Mini 404: Diablo Mafia (Game Over)

[TheJiveMachine]

EBWODP:

A) First, why don't you explain how being lighthearted before any real content has come up is scummy. Note I never even said that your lack of posting earlier was scummy, it's that you attacked LG for not posting game related content on page three when you posted nothing on page three at all.

B) That's not a justification.


C) No, it's not appealing to authority when it's a person's first post of the game and completely non serious. The fact that you even bring this up shows how far you're reaching.

D) Proven by who? You?

[chaotic_diablo]

Self voting = Baad. It's defensive. You don't want to accuse anyone because you know they're not scum, and you don't want to vote your buddy because then you'll be related. It's pretty much unconscious.

LG is assuming that because I'm self-voting, I'm afraid to accuse others and vote for scum buddies for fear of being related. I have already made clear that I

will

accuse people based on how they behave. That defeats his point and makes his reasoning false.

[TheJiveMachine]

There's a difference between commenting, FoSing, and voting. A lack of willingness to vote anyone is saying that you don't want anyone to think you have strong convictions about anyone, and I agree it's a very defensive move.

[chaotic_diablo]

EBWODP:

A) First, why don't you explain how being lighthearted before any real content has come up is scummy. Note I never even said that your lack of posting earlier was scummy, it's that you attacked LG for not posting game related content on page three when you posted nothing on page three at all.

B) That's not a justification.


C) No, it's not appealing to authority when it's a person's first post of the game and completely non serious. The fact that you even bring this up shows how far you're reaching.

D) Proven by who? You?

A. I did not attack LG for not posting game related content on page three. I attacked him for posting no content at all in the entire game. Not only that, he is trying ot encourage joking even well beyond page three.

Why is no one in the festive, joking Day 1 mood? Who in their right mind would ask for a page 2 lynch and be serious about it? It's not a good town tactic, not a good scum tactic either. Guys, IT'S DAY 1!!! Chill. I bet the Scrutinizer wagon has at least one scum.

I'm seeing a "chill" sign for Day 1, not page four or three.

B. It is a justification. I have presented information that allows me to favor an attack on LG rather than everyone else. Again, I'm attacking LG for posting no content at all, not because he isn't posting content.

C. So my self-vote is also non-serious? It's

my first post

in the game afterall. I don't see LG giving it a "it's okay because it's

non-serious

.

D. Explained already.

[chaotic_diablo]

There's a difference between commenting, FoSing, and voting. A lack of willingness to vote anyone is saying that you don't want anyone to think you have strong convictions about anyone, and I agree it's a very defensive move.

Why do we vote? Do we vote to twiddle our thumbs? If there is no reason to vote, then why should I? I've already shown that I can show an opinion just by FOSing someone. What is a FOS for? It's to place suspicion. Can't you differentiate between the functions of a vote and a FOS?

[DragonsofSummer]

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.

[Zindaras]

Official Voting Update

:

chaotic_diablo

: 4 (livingod, The Central Scrutinizer, Cogito Ergo Sum, TheJiveMachine)

Frustian

: 1 (remussaidow)

livingod

: 1 (chaotic_diablo)

Pata

: 1 (DragonsofSummer)

TheJiveMachine

: 1 (Save the Dragons)

Not Voting

: 4 (Pata, Frustian, KaleiÐoscøpe, scotmany12)

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch.

[livingod]

This really set something off in me:

2. It is logic. It's called a "logical fallacy". http://www.mafiascum.net/cgi-bin/wiki.p ... _Authority
Whether you feel that it is logic or not, imitating players is scummy.

It's not logic.

Relying overmuch on the

arguments

of "older, wiser" players [...] can be a fallacious arguments designed to persuade.

Bolding mine. I have not made any real arguments against anyone. It's POOKY'S style, remember? "Arguments" like that aren't meant to be taken seriously. So I don't even consider them as such.


Also:

No, YOU'RE dancing on the WIFOM line with your self vote. WIFOM = Baad.

I'll have to give you that. I'm definitely WIFOM dancing on the line.

D) Trying to justify a self vote by saying that it is totally defensive WIFOM and that there's nothing wrong with it. Double WTF?

D. I'm sure you can find something wrong with it. However, LG has provided reasoning that has been proven false.

D) Proven by who? You?

D. Explained already.

Explained!? Where? I can't see it.

[livingod]

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.

I think he meant that Diablo didn't prove his point. So he shouldn't claim that he did.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I think he meant that Diablo didn't prove his point. So he shouldn't claim that he did.

FoS: livingod

for answering the question for him. And that's certainly not what he said.

[chaotic_diablo]

Bolding mine. I have not made any real arguments against anyone. It's POOKY'S style, remember? "Arguments" like that aren't meant to be taken seriously. So I don't even consider them as such.

Just because it's POOKY'S style, doesn't mean you can get away with it because it isn't supposed to be taken seriously. You are not pooky and using his "style" as an excuse to justify certain actions is scummy. Stop using pooky as your argument and use something with substance.

By invoking the name or ideas of an experienced player, or Paragon of Mafia Hunters, they absolve themselves of responsibility if the theory turns out to be false later.

This is basically what you're doing.

Explained!? Where? I can't see it.

I certainly can. It starts with post 101 and continues with an odd sequence of posts.

[livingod]

So you're actually considering randomly accusing a huge amount of people on Day 1 an argument?

By invoking the name or ideas of an experienced player, or Paragon of Mafia Hunters, they absolve themselves of responsibility if the theory turns out to be false later.

I have not pushed for a lynch using Pooky's style. My random accusations were not "theories" and it's quite obvious that my "theory," as the Wikiquote you refer to states, IS false because I accused everyone but me to be scum. I am not willing to support any lynch or force any claim or promote any tactic based on my random Day 1 accusations. And I hope that no one does either. Stop looking at my "Pooky"ness as an argument. it is quite blatantly Day one nonsense.

Just because it's POOKY'S style, doesn't mean you can get away with it because it isn't supposed to be taken seriously. You are not pooky and using his "style" as an excuse to justify certain actions is scummy. Stop using pooky as your argument and use something with substance.

If you do not like my random Day 1 Appeal to Authority, then I do not like your random Day 1 selfvote.

[chaotic_diablo]

I have not pushed for a lynch using Pooky's style. My random accusations were not "theories" and it's quite obvious that my "theory," as the Wikiquote you refer to states, IS false because I accused everyone but me to be scum.

You forgot Pata.

I am not willing to support any lynch or force any claim or promote any tactic based on my random Day 1 accusations.

And now my vote on chaotic_scum is warranted, somewhat.

If you do not like my random Day 1 Appeal to Authority, then I do not like your random Day 1 selfvote.

You made it quite clear that you didn't like my self-vote from the beginning. Why should I give you leeway on your post?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm keeping my vote on C_D because it's what Fritzler would do. That way, if I'm wrong, I can blame Fritzler.

[remussaidow]

I feel so confused with all these references to other peoples playstyles.

[chaotic_diablo]

Pooky is a player who doesn't do anything other than vote and spam without reason. Fritzler is the same but spams even more. It's the kind of playstyle I

hate

the most and I feel it causes the game to favor only those who have made themselves a "reputation". In truth, they dance along the WIFOM line because they will do it whether they are town or scum. It makes engaging them a pain in the ass.

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

lynching diablo in diablo is svg

Vote: CD

[remussaidow]

thank you C_D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

...although, of course, I was being facetious. I'm not Fritzler. I've never even seen him play; I only know him by reputation... any antics of mine are because I think it's a good way to get discussion going and track scum. So far, it works pretty well.

I'm warning you guys already, if this C_D bandwagon goes too far, I'm hopping off... it's way, way too early to be considering a lynch today.

[livingod]

Then why are you on in the first place?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Then why are you on in the first place?

Because there's no one better to vote for right now. I'm not convinced C_D is mafia, I just like having my vote on someone. When I see a better alternative, I'm off the wagon.

[Zindaras]

Mr. Flay

replaces

scotmany12

. Thanks a lot for replacing in, Mr. Flay!

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Oh sweet.

Flay, vote for c_d please.

[Mr. Flay]

Unvote, Vote: The Central Scrutinizer

for paralyzingly bad logic. Why are we running Diablo (may He live forever) up the flagpole, please?

[remussaidow]

as far as I can see it, just having the name diablo in a diablo named mafia game.