random votes whenever possible. I know that's fairly true about me. Therefore, I eliminate this as a town action, because I do not see a single town justification for doing it.

From a scum perspective, this could have a couple ramifications, which I believe are all possibilities

1) He could be scum buddies with pata, and is being very mindful to distance from her in a very strong manner (vote)

2) He could be scum with TJM, and want to distance, but not put his money where his mouth is by throwing down a vote. If TJM comes up scum, he can throw down the "Look, I FOS'd her day1...I knew something was up." line.

3) He's scum buddies with neither of them, and is hedging his bets. He could be
trying to throw as much suspicion as possible on people who are not his scumbuddies in order to get wagons going, and not be on them. I find this the most likely scenario, and the 2nd one being the second most likely.

D) Proven by who? You?

This statement really bothers me. It almost seems to me like even if C_D has proven his point, which I like his evidence more than yours right now, you won't care specifically because it is him.

FoS:TheJiveMachine

Doesn't seem very town oriented to me.

it seems like there's many things that could be discussed, yet you pick this one thing and go after it like pitbull. Then you fos, to make it look not so serious. I am quite suspicious of certian FOSs. Scum can be like, "look, I was suspicious of this person back on d1."

Although the major thing is that you failed to unvote your random vote to FOS someone. Why would you find your random vote more useful than a vote on someone who doesn't seem very town oriented.

Oh! I get it! Are you guys scumbuddies?

I found scum for you people. Please get off your "diablo is diablo because his name is diablo" wagon.

I only put an FoS on him at that point because I was wanting TheJiveMachine to respond with his reasons for what he said, but he has not and now that you bring it up again. I will go ahead and

Unvote, Vote:TheJiveMachine

you may be right that I was stupid to just leave my vote on my random vote, but I wasn't really thinking about it at the time of the post. Thank you for bringing it back to my attention. I do understand your vote on me, and can accept that what I did looks scummy, but it was not intended that way.

In this post, when STD correctly points out the things which I have further analyzed here, DoS caves faster than Monica Lewinsky faced with a presidential dick. He does something else she did too, he sucks. He's sucking up like a mo fo here, and it looks to me, that Saves the dragons is his presidential candidate. This is some of my main justification for StD being town.

Compare and contrast these two posts:

Wasn't intended to look scummy? Would have never guessed :p

Anyways, I didn't feel the need to respond since livin had basically said what I was thinking: I don't think C_D proved his point, and

saying he did when I hadn't seen anyone agree with him and I certainly didn't seemed absurd.

You will have to notice that I didn't say he had proved his point. My point was that I liked Chaotic Diablo's evidence more at that point, and that the way you said it seemed like you wouldn't care if he had proved it. That looked extremely scummy to me.

What is this even saying? He hasn't proven his point, but his evidence was better than yours? Now...I did debate for four years in high school, and generally the person who has more evidence is the person who has proven his point, in an argument, so this statement contradicts itself, and looks like he's attempting to justify a terrible FOS and then further, under pressure, vote, which can't be justified because it made no sense in the first place. This makes me start to doubt the second option that I discussed at the top of the post.

But compare with this post:

Wasn't intended to look scummy? Would have never guessed :p

Anyways, I didn't feel the need to respond since livin had basically said what I was thinking: I don't think C_D proved his point, and

saying he did when I hadn't seen anyone agree with him and I certainly didn't seemed absurd.

You will have to notice that I didn't say he had proved his point. My point was that I liked Chaotic Diablo's evidence more at that point, and that the way you said it seemed like you wouldn't care if he had proved it. That looked extremely scummy to me.

If he had proved it, I would have conceded that he was right. But from my point of view, he didn't come close. I wasn't saying it wouldn't have mattered if he did prove it, I was saying it was incredibly arrogant of him to say he proved a point when he was apparently the only person who thought so.

Alright, it was just that since you worded it [quote="TheJiveMachine"Proven by who? You?

It seemed like you didn't care whether he had actually proven the point or not. (Which you are right he didn't).[/quote]


In this post he tells us that he AGREED with TJM, which makes no sense since he then went on the attack tjm for the very thing that he said he agreed with him about. Learn2bconsistant.

And that is why it is painfully obvious to me the Dragonsofsummer is scum.

[Thestatusquo]

1)That is currect, you do not have to decide immediately if you agree with something. That is never what I was saying. Nice strawman, though, by the way. My point was actually that attacking someone for disagreeing with it (and semantics aside, that IS what you were doing.) And going on the record that you like the evidense is analagus to supporting something.

2) Those posts were an hour and 40 minutes, and 2 post appart. All there is that is between them is Remus agreeing with you, and TJM short, blippy response. I'm not exactly seeing the "...lot happen[img]" between those two points that you're claiming. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten me, but right now it just looks like you're out and out lying to me in order to look better.learn2btruthful.

3)Even if that were true, you still haven't dealt with the contradiction which occurs in one post. Although, I suppose a lot happened in between you typing the first sentance of that post, and the last one.

I think you're scum. Die now please.

[Thestatusquo]

If those are the two posts you're talking about, then you're response makes no sense, because I never compared and contrasted them, nor do those points interact with each other at all. Again, perhaps you should clarify.

[Thestatusquo]

DoS. You're not making any sense at all.

[Thestatusquo]

That post is off in a couple things. I'll break it down after the 28th, because I have two big tests then, and won't be able to contribute much until I am done studying for them.

[Thestatusquo]

TJM could be scum be my calculations, but I am fairly certain of DoS. I'd rather go with a certainty.

[Thestatusquo]

I already gave one, originally in post: 232, and he continued to make less and less sense in the subsequent posts. All there is left is to respond to his very latest defense, which I have thusfar not had time to do.

[Thestatusquo]

I'm willing to believe it's possible we've got two scum squirming here, although it's not likely. I still prefer the TJM lynch though, because DoS seems to be making more "poor logic" mistakes and not explicitly scummy "bad logic". TJM's willingness to vote DoS to get the heat off his back only reassures me of this decision.

I agree with this post except for the part "I do not think it's likely." TJM's post reeks of bussing scum to me, and I think I would be willing to lynch either of them at this point.

Look for my response around 6-7 oclock today. I will be able to devote serious time to mafia this weekend, and I will, as per request, make this game a priority.

[Thestatusquo]

I feel I explained well... Here I'll break it down again...

I FoS TJM for his post's statement

Proven by who? You?

because it seems like he doesn't care whether or not C_D has proven his point, (which at that point he had not, but he had some good evidence. You are attacking me for something that isn't even why I voted TJM by the way it just ended up being discussion)

1)`Answer me this, right now:

What proves points?

How is it possible to have evidence of something that is good without that something being proven?

It makes zero sense in a game of mafia to say "I like his evidence, but what he's saying is not true." That's like saying "Ye
s, you have provided me with a fully functional model, but I still do not believe you have proven that this new fangled invention, the car, exists."

2) Regardless of what you say you were attacking him for, for me, it boils down to this: He attacked CD for not proving his point. You semi-agreed semi-disagreed with him, and then attacked him, with very little basis at all. That's first off, second off I haven't even touched how blatently obvious it was that he was saying he hadn't seen him prove it yet, and TJMs post doesn't even begin to make sense in the way that you had interpreted it.

C_D provides no more evidence to solidify his claim, and STD calls me out on my FoS (which I explain why it stayed an FoS for so long earlier. But I will again. I wanted a response from TJM and I forgot about it because things in other games came up that I was dealing with in the interim, which is very much my fault.

1)The way you think things work in terms of proof are retarded. Why would x person, having provided "Good evidence." to back up claim y, then have to provide MORE evidence, even though claim y has already been supported? By your logic we have to keep providing more justification in every post we make. I don't think I need to explain how that is logically impossible.

2) I would like to make a BIG EXTENSION HERE.

Now, I would expect a town player, in any situation, to change off of a random vote to a non random vote very quickly. Townies on principle do not like the random voting stage, as it is, well. random, and often lets scum force a lynch which no one can really be blamed for the next day(I.E. Free lynch) THis means that I will be taking as an assumption that townies will try to place non random votes whenever possible. I know that's fairly true about me. Therefore, I eliminate this as a town action, because I do not see a single town justification for doing it.

A MAJOR part of my reasoning by suspecting DoS is my assumptions on how players approach the random voting stage. This goes STONE COLD DROPPED. No matter what DoS says about why he only FOSed her, it does not matter, because he has not responded to my analysis that townies and scum FUNDAMENTALLY have different approaches towards the random voting stage, and his use of the random voting stage MAKES NO SENSE if looked at through the lens of a townies set of motivations, but makes perfect sense through the lens of scum.



I vote TJM because he never answered me and STD reminded me.

The arguement of whether or not C_D has proven his point comes up here. Someone calls me on C_D proving his point, and as he did not give any more evidence it remained unproven. (The statemtent in my first post about liking his evidence more is what comes into play here).

Then I make this post:

You will have to notice that I didn't say he had proved his point. My point was that I liked Chaotic Diablo's evidence more at that point, and that the way you said it seemed like you wouldn't care if he had proved it. That looked extremely scummy to me.

Where I state that he hadn't proven his point, but three days earlier when I made my first post about it I thought he had some good points. But state again that my arguement against TJM isn't whether C_D had proven his point, but that even if he had it seemed like TJM didn't care.

Already addessed this sufficiently.

Then I state again that I agree C_D's point wasn't proven.

Now you are calling me on a discrepancy between the last two posts that doesn't exist, and you just keep saying that I'm not making any sense...

I believe I have already shown how there is an inherent discrepency between the two.

[Thestatusquo]

No. The biggest issue is that the way you played the random voting stage only makes sense if you're scum. You keep ignoring that.

[Thestatusquo]

Well, unfortunately for you, that thing you want me to 'agree to disagree' with you on makes me like 77.54656% sure you're scum.

[Thestatusquo]

Anyone who tells you they are 100% sure in a game of mafia is either scum, or a cop. I am neither of those things.

[Thestatusquo]

Someone who says 100% certain is cop/scum in my book. Just because it is not so all the time(Cops have sanity issues, Scum can't know about other scum groups, SKs, cults etc) does not mean it is not a useful tool in reading posts.

[Thestatusquo]

How about Sex?

[Thestatusquo]

FOS: Remussaidow, C_D, and skruffs, for various reasons.

[Thestatusquo]

Skruffs, I am FOSing you because I don't like how you're parroting me at all. Its different from how I've seen you play previously, which is mainly to provide cooky theories and connections on your own. This game it seems like you're just sitting around wating to see where you will make the least waves.

I FOSed Remus and C_D for asking for TWO claims, which seems like, to me, like something scum would do in order to make the best of a bad situation. I think what the town needs to do today is decide which of the two they are comfortable with, and then run that person up, and get THEM to claim. We certainly don;t need dueling claims to confuse.

[Thestatusquo]

The benefits do not outweigh the harms of giving scum information.

[Thestatusquo]

At the time I brought the bandwagon, I did not think that TJM was that scummy, we also did not have a deadline. There was nothing wrong with starting a competing bandwagon at that time.

Your stretching is noted, however.

[Thestatusquo]

I can support his claim first if that is the direction the town goes. At this point, the option I am seeing as most likely is that they are both scum.

2 claims immediately puts two much information out there for scum if one of them is not scum. It's just unsafe play.

By your logic, people should not ever say any one is scummy, and provide reasoning for why they think that if there is already suspicion on someone else. That is fucking retarded. The whole purpose of a mafia game is to share ones suspicions, and to discuss with the rest of the town to find the bad guys, not just randomly push for a lynch on a person because everyone else is.

Furthermore I would say your argument is ignoring three key elements: First, you're ignoring the fact that I presented a very logical, well researched, and thought out case on TJM, one that was, in fact, much better than the one on TJM. Your argument relys on the false premise that TJM was a better wagon.

Second, your argument assumes that a second wagon is a bad thing. This is patently untrue. A second wagon generates excess discussion, which is a good thing. I would argue that the only time a second wagon is a bad thing is when we are under deadline, which I point out again, was untrue at the time I stated my case against DoS. This is why, I have been attempting to consolidate behind one of the candidates and get ONE to claim, because at a deadline, excess discussion IS distracting. Hence, your actions in response to our current situation seem a tad scummy to me.

Third, your argument assumes that the original person pressured was, and is, scum. In order for your argument to have any impact, there has to be concrete consequence from "letting the pressure off of TJM." At the time, I didn't think there was. The arguments against TJM, at that time, I thought were fairly weak, as he seems just like a relatively inexperienced player caught with some of the big boys (Most notably you, STD, and Mr. Flay) and seemed a tad over his head. I did not think that was indicative of alignment.

Your continued reach is continually noted.

[Thestatusquo]

In general what do people get into trouble as far as "quoting" a role pm? I just want to know so that my my claim will not get me into trouble with the mod.

Heres shea's simple rules for claiming.

Step one: Read the rules. I just got modkilled in a game recently for claiming flavor when it wasn't allowed. I felt really dumb.

Step two: Get a general understanding of what your role does. If it has a commonly used term (I.E. Doctor, Cop, scum) use it. If not, generally sketch out the role. Be careful to put it into your own words, so that it is not recognizable as the original language of your PM.

Step three: If allowed, and if applicable, include a list of targets which accompanies a list of nights.

Pretty much what you'll get in trouble for is having language that people can tell wasn't written by you, or claiming something you're not allowed to.

ZINDIE! LOOK AT ALL THIS WONDERFUL DISCUSSION. COULD WE HAVE AN EXTENSION SO WE CAN GET THIS RIGHT!

[Thestatusquo]

Actually, TSQ is the frog, not you. Maybe I'm the one who's drunk...

Mr. Flay, I am not understanding you at all...

[Thestatusquo]

Bump. Does any of the non posters have anything to say?

[Thestatusquo]

If they start dying, then we know that zindaras is scum.

[Thestatusquo]

I support a TJM claim, and if my vote is necessary to force one, it will go there. I still prefer to lynch DoS, though.

[Thestatusquo]

*bump*

[Thestatusquo]

Both TJM and DoS claim = good.

TJM goes first. Why? Vibes.

FOS: Livingod

[Thestatusquo]

No, I mean supporting straight two claims is scummy.

[Thestatusquo]

um...I think that's the first time I've seen someone claim survivor. Not in scum chat, that is. I am not sure what I think of that.

[Thestatusquo]

Someone who knows anything about diablo enlighten me a) Who DoS's character is, and b) Why we're letting him off the hook without him actually claiming a roll. Unless council-member is a mafia role that I have never heard of.

[Thestatusquo]

I want a roleclaim from DOS. I don't want to let him off the hook so easily. I also see no reason why scum would claim something so...Rediculous when I am sure that any competant mod would give people good fake claims.

[Thestatusquo]

He claimed. I think he is the scummier of the two. I do not want to let him off the off the hook.

First, lets get this out of the way:

FOS: CES(YARR!)

this

but in the worst case scenario, he's just a Neutral.

is a scum argument. And is in fact one of the arguments I hate most in the game. "He's neutral, so we might as well lynch him, he's not town after all."

It makes the assumption that because we have a person who is not town, it is suddenly good play to give up scum hunting. It's a really easy way for scum to push a misslynch.

Now. Here's my analysis of the situation.

We have two claims: Something I didn't want from the start. One is partial, and one is full. Now we already have a name claim, (which is apparently strong) we should look at the ability and see if it fits.

My thoughts on TJM: I think he may be our lynch for today, but I certainly wouldn't be too happy with it. I've been in many theme games, and every single one of them have included safe claims for the scum players. Therefore, I see no reason at all why
scum would not use those claims. I mean, you can say wifom, but I would argue it's not, because the benefits scum could get from claiming neutral are WAY outweighed by the fact that everyone wants to lynch the guy who "Is at best neutral"

His actions have been arbitrarily scummy. Especially his responses to the case brought against him, and his actions in reaction to the DoS wagon. I just can't help the fact that I kind of believe the claim.

I'll get to DoS in a second. I have to go eat dinner now.

[Thestatusquo]

It's possible, but I tend to try to play the game by assuming that everyone is playing their best. That way, when they are I won't be caught off gaurd.

DoS: I think he is scum, period. The fact that he opportunistically claimed when there was already pressure on TJM makes me a little suspicious of him in addition to my previously stated case. It;s like he thought TJMs claim was scummy, so he could skate under it. I am pretty confident that he is our lynch today, but I would also lynch TJM if we need it to get a lynch before deadline.

[Thestatusquo]

Can you or can you not talk to other people at night.

[Thestatusquo]

Ok. For gods sakes do not reveal who they are.

I am going to believe you for now, on the basis that you will eventually be proven wrong if you are lying.

unvote, vote TJM

[Thestatusquo]

Unvote

the problem is that I have two people who I feel have played very scummy games, and two claims which I kinda believe. I am going to have to think this over.

[Thestatusquo]

Thing is that I kinda want to leave them both till tommorow, because I would give 50-50 odds on each being town right now.

[Thestatusquo]

CES, my point is that I think they might both be town, so I want to get back to scum hunting for today.

[Thestatusquo]

Pat, do you do anything besides follow the tides?

[Thestatusquo]

And then you unvoted when the tide of the town looked like it was going to believe it, and revoted when skruffs said he might get lynched. Plus, everything you said in order to support your position is stuff that has already been said in thread several times, and before you unvoted too. It looks more like you're trying to follow the town, more than vote scum.

[Thestatusquo]

I'm not the most happy with it. I give him 50-50 odds on being scum. Not as bad as some lynches I've seen, where I'd give 10-1 odds on the person being town, but not as good as I bet we could have gotten today. Then again, WTF do I know.

[Thestatusquo]

Vote: Skruffs

[Thestatusquo]

Like, I am not sure why LG would so strongly defend a scum buddy, however. Does he have any other games that anyone knows of so I can check if he's taken that strategy before?

[Thestatusquo]

No, just got my names garbled. I was wondering why TJM would so strongly defend a scumbuddy, seeing as it's a tactic that most scum players would try to avoid, myself included.

[Thestatusquo]

Skruffs, 3 votes over several days is hardly a speedlynch. *hugs*

[Thestatusquo]

Well, I would like to point out that my real name is Shea, which makes it not really AIM.

Remus, I can't find the questions you are referring to. Could you point me to a post number, please?

Skruffs, please go down your list of points against me again, I'm not responding to garble.

LG: Why am I "the best candidate for the day."?

[Thestatusquo]

In posts 186-187, livingod tries to move pressure onto chaotic_diabolo, and therefore away from TJM. Interesting... And he defends TJM in post 220 as well...

livingod

: 4 (Mr. Flay, chaotic_diablo, DragonsofSummer, Cogito Ergo Sum)

In those circumstances I'm not going to waste any more breath pushing for Skruffs to be lynched today; but I will want him dead tomorrow whether livingod is scum or not.

I want to wait for Aelyn's replacement to post their thoughts in detail first.

In the meantime, I call hammah on livingod.

QFT, but I'll let you have your hammer. I'll explain skruffs later.

[Thestatusquo]

And I wont be swayed by an appeal to emotion

vote: Skruffs

<3 ya, kid.

[Thestatusquo]

lol. Already been deleted.

[Thestatusquo]

It was. it got deleted again.

[Thestatusquo]

lol skruffs. Once this game is over, you're getting a scummy nom. Unfortunately for you, theres no way I'm letting you live after that claim.

[Thestatusquo]

Do you even know what omgus means?

[Thestatusquo]

Well, maybe mine is, but I see no way at all how my puush for skruffs can be descrived as omgus.

[Thestatusquo]

No. Explain to me, right now, how my arguments and logic are omgus. You can't get away with saying things, and then not backing them up.

[Thestatusquo]

lol. No. <3

[Thestatusquo]

NAR. ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION.

[Thestatusquo]

What? That argument didn't even begin to make sense.

[Thestatusquo]

I thought his claim was BS. It wasn't a matter of not 'caring that there was a chance it was true' there's always a chance a claim is true. It was a matter of me not believing the claim. Are you saying the pro town play is to not lynch a claim I don't believe?

(I understood your sentance. Unfortunately, it was your argument, not your grammar, which was flawed.)

[Thestatusquo]

Respond to my argument instead of ignoring it, please.

[Thestatusquo]

How so? Please provide posts.

[Thestatusquo]

493 is remus.

495 is me asking NAR if he knows what OMGUS means.

490 is me telling skruffs that I will vote him after he claimed scum.

Which post are you referring to?

[Thestatusquo]

Try again. 498 is me telling NAR that my push is not OMGUS, as he was claiming.

[Thestatusquo]

I was pushing hard for his lynch. I was not pushing for a quick lynch. If it would be different if I prematurely hammered him, but all I did was push hard for the lynch of someone I thought was surely scum.

[Thestatusquo]

Pat, the fact that he is completely not being able to point to a post where I was trying to quicklynch doesn't mean anything?

[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.

[Thestatusquo]

EBWODP:

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

[Thestatusquo]

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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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?

[Thestatusquo]

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

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

[Thestatusquo]

STD, when you get back to the forum, could you please comment on my debate with stoofer. Pat, I would like you to as well.

[Thestatusquo]

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.

That good enough for you, remus?

Basically, you say something silly and easy to defeat, and if it get's attacked, at the expense of the person ignoring the valid points, it means that person is not trying to actually discern scum, but instead is trying to just make you look bad by scoring easy point in an argument, something which I find a HUGE scum tell.

Seol explains it better than I do.

dwa is one of my favourite tells, it stands for "deliberately weak argument". its basically when i have a bunch of questions/issues and i throw in a throwaway, easily refuted point that is incidental to the point at hand - this is the deliberately weak argument.

this allows people to respond to the post without addressing the key points - something which someone who was actually trying to work stuff out would want to do. it's a trap to identify whether people are in the argument simply to score points, avoid conceding points themselves, and generally make the other person look scummy, or whether they're actually debating and are open to both sides.

responding to the dwa only shows a) lack of conviction in your own position (because you're not defending it) and b) an attempt to evade future discussion about a position you realise will reflect badly on you, by attempting to move discussion onto a tangential point. i hope you can see why this is scummy.

Because of this, stoofer is looking mighty bad in my eyes.

[Thestatusquo]

1) No, that's not the point of DWA at all. While it is human nature to respond to what they know, it is more powerfully pro town nature to, if there is a question they do not know the answer to, to stop pressing for that lynch, because unsure of scum = hesitant to press/vote. THAT is how DWA functions.

2) I have already explained that's how all arguments actually break down. LEARN2LOGIC.

[Thestatusquo]

I fail to see why STD as scum would attempt to derail a wagon on a townie.

[Thestatusquo]

I'm sorry, but if you're expecting a scum derailing of a wagon, especially by an experienced player by STD to be something like "OMGLOOKDON'TVOTETHEMOMGTHEY'RETOWNOMG" then you haven been playing enough mafia. The way someone derails a wagon when they are trying to be subtle is to point vague suspicions on other people, while at the same time saying wishy washy things about the wagon.

Wagon momentum seems to be in large part dependant on peoples continued posted support, therefore, someone who does not directlysupport a wagon, or somewhat supports another is, if unintentionally, derailing the original wagon.

Now, it becomes our jobs to determine the motivations behind that. I just don't see a scum STD having the inclination, or the motive to post in the manner he has recently.

[Thestatusquo]

Nice contribution, stoofer. All you have done is pushed me, and then refused to even look at the possibility of anyone else. You may be advocating we 'make up our minds' but making them up to the detriment of discussion, as you have done, is not a good thing. Give us thoughts on other players, specifically, remus, and DoS.

[Thestatusquo]

Uh...I never refused to claim. There is no reason for me to claim, currently. Get the pressure, and a reason, and I will certainly claim.

[Thestatusquo]

I am still here, stoofers summary seems accurate. I miss STDs post because it ws funny.

[Thestatusquo]

TSQ is a hard lynch. I respect you for not going for the easy one, Stoof. However, I'm pretty sure that with 7 players alive, we won't get three lynched.

See, I would like either you or remus to be lynched. I would be happier if you both eventually got lynched.

Here's a deal for you. Our next three lynches are me, remus, and you, in whatever order the town would like. If that doesn't end the game, then the scum deserve their win.

[Thestatusquo]

Oops, the end of that first sentance is wrong, I wrote it, worked out the math, and then forgot to delete it from the post.

*d'oh*

[Thestatusquo]

I thought you said you were sure Remus and I are scum? If that's so, why wouldn't you be willing, as a townie, to give yourself up to assure we're lynched. Hell, if you went along with my plan, I'd hammer myself.

That's because I'm 89.9% the scum is in you and Remus.

[Thestatusquo]

Or you could get on AIM and cyber with me.

[Thestatusquo]

Me, sorry.

[Thestatusquo]

So me tommorow, you the day after that, Mr. Stoofer. That is if remus is not scum.

Better claim, Pat.

[Thestatusquo]

remus. Sorry. Force of habit. We went to HS together.

[Thestatusquo]

I don't want a name claim, I want a role clame.

[Thestatusquo]

Same.

[Thestatusquo]

We saw how well that worked with skruffs role.

[Thestatusquo]

I disagree that he shouldn't have been lynched. He changed his claim, and certainly seemed to be serious about it to me. That's the reason I voted him

My point is that it appears that minor characters are difficult to verify this way.

[Thestatusquo]

I'm going to put remus out of his misery.

vote: Remus

[Thestatusquo]

vote: Thestatusquo

Vote stoofer tommorow, guys.

[Thestatusquo]

I'm town. If I have to give myself up to get scum lynched tommorow, that's a trade I am perfectly willing to make.

[Thestatusquo]

Let me first just say I replaced into this game as a favor to Zindaras, KNOWING that my scum buddies were terrible, and that there were some pretty good players in the game. When I was re-reading, I had picked both of them out by page 8, and I didn't even have my role PM yet. That's not a good sign. At this point, I'm backed into a corner because of the crappy game I had to play to try to succeed with them, I'll admit; I played crappy. The town did not. The town most certainly deserves to win this game, and I do not.

This is just hastening the inevitable. Alko is probably DoS mason partner, and he will come forth and vote me, and it will be game over. I played like I had to the last couple of days, and at the end my only hope was this gambit of self voting, something which probably would have worked in a game with lesser players. I have but one more thing to say:

Yeah, I was scum, and I would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Well played, town.

Good game, Zindy.

[Thestatusquo]

Heh.

Nice.

Yeah, I was just saying to stoofer the gambit might have worked without the RB claim. H'oh well.

Actually, even if you guys weren't RBs, if I got Stoofer lynched today, Then tommorow I either have StD and a confirmed mason, or me v 2 confirmed masons. Either one is not a pretty scenario.


Seriously though, When I picked out both my scumbuddies on page 8, I was not feeling good about myself.

[Thestatusquo]

I actually can't claim to be that clever, alko. I had no idea you were a roleblocker.

[Thestatusquo]

Neither of YOU had scum buddies who had outed themselves by page 8

[Thestatusquo]

Zindaras can confirm I really did pick out my own scumbuddies by page 9 before I saw my role.