Open 54 - Basic 12 Player (over) before 529

[Thestatusquo]

Eh.

Vote: Crub

FoS: Patrick, Shanba

GG Scum.

Appeal to emotion?

Fos: Crub

[Thestatusquo]

Also, Bookitty, I don't feel either of us has anything more relevant to say on the subject, so if it's all the same to you, lets stop posting novels, and wait for the rest of the other players to chime in, so the thread doesn't get too bogged down with our bickering. We can attack each other anew when the rest of the town has had a chance to talk about this, I promise.

Mod edit: protecting my font.

[Bookitty]

1) The point is, regardless of what you're asking the town to do, you're asking the town to believe you are town in order for them to lynch me. In fact, you have made no arguments as to why YOU are not scum, simply that everyone is mathmatically eliminated save me. (you neglect to mention that you yourself fall into the exact same slot as I do, and therefore in order for your "mathmatical" proof of me being scum to work, anyone would have to assume that you are not scum, otherwise they are faced with a choice of you or me. )Really not a lie at all.

Most of the people playing have read the thread. They are aware of what I'm basing my arguments on, because I've been pretty consistent in this regard. I've been honest in pointing out I'm not cleared. Do you think it's usual for people to present cases in which they make an assumption that they are scum? Do you feel that it's beneficial for town for someone to make a case of this sort, when they're not scum?

Your entire argument here is ... sorry, but it's stupid. I know I'm not scum, I'm not going to pretend that I am in making my analysis. Why would anyone, of any alignment, make an analysis that depended on their being scum? It's a straw man argument and one that doesn't make sense.

2) Why is your behavior now any less likely to be indicative of alignment than say, your behavior yesterday? Have you magically lost your win condition, and are thus excused from doing scummy things? This time frame argument makes no sense, as since I've obviously read what you've been posting, and found several VERY scummy things in it, its perfectly capable of being a "case"

I invite anyone to read our posts at any point during the game and make their decision as to whether either of us is more likely scum or town. I don't fear such. So, again with this straw man argument tactic, I have no reason to disavow anything in any of my recent posts, or anything in my previous ones.

3) It is pretty obvious what I am basing my arguments on. Your behavior. Go back and read my arguments again. I have explained all my logic very thoroughly.

And I don't agree with it. And since it's based on precisely nothing, because you haven't actually read the thread, I'm not even very interested in it anymore.

4) STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I have not made any counter arguments about Shanba and Patrick. I am not making any positive claim as to whether or not they are scum buddies. I DO NOT HAVE TO. SINCE your argument is contingent on the fact that they "mathmatically" cannot be, the mere chance that they are disproves the whole thing. I have given 3 reasons why you cannot be sure that they cannot be scum buddies, and you have responded to exactly none of them, and are now attempting to attack the time at which I make my arguments, rather than the arguments themselves, since you know you can't beat them.

I disagree. If you think I'm scum (or if anyone does) then obviously my entire premises would be biased and incorrect, and none of it can be trusted. Only if you think I'm town, or likely to be, is any of it relevant, because it depends on my honestly describing my own reasoning, and my premises, and on my not being a scumpartner with anyone. These things cannot be deduced by anyone who has not read the thread. So far as I can understand it, your argument boils down to "Shanba and Patrick are teh leet, you can't catch them!" and "You didn't include in your computations that you might be scumz!" Oh, and later, "You didn't refutes my arguments!" It's nonsensical.

I was actually unaware that the deadline was that fast approaching.

Which once again shows you're paying no attention to this game except when you felt personally attacked.

Seriously. Read the thread.

[Thestatusquo]

Kitty, my last post, if you will.

[Ether]

2 Crub (IH, Glork)
1 Bookitty (Thestatusquo)
1 Patrick (Crub)

4 Unvote (Andycyca, Bookitty, Patrick, Shanba)

8 alive; 5 to lynch.

[Thestatusquo]

Also, I'd like you to know I quite like you personally, so no hard feelings, eh? Just a game.

[Bookitty]

I am not mad at you, TSQ. I just don't agree with you.

How could I be mad at Kermit? Honestly.

[Glork]

After reading through (most of) this exchange, I am further cemented in my belief that BooKie is town, and I feel slightly better about TSQ.

Still diggin' my Crub/Pat/Shanz trio.

[Thestatusquo]

What specifically made you think Bookitty was town?

[Glork]

I can see exactly where she's coming from and, looking from her perspective, her stance make perfect sense. You obviously take issue with one of her premises by asserting that nobody else can assume that BooKie is town. While true, I don't think that is indicative of anything. I've seen plenty of towns and scums in the past make such statements, with all different levels of explanation. Relatively few of them include the "but none of you can make this assertion because you don't know that I'm protown" disclaimer. I don't necessarily fault you for your argument here, TSQ, but I disagree entirely with your conclusion that it is indicative of anything.

Anyway, on to why specifically I think she's town from this debate...
1) The fact that she repeatedly asserts that she wants her case scrutinized for details tells me that she's more interested in getting it right than in convincing people to think/do what she currently thinks/does. This is a pretty major tell for me right now, even though she stated it as evidence of her likely being protown.
2) Regarding the counterarguments, this:

I'm looking at the ones you provided. I'm checking them against previous games for a meta read and trying to draw conclusions. Sadly, this isn't an instant process.

strikes me as definitively protown. Now obviously there is not yet any proof-positive evidence that she has gone through with the claimed crosschecks, but I think it's worth something.

It's possible that I am having the wool pulled over my eyes, but the posts feel very genuine to me. There's probably not nearly enough to convince you of her innocence, but I felt obliged to point out how I feel.

I should also point out that as I indicated quite some time ago, part of the reason I believed BooKie to be town earlier was based on actions/interactions involving her predecessors. A re-read really would do you some good, I think.




If there were one thing that bothered me about BooKitty, it's that I don't feel she's done enough to analyze and critique Patrick, Shanba, Crub, and Andy on individual levels. She seems content to go after the "surfire" thing, to save the work for later, but that could be a coverup to avoid making a decision regarding potential scumbuddies. Her argument, from her perspective, makes sense, but it is nothing more than a process-of-elimination argument.

That said, I have one more excercise for BooKie to do. Hypothetical situation:
Suppose one of Andy/Crub were lynched today as scum, and the other were nightkilled. Suppose tomorrow, one of Shanba/Patrick were scum, and the other was nightkilled. Convince IH and myself that you are protown and that TSQ is scum.

[Glork]

EBWOP: Also,

Modprod Shanba

again, because he has once again gone 72 hours without posting. More minus points for Shanba for being endgamelurkerscum.

[Shanba]

Hrm.

The argument between tsq and Bookitty reads as largely academic and I didn't get a whole lot from it. The things I did get were this
-I am not reassured by TSQ. The whole "debunking the obvious lie" thing seems somewhat of a stretch to me. Bookitty's case was logical and made a degree of sense.
-TSQ's point about whether Patrick/Me are distancing or whether Andy/Crub are distancing seem largely irrelevant. While it's true that she cannot be sure this is the case, she can have a reasonable degree of certainty. That said, he does make a decent point here:

I have given 3 reasons why you cannot be sure that they cannot be scum buddies, and you have responded to exactly none of them, and are now attempting to attack the time at which I make my arguments, rather than the arguments themselves, since you know you can't beat them.

It is true that she has dodged answering

Bleh. I have this horrible sense that come tomorrow I'm going to be wearing a noose around my neck.

[Thestatusquo]

Glork...That wasn't the point. The "lie" as it were was largely immaterial, it was the DWA which was important.

[Glork]

Bleh. I have this horrible sense that come tomorrow I'm going to be wearing a noose around my neck.

Maybe that's because you keep making posts that don't really address anyone, present any detailed cases, or come to any strong conclusions.

Or it could be because you end every post you make with a "blah, this sucks" type of comment.

Or, huge stretch here, it could be because you're scum.



Personally, I hope it's all three. [/Cox]

[Glork]

Glork...That wasn't the point. The "lie" as it were was largely immaterial, it was the DWA which was important.

I don't think her intent was to make you look worse through a DWA. I think it was incidental because you were attacking something that made sense from her perspective.

[Thestatusquo]

Glork...I dont think you actually read my explanation of the DWA, and how she "fell" into it.

[Thestatusquo]

662 is where I make the DWA, 663 is where she falls into the DWA, and 664 is where I explain it. Reading all three of those posts in detail is VITAL to understanding the rest of the exchange, which from your comments, I don't think you did.

[Bookitty]

Shanba, in response to the argument about dodging it...

I presented my opinions as just that: opinions. Since TSQ has not read the thread, he can't evaluate my opinions based on evidence in the thread, and indeed he has not presented any such evidence or counterevidence. His argument that I cannot be sure that you and Patrick are not scumbuddies is true. I cannot be SURE. I can work with the evidence I have from this thread, evidence he has not yet looked at. It's my opinion that you and Patrick are not scumbuddies, but it's not proven, and I did not claim to be able to prove it.

The other part of his argument deals with the fact that in my own case I did not include a scenario in which I might be scum. I think this part of his case speaks for itself, really. Do you think it's reasonable that someone of either alignment would suggest to the town that he or she is scum? It's counter to all reasonable play for any alignment, and yet he faults me for it as if it were somehow out of the norm.

I don't feel I've dodged answering anything he's asked me. If anyone (including TSQ) can restate the three reasons very concisely, I'll gladly address them as soon as possible. But the general assertion that I can't be certain of my conclusions is a straw man, because I never claimed to be certain. And the assertion that I should include in my own case a scenario I know to be an impossibility is also rather farfetched.

[Thestatusquo]

Actually, the claim wasnt that you could be certain, it was that I don't think you can ever make the claim that X is NOT Y's scum partner. And since you take Shanba not being Patricks scumbuddy and Andy not being crubs as a premise, your whole case is flawed from the start.

[Bookitty]

Actually, the claim wasnt that you could be certain, it was that I don't think you can ever make the claim that X is NOT Y's scum partner. And since you take Shanba not being Patricks scumbuddy and Andy not being crubs as a premise, your whole case is flawed from the start.

I don't think you can ever be absolutely certain of that unless you're scum yourself, but I think there are definitely cases where it's far less likely for two people to be scum together. And it's part of the process of measuring probabilities, is it not? It is equally true that you cannot say that two people are scumbuddies for certain unless you are scum yourself, but you did not object to that in the same way.

To me it seems as though you are attacking the entire notion of connections as a useful tool in finding scum. Is that your intent?

[Shanba]

Bleh. I have this horrible sense that come tomorrow I'm going to be wearing a noose around my neck.

Maybe that's because you keep making posts that don't really address anyone, present any detailed cases, or come to any strong conclusions.

That's... not really true. My day 1 attacks on Patrick, for example. My post today where I outlined my case about the absent at deadline thing. Hell, I even came to a conclusion at the end of my last post about tsq, despite thinking I wouldn't originally.

Or it could be because you end every post you make with a "blah, this sucks" type of comment.

I'm not really enjoying this game, and I don't have a great grasp of what's going on. I'm finding it difficult distinguishing between the players, with the exception of Patrick. If I'm brutally honest, I'm simply cherrypicking the bits I like from other people's arguments. This is not doing a whole lot of good for my confidence that I'm right.

Also, we're in lylo, I'm town and I'm under heavy suspicion. Yes, it does suck.

Or, huge stretch here, it could be because you're scum.

I hate it when people use rhetoric against me.

Personally, I hope it's all three. [/Cox]

You're going to be disappointed, then. I may have a fairly defeatist attitude, but this is not indicative of my alignment. What would I, as scum, have to be defeatist about right now? We're in triple lylo. I'm probably not going to be lynched today. Unless you believe it's because I'm scum with Crub? That would follow. But even then, I would still have a very good chance of winning as scum.

I'm not about to argue it makes me town, but I don't think it's a good argument for me being scum.

[Glork]

662 is where I make the DWA, 663 is where she falls into the DWA, and 664 is where I explain it. Reading all three of those posts in detail is VITAL to understanding the rest of the exchange, which from your comments, I don't think you did.

No, I read it all and I understand perfectly.


My point is that, as I read your posts, I though virtually

the exact same thing that BooKie immediately replied to

. I don't think your DWA works at all or proves anything here, especially given this fact.

Can you give me five past examples where use of DWA has busted scum?

[Thestatusquo]

Actually, the claim wasnt that you could be certain, it was that I don't think you can ever make the claim that X is NOT Y's scum partner. And since you take Shanba not being Patricks scumbuddy and Andy not being crubs as a premise, your whole case is flawed from the start.

I don't think you can ever be absolutely certain of that unless you're scum yourself, but I think there are definitely cases where it's far less likely for two people to be scum together. And it's part of the process of measuring probabilities, is it not? It is equally true that you cannot say that two people are scumbuddies for certain unless you are scum yourself, but you did not object to that in the same way.

To me it seems as though you are attacking the entire notion of connections as a useful tool in finding scum. Is that your intent?

No, there is an inherent difference between proving a connection, and proving a lack of connection. It is logically coherant to say that the actions of X make me think that he is scum with Y. I don't think you can do the same thing in reverse, because of the reasons I enumerated earlier. In general though, yes, I think "analyzing connections" is a less useful technique than others in finding scum.

[Thestatusquo]

662 is where I make the DWA, 663 is where she falls into the DWA, and 664 is where I explain it. Reading all three of those posts in detail is VITAL to understanding the rest of the exchange, which from your comments, I don't think you did.

No, I read it all and I understand perfectly.


My point is that, as I read your posts, I though virtually

the exact same thing that BooKie immediately replied to

. I don't think your DWA works at all or proves anything here, especially given this fact.

Can you give me five past examples where use of DWA has busted scum?

You would have responded to just the top sentance of the post, and ignored most of the content? Glork, I don't believe that at all. I am not going to go searching through tons of games to find you that, and I think the logic stands on its own. Though, I will admit that the time I saw Seol use it (In wifom league game two) it was a false positive, as Yosarian2 was a cop with a guilty result on the player they were arguing about, which in my opinion proves the logic of the thing, because the cop is attacking the thread with the same mindset as the scum: They know a players logic, and are therefore not interested in substantively discussing whether X is scum, but rather about winning the argument and getting that player lynched. We don't have to worry about that scenario in this game, for obvious reasons.

But even if you don't buy the DWA argument, what about the several instances of poisoning the well, etc, that I bring up?

[Thestatusquo]

Erm, should read players alignement, and not players logic.