|
Post by brewha on Mar 20, 2008 16:14:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm thinking that lynching is neccessary at this point. The do gooders already know who two of our mafia are and we'll likely lose one of them tonight. We are at a disadvantage. But, I guess with a no vanilla game, every person we lose will be the loss of a power role.
At least a lynch will tell us something. A no lynch will tell us nothing. Of course that's the double edged sword of lynching lurkers. They die, but if they aren't saying anything we really don't get any addition information other than their alignment.
Diggitcamara's analysis of Kat does seem to make her a possible candidate. But, CAIS's refusal to unvote and then susbsequent unvote of Hockey Monkey makes him look even more suspect in my mind. I'll keep my vote where it is.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Mar 20, 2008 16:17:49 GMT -5
The way this game is going, I think the Bastard Mods have managed to slip us all mickeys. Roosh is in med school right? Since you asked, Nope. I'm currently applying for medical school, but not yet in one. If I got into Medical School, I'd probably celebrate by joining the Dope, for the least of matters.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 20, 2008 16:35:46 GMT -5
By special request: List of who I (provisionally) think are probably town – Or I won't vote for these people toDay, maybe tomorrow. This is in the order they appear on the player list, but the notes were written by who's reason I remembered off the top of my head, and who's I had to look up to remind me. This is a list I started this game to keep track of people I didn’t think were worth looking into today. I don’t expect to be right about EVERYONE on the list, but everyone on the list did something today to make me think that they are more likely town than not at the moment. HawkeyeOp - Due to the reveal of the “playing for keeps” line. Though his lack of participation is troubling. (only seven posts this game) Koldanar - Because of his reveal of the win conditions and the conversations surrounding that topic. I am currently putting him in the same camp as Smurf and HM. zuma -based on his Joe Chill name claim. An obscure enough villain that I don’t think a non Batman fan would have come up with on his own. That is mark 1 in his favor. Mark 2 is his reveal of alignment which is only half a mark since he COULD have just copied hoopy. But that with the name claim take him off my list for now. Storyteller – - I am not totally sure about this one, but I think his play style currently is…bad for scum. He isn’t really being very careful. He is getting names wrong and losing track of some basic stuff, so either he is lying (and being brilliant) or he isn’t paying attention the way scum would. Better than neutral, far from confirmed. But let’s not waste our time today. HockeyMonkey - Her reveal which has been well documented and I have posted about previously. See my note on Dark Smurf for my only reservations. NAF1138 - I am a mason. Mole can back me up. The Dark Smurf - He was the first to make a reveal. It’s too risky a move to make if he is scum. The ONLY thing that gives me pause is if Roosh and Dio had forseen us going over role PM’s and given all the scum a safe PM. If they did we just wasted this whole Day. Hoopyfrood -first to post a role PM. A dangerous gambit for scum if they haven’t been given a safe PM, particularly daring for a new player. Molefan1981 -he’s a mason Sinjin -I posted this earlier where he said (in response to Rysto) that one of the claimers posts matched his ALMOST exactly. If I were scum I wouldn’t be so certain as to post something like that. I would just parrot what Rysto said. Link to the post I made earlier. psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=tempy&action=display&thread=295&page=1#18946Ok, so I was going to break it down into people that I think have ACTUALLY confirmed themselves, and people who have only temporarily confirmed themselves…but I don’t think I will. I think we can all make up our own minds on that front. That being said, I won’t be voting for any of these people today. I also will not vote for Rugger (due to lack of evidence) or Hal (same) today. That eliminates 12 people from the running (counting myself) for today. I may end up random voting from the remaining list. I haven’t decided yet. I am a little bit at a loss right now, but am investigating. If you like my investigations I will keep posting them. I am not sure if anyone other than the person I am posting about is reading them though. If you aren’t I won’t bother. Ok, that’s it for now. Back to work.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 16:39:25 GMT -5
Ok, something has jumped out at me. In the post where he votes for Ryjae, tdpatriots says: ryjae has dedicated a significant chunk of his entire post total to calling out and pursuing Molegate, a slip up that molefan tossed into the ocean like so much chum. Ryjae objected to this, because he only made 6 posts on Molegate. tdpatriots responds: Despite the fact that your post is one of these I will answer honestly. This was a summary of my notes taken over the course of reading your post history in conjunction with others to look for any anamolies in "quality posts" (something I mentioned earlier). When I say, "half [his] posts were dedicated to Molegate" I was referring to your quality posts, of which there were few by the same guidelines I was judging everyone else. This is the first bit that bothers me. The first quote doesn't at all make it clear that he's talking about "quality posts". Now, I do believe that he just didn't explain himself properly, but to come back swinging calling Ryjae's post an circumstantial ad hominem doesn't sit right with me. It reads like a subtle smudge to me, saying that Ryjae is engaging in rhetorical fallacies instead of debating honestly. Actually, you know what? This really bothers me. Because a circumstantial ad hominem is an argument like, "That scientist is a Republican, so of course his research would say that global warming isn't happening." It's an counter-argument that the argument is flawed solely because the arguer is biased. But Ryjae never said anything of the sort! I mean, what on earth? There's no fallacy in that whatsoever. Ryjae says " tdpatriots, you say that most of my posts are devoted to Molegate. But only 6 of them really are. Why are you fibbing?" How does that get turned around in tdpatriots' head into an argument like, "Of course you'd argue that I'm scum, because it's in your best interests as scum to bus a townie."? Simple. tdpatriots knows that he is scum, and that he is bussing a townie. The other thing from tdpatriots that jumped out at me is this: I'm not sure about "quality post theory It's not strictly relevant. The QP could be a complete waste of time, I only went over it in the interests of full disclosure and to help explain my reasons for voting. Basically it's why I was going over his posts to begin with. It wasn't what made me suspicious of ryjae because other people had similar "QP percentages" and didn't feel scummy to me. Back that right up. You've made a vote partially based on your quality posts theory, and you're immediately telling us that you don't endorse, and it's probably useless anyway and we shouldn't pay any attention to it? If you're so unsure of your theory, why are you using to justify your vote? This reads to me like scum distancing themselves from their vote. I'm a bit unsure of bringing this final thing up, because it's a Miss Marple argument and I'm not at all convinced of the validity of those, but the wording in tdpatriots' disclaimer really reminds me of the arguments Pleonast, who was scum, was making at the end of YSI. Pleonast came up with this analysis technique whose details aren't really relevant, and based his votes off of that. It was somewhat confusing to many but whenever somebody asked him to clarify it, he would respond with something like "I really don't want to get bogged down in discussing my method. Everybody should come up with their own way of forming their suspicions and we'll work from there." The thing was, Pleonast's method had a fatal flaw: it assumed that he was Town, which completely biased his results. Nobody caught on to this. Needless to say, I'm going to get a bit suspicious whenever anybody else ever discourages discussion of their own voting and analysis methods, and tdpatriots seems to be doing it here. Vote tdpatriots
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 16:56:16 GMT -5
On a totally different note, writing all that reminded me that we've been engaging in the use of lazy terminology. There are at least two scum groups in this game. That means that we need to be careful when reasoning about "town" and "scum". For example, a vote for scum is usually considered a pro-Town action in a two-faction game. In a 3+ faction game, a vote for a Do-Gooder is an anti-Do-Gooder action, but it's just as pro-Playing-For-Keeps as it is pro-Town. In that last post I was lazy and talked about "scum bussing townies", but in reality that should be "scum bussing players not aligned with that scum." That's more verbose and has no bearing on the argument, but we do need to be own our toes and thinking like this is a 3+ faction game, even if we might simplify our reasoning by using terms from a 2 faction game. We need to be careful to ensure that if we do use reasoning applicable to a 2 faction game, that the reasoning generalizes to a 3+ faction game.
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Mar 20, 2008 17:11:40 GMT -5
This is the first bit that bothers me. The first quote doesn't at all make it clear that he's talking about "quality posts". Now, I do believe that he just didn't explain himself properly, but to come back swinging calling Ryjae's post an circumstantial ad hominem doesn't sit right with me. It reads like a subtle smudge to me, saying that Ryjae is engaging in rhetorical fallacies instead of debating honestly. Here's how I read it as a logical fallacy: Me: Half of ryjae's posts are re: Molegate. That got my attention, now here are all the things that sound scummy to me that happened after. ryjae: I did not make half my posts on Molegate. You are lying. And this is what the site I linked to had to say on it: "A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest" What I was trying to express was that in choosing to isolate that part of my post, which I feel like I needed to explain (and did, by explaining my QP thing), without actually responding to the part of my argument I felt was strongest. " tdpatriots12 lies about my posts on Molegate, his argument must be flawed solely because the arguer is obviously biased against me." Or, as ryjae said, "Trying to smear me." Perhaps, in truth, I overreacted just as much as I felt he did. Consider for a second that I started a very long and involved process of trying to rate peoples posts to try to find anamolies, meaning I'd have to finish everyone in order for it to actually tell me something on its own. It took me hours just to finish 7 or so people, and some had less than 10 posts. I stopped this endeavor in its tracks when ryjae caught my attention. This is the source of my confidence, which has waned in following posts to the point where I plan to continue going over posts tonight, but not so much that I feel like I'm wrong. Maybe I can be more right? Stop. No I didn't. QP was the reason I was looking so closely at everyone's post. The fact I went with the order we posted in this thread and got to ryjae is relevant, not the reason I was looking at his being scum. You can analyze the scummyness of even doing a QP study as much as you please, but don't confuse it with my reasons for voting ryjae. In light of that... You are selectively reading. Let's go back to the first part of your issue with me, the fact I reacted strongly to ryjae's claims of my lying about his post count. That is an obviously serious charge. I didn't lie on purpose, although my original post is clearly wrong. I wanted to explain why my post said that "half of his posts are dedicated to Molegate" not why I think he's scum. If I only had his Molegate QPs to go on, I wouldn't have voted for him at all. Like I said, there were other examples of low QP that didn't trip my scumdar. The disclaimer was meant to avoid people making this assumption, not because I was worried it would look bad, but because I felt it would be a waste of time to go over again as I believe I had addressed it in three posts. Yet I did, at length. The only thing I could possibly add is the post/quality post stats for the people before ryjae. But on their own, you realize (as with almost any statistical analyses) they are likely to be misinterpreted, as they only make sense as part of a larger sample. (color removed for convenience, mods) I encourage anyone to discuss my vote and reasons for voting for ryjae and was frankly shocked that no-one bothered because I felt the case was compelling. However you are not taking my vote or why I voted to task, you are criticizing the reason I was looking at his posts in the first place. In summary if my vote is scummy to you, that's fine - let's discuss it, but you're using something I think I've adequately identified as unrelated to my vote to justify your suspicions.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Mar 20, 2008 17:18:32 GMT -5
Is the way that the Hoopy Frood thing went down bothering anybody else? We all agree that name claims aren't very helpful, especially in light of the "Playing for Keeps" group. Then some Frood gets some heat. He name claims. And everybody pressuring him immediately backs off. The discussion just dies. This makes me a bit suspicious of those who were pressuring him in the first place. Is there any particular reason that they were so ready to believe the name claim meant that Frood was Town? The inconsistency bugs me, but I'm not sure if it's a case of townies not practicing what had been preached or if it was a case of perfect knowledge syndrome on the part of a scum. Actually, you raise a good point, and one that I had been mulling over for a bit (as I was cursing the gods of paint--I really can't understand how anyone could do that for a living). I've been planning on revisiting the whole thing with me, and now that everything I needed to get done with the painting is indeed complete, and my parents have returned to Cheeseland, I finally have some time to truly do some analysis on the events surrounding my and Zuma's name claims. [My thoughts about individual posts will be added in brackets like this sentence is.] (Apologies ahead of time to anyone who I accidentally use the wrong gender with.) I made a badly worded statement, that HockeyMonkey jumped on. Fair enough. I disagree with the fact that she felt it was scummy enough to garner a vote. Possibly an FOS, but even that is a stretch. But as Zuma mentioned, votes on Day 1 are often based on crap logic, and I did something stupid, regardless of the reasons, so being called on it is understandable. Zuma follows up with a post commenting HM on her catch. A bit later Zuma requests that I explain myself, adding that I'm #2 on his hit list (behind Kassia). I explain my rational for what I did. What I was thinking at the time I made the post. I also say that it's the only defense I have to curb anyone's suspicions. Sinjin says that it doesn't make sense (without any explanation as to why). She unvotes Ryjae, and Votes me. (I now have 2 votes: HM and Sinjin, and one suspicion: Zuma.) Santo Rugger brings up why my post seems scummy to him. To his credit, he at least explains a possible scum motivation. I didn't really understand all of it, given that I have no point of reference, but out of everyone, his suspicion seems the most justified. I claim my name and post my role PM verbatim, minus my intentionally left out powers. I call out Santo for his post. I didn't think his post was total bullshit, actually. But, I didn't have a point of reference to the games he mentioned. And even if my gaffe was similar to his intentional post, I made no excuse about trying to lure anyone out. I wasn't attempting to set a trap. I explained my thinking in my earlier defense post. I probably read a more accusative tone into Santo's than was intended, but the main reason I called him on it was that I wanted more explanation from him. Particularly because he was the only one who attempted to give any real reason why what I did might be scummy (even if I didn't agree with it), and he wasn't even officially voting against me (though, I was likely high on his list,of suspicions). I also ask in general what reasons scum would have to do what I did. Oddly enough, no one else mentions anything. My situation seems even more eerily like Pleonast's pronoun gaffe. Storyteller mentions how he agrees that my scum motivation question is a good one, and concludes that the town is concentrating too much on PM contents. NAF1138 mentions how proud he is that someone used the motivation question. Something he mentioned frequently in Fluiddruid's game. (And, to his credit, is the person who made me aware in that game of motivations being more important than the words themselves. Yes, to quote an old 80's anti-drug commercial: "I learned it by watching you!") He then tosses off a comment about how the question is not necessarily relevant to the situation. I'm curious what that was supposed to mean and honestly would like NAF to expound upon that. Zuma then asks why I claimed when I only had one vote. Oddly enough, he seems to miss/ignore the fact that I had 2 votes and was #2 on his own list, as well as having at least one other person suspect me. Also, the other people had 1 vote each and no suspicions. Also I had already mentioned previously that my participation this week would be fairly sparse due to having to do work on my house and having family in town. Storyteller explains my rationale to Zuma, and does a good job of it. Santo explains himself more clearly. Calls me selfish for name-claiming. (Apparently he missed my mention of not having a lot of time to post this week either.) Ryjae mentions that he thinks my claim might be a touch early, but mentions how many of us would probably do the same thing. Zuma name claims and adds mention of a penis massaging club in what apparently is a dig at me and anyone who felt I was at least somewhat justified in what I did. Santo says he basically disagrees with both what I did and Story's defense of me. He only agrees that the town seems to get stuck on one track all the time. Sinjin wonders why Zuma claimed. Story asks Santo why he has such issues with my claim, since he and Zuma were bandwagoners of the vote against me [and FTR, hadn't even voted themselves, nothing like pushing a bandwagon, but not really voting so that you can't be blamed if something goes wrong, eh?]. Story sees no downside to the town in my claim. Santo mentions that he could see Chill being a Do-Gooder. Zuma says he claimed because maybe he is in favor of name claims now. [Oddly enough, later CIAS doesn't seem to question his flip-flop, even though she questions mine. Though, I never made mention of being opposed to name-claims themselves, just the mass-claim. So she pursues a non-flip-flop, and misses the actual one, though it could be argued whether or not even Zuma's change was a true flip flop, see later.] Story wonders why Zuma after chastising me for name-claiming, did it himself. Brewha wonders as well. Indicates he's removing suspicion off of me. (Though he never explicitly posted that he did suspect me.) [So apparently there were at least 3 people suspecting me that hadn't voted.] Finds Zuma's behavior disturbing. CAIS posts his theories on why I did what I did. Mentions my flip-flopping that wasn't an actual flip-flop. Sews [probably unintentional] confusion since Zuma was the one who actually flip-flopped and some now think she's talking about him. She does this in two separated posts since her first post screwed up. Zuma explains his claim in that he's brazen and he's uncomfortable with me getting a pass for mine. NAF asks Zuma how well he knows the BM universe and if his character was why he was opposed to name claims. Zuma in two posts answers Brewha and NAF with the points that he doesn't give a shit about his revelation, he doesn't do the comic book thing, and his role had nothing to do with his opposition to name claiming. Ryjae asks Zuma how he feels about the usefulness of a mass claim. Santo addresses Story's bandwagon question by saying that he had only intended to post his thoughts once, and that he only posted again because I had requested he do so. He further goes on to mention that he opposed my claim because he hates when town reveals their roles too soon because powerful roles get outed and the scum have too many to pick from for night kills. Mentions that my claim will now make my posts scrutinized less, and how it's possible that the do-gooders have been supplied with optional identities, implying that my name-claim could be little more than a front. Mentions that my claim harms the town, because if I'm town, the scum can try to guess what my powers are. Hal posts a little extra background on Joe Chill and states there's basis for him being a Do-Gooder as Santo said. Zuma says he was always on the fence. Next posts tells people to vote him off for claiming Joe Chill. [No doubt in response to the earlier Do-Gooder posts.]
Brewha says he didn't care about Zuma's revelation. His issue was with the fact that Zuma took such issue with mine, and then turned around and claimed as well. Further mentions that Zuma was already off of Brewha's scumdar.
Molefan does a quick synopsis of it all. Votes for Santo.
Zuma laments people voting for him, though, no one has yet. Goes to bed.
Santo calls Zuma a jackass. Cites that the info Santo mentioned earlier was taken right from the Wiki.
HockeyMonkey notices the Drainbead funny letters thing, is confused about Zuma's actions, unvotes me, and votes Drainbead. This starts a whole new concentrate on one subject "thread" going.
CAIS mentions that he was referring to me, not Zuma.
A few pages later, I come back on, and justify why I claimed, even mentioning once again that I had already said I wouldn't be around much, which was a large reason that I claimed. I also address CAIS's issue. AFAIK, this is the last time I'm brought up again, until Story's mention of me being still in his pool, and Rysto's post above.
It's a lot to chew on. The point is, the only thing my claim really does is identify me as unique. As Santo pointed out, it's possible scum have alternate identities, in which case my claim doesn't prove I'm town. My claim in of itself also doesn't prove I'm not of those playing for keeps. This is no doubt why I'm still in Story's pool. But, he also has posted his understanding why someone in my position would claim if they were town all the way as well. He's been well-reasoned throughout. The only thing I have left to explicitly defend myself is my role, and I will not give that out. By claiming that, I will probably make myself useless anyway so I might as well get lynched.
Now, for my final analysis of the above:
The only one who pings me as acting oddly is Zuma. But not in a scummy way, just in an odd way.
The only one who really has me wondering about intentions is the only person who has one post in the above list. She voted with little justification, and then dropped out of the discussion. She didn't even find it odd when Zuma name claimed. She disappeared. She didn't even unvote me until page 2 of the second thread.
Granted, I might have missed something, and if I did, I welcome it being pointed out, but until then:
Vote Sinjin
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 20, 2008 17:21:17 GMT -5
A quick breakdown of lurker's posts ("lurker", in this case, being defined as those with <10 posts):
Captain Klutz Post 1 -- Asks for rule clarification re: ties. Post 2 -- Role names don't imply alignment, votes against mass name reveal. Post 3 -- In the event of an early hammer, Days should continue on schedule. Should be able to check in every day. Post 4 -- "I'll add a pre emptive defence of myself: I tend to be a fairly low volume poster at the beginning, and pick up as the game continues and more information comes to light." Post 5 -- His PM has "'Your goal:' bolded and 'playing for keeps' not capitalised". Post 6 -- Reiterates opposition to mass name claim. Post 7 -- "This is one heck of a Day. I haven't caught up yet and I'm about to go out for the evening. Be back later."
Hawkeyeop Post 1 -- Don't lynch lurkers for lurking, votes against mass name reveal. Post 2 -- Masons might have a separate win condition. Post 3 -- Masons are probably villains, not cops. Post 4 -- Not going to give up his role, knows there is a group "Playing for Keeps". Post 5 -- Votes ryjae for providing wiki links to "Batman_supporting_characters" and "List_of_Batman_enemies". Post 6 -- Responds to NAF's noting that I originally provided wiki links -- notes that my link was of a more general nature. Post 7 -- Fake-votes Dio.
Atarus Post 1 -- Batman might have a fake claim ready. Post 2 -- Quality analytical post, ending with vote against mass name reveal. Post 3 -- Slept through molegate, calls out mole on his "BACK OFF" post, concludes mole is pro-town. Post 4 -- His PM is capitalized. Post 5 -- Admits to lurking, catches up w/thoughts re: Hoopy's name claim (not scum, just newbie town), zuma's claim (should've known better, but not scummy) and "draingeadbate" (post restriction necessarily a scum tell). Post 6 -- Thinks he figured out drainbead's role. Post 7 -- Admits to lurking, nothing much to add, wonders if zuma is being too aggressive or just being zuma. Post 8 -- Some toe-to-toe w/mole and a question for Cookies. Post 9 -- Thanks rysto for correcting him.
Kassia Post 1 -- Apologizes for coming in late, on the fence about Hockey Monkey. Post 2 -- Thinks molefan is inconsistent and knows too much. Votes molefan. Post 3 -- Calls out Cookies for defending molefan. Post 4 -- Happy to hear that the claimed masons aren't getting a townie pass. Post 5 -- Still unsure about the claimed masons. Post 6 -- Not convinced that the masons are pro-town. Post 7 -- Wonders if zuma is going to "change your mind for a 4th time on the mass name claim?" Post 8 -- More about masons: "I never claimed they would be scum - I said they wouldn't necessarily be 'pro-town'." Post 9 -- Clarifies target of Post 8.
My thoughts on this in a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Mar 20, 2008 17:28:05 GMT -5
Ack. And going through my post again with a fresh mind, I noticed that I made a mistake. Sinjin did have another post, and I even have her name bolded in it.
She did question Zuma's name claim.
Sorry about that.
Still, her actions still support a "bandwagon vote-then-hide" gambit. So I'm not changing my vote yet.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 20, 2008 17:35:39 GMT -5
Hold the fricking phone... The do gooders already know who two of our mafia are and we'll likely lose one of them tonight. Ummm...what? The do-gooders are the maifa. Care to explain?
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 17:36:28 GMT -5
Here's how I read it as a logical fallacy: Me: Half of ryjae's posts are re: Molegate. That got my attention, now here are all the things that sound scummy to me that happened after. ryjae: I did not make half my posts on Molegate. You are lying. And this is what the site I linked to had to say on it: "A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest" What I was trying to express was that in choosing to isolate that part of my post, which I feel like I needed to explain (and did, by explaining my QP thing), without actually responding to the part of my argument I felt was strongest. First off, your third paragraph does not follow in the least from the description of a circumstantial ad hominem you've just quoted. What you've said just doesn't make any sense. Second, are you asking us to believe that in the space of two posts, you forgot about Ryjae's initial response to your vote? Ryjae did address some of your other arguments. I'm afraid I don't believe you at all. Alright, here's your voting post: Now, maybe this is just a misunderstanding, but around here, if you write a long paragraph explaining why you think somebody is scummy, and follow that with a vote, anything you cite in the paragraph is going to be read by anyone else as being evidence against your scum candidate. I'm willing to accept that perhaps, you didn't intend to cite quality posts as part of your case against Ryjae. But in light of how little sense your making over the ad hominem thing, my vote stands.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 17:38:17 GMT -5
Hold the fricking phone... The do gooders already know who two of our mafia are and we'll likely lose one of them tonight. Ummm...what? The do-gooders are the maifa. Care to explain? I think that was meant to be "Masons".
|
|
|
Post by Captain Klutz on Mar 20, 2008 17:45:44 GMT -5
Apologies for my lack of participation: I've been busy every evening this week and I'll be out all day today (Friday - for me, Day 1 ends at noon on Saturday). I have caught up but I still don't know who I'll be voting for (although I am unlikely to vote for molefan, NAF, Smurf, zuma and hockeymonkey).
On preview: Hal, in your summary above you say "Post 6 -- Reiterates opposition to mass name claim." To clarify, we now know that masons are identifiable from their names. I was wondering if there are in fact other things that could be determined from names. I concluded "However, a name claim will definitely out the remaining masons so we should hold off for the time being. "
Yes, I am opposed for the time being, but later (in a few Days time) a general claim could be useful.
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 20, 2008 17:48:41 GMT -5
I think that was meant to be "Masons". Errrm, ok, sorta makes sense....but if that were the case, then why would "we likely lose one of them tonight"? Outed masons are more or less confirmed vanilla* -- why would the scum take out one of them and leave potential power roles running around? *Yes, I know, in a closed set-up the masons could have any number of powers. I'm just saying that it comes off as odd is all...
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 17:50:48 GMT -5
For starters a dead mason can't confirm(or repudiate) anyone as a mason.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 20, 2008 17:52:25 GMT -5
NAF1138 mentions how proud he is that someone used the motivation question. Something he mentioned frequently in Fluiddruid's game. (And, to his credit, is the person who made me aware in that game of motivations being more important than the words themselves. Yes, to quote an old 80's anti-drug commercial: "I learned it by watching you!") He then tosses off a comment about how the question is not necessarily relevant to the situation. I'm curious what that was supposed to mean and honestly would like NAF to expound upon that. More than happy to, would you mind giving me a page number or time of day or something so I can find the post in question and refresh my memory. I remember writing it, but damned if I remember the context now. (and I know you kind of gave the context, but not enough to refresh my memory.) Also, what do you think of my reasons for taking sinj out of the equation for toDay? (I don't know if you just didn't see my post while you were composing yours, or if you disagree with my reasoning, or if you just didn't read it. )
|
|
|
Post by Hal Briston on Mar 20, 2008 17:56:49 GMT -5
For starters a dead mason can't confirm(or repudiate) anyone as a mason. S'true, but unless they kill both outed masons, there will still be one left to confirm/deny a new claimant. Either way, this line of discussion isn't really fair to brewha. We're debating what we think his intentions were, but I'm going to wait for him to come back and state what he meant. And besides...my workday ends in three minutes, so it's time to go spend real-world time with my family...
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 20, 2008 17:57:09 GMT -5
I think that was meant to be "Masons". Errrm, ok, sorta makes sense....but if that were the case, then why would "we likely lose one of them tonight"? Outed masons are more or less confirmed vanilla* -- why would the scum take out one of them and leave potential power roles running around? *Yes, I know, in a closed set-up the masons could have any number of powers. I'm just saying that it comes off as odd is all...Dunno, personally I am hoping a doc will through a protect our way, but I hardly ever make it past Day 2 so I am not really expecting much. ~Mod Note~ Deleted the Double Post.
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Mar 20, 2008 17:57:36 GMT -5
First off, your third paragraph does not follow in the least from the description of a circumstantial ad hominem you've just quoted. What you've said just doesn't make any sense. I hated that line the second I hit Post. It was a problem I had with that particular reply of his because I felt like he was trying to weaken my argument by highlighting a part that doesn't matter after he responded to the other parts (more on that below). It was a thought should have been developed on its own and not tacked on there like that. No, I responded to his first reply as well (it is post #48). It didn't mention QP or circumstantial ad hominem at all (although I do mention a false dilemma). I wasn't satisfied with his answers, and he responds by attacking the weak, irrelevant part of my post. I fail to see how my frustration wouldn't be natural in that situation. (bolding and color added)The teal portion of my post I intended as an introduction. I have no reason to lie about why I was looking over the posts, so I wanted to set-up the background as it were to my "story" of how I felt ryjae was scummy. The bold part is important because I was in fact summarizing my notes, which are written in chronological order as I read through posts and not at the end of them. The navy portion of my post is intended as the justification for my vote in the form of a narrative describing how I came to view ryjae as scum. The part that is getting so much attention is the part in italics and not the standard navy section. If you go back and read my posts with this in mind, I am confident you'll at the very least see where I was going with my explanation of QP. I agree. I saw the misunderstanding coming, but in an attempt to cut it off at the pass I may have exacerbated the mistake. I should have, instead of summarizing my notes, simply written it out from scratch. But yes, I just re-read my navy post twice, once with the italicized section and once without, and they do read differently. I understand my mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 20, 2008 17:59:57 GMT -5
Errrm, ok, sorta makes sense....but if that were the case, then why would "we likely lose one of them tonight"? Outed masons are more or less confirmed vanilla* -- why would the scum take out one of them and leave potential power roles running around? *Yes, I know, in a closed set-up the masons could have any number of powers. I'm just saying that it comes off as odd is all...Dunno, personally I am hoping a doc will through a protect our way, but I hardly ever make it past Day 2 so I am not really expecting much. Oy...can a passing mod take care of the double post?
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Mar 20, 2008 18:02:57 GMT -5
NAF1138 mentions how proud he is that someone used the motivation question. Something he mentioned frequently in Fluiddruid's game. (And, to his credit, is the person who made me aware in that game of motivations being more important than the words themselves. Yes, to quote an old 80's anti-drug commercial: "I learned it by watching you!") He then tosses off a comment about how the question is not necessarily relevant to the situation. I'm curious what that was supposed to mean and honestly would like NAF to expound upon that. More than happy to, would you mind giving me a page number or time of day or something so I can find the post in question and refresh my memory. I remember writing it, but damned if I remember the context now. (and I know you kind of gave the context, but not enough to refresh my memory.) Gotcha. My claim post was here: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=tempy&action=display&thread=290&page=15#18780You're response in question is two posts down. I didn't see it. (I don't know if it came while I was composing my post or not, but I wouldn't be surprised since I spent a long damn while making that thing.) I'll go read it, mull over it, and get back to you. (I'm also in currently getting ready for going out tonight, so I'm multitasking.)
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 18:02:58 GMT -5
No, I responded to his first reply as well (it is post #48). That's the problem I have. You allege that you made the ad hominem accusation because you felt that Ryjae was ignoring your better arguments. But you had just responded to another post by Ryjae that addressed the other arguments! This is totally incongruous, and I'm forced that conclude that you're lying about why you made the ad hominem accusation.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 18:04:26 GMT -5
Dunno, personally I am hoping a doc will through a protect our way, but I hardly ever make it past Day 2 so I am not really expecting much. You made it all the way to the end of YSI, and if I'm reading the mood here correctly that's better than we can expect for Dio and Roosh.
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Mar 20, 2008 18:10:56 GMT -5
No, I responded to his first reply as well (it is post #48). That's the problem I have. You allege that you made the ad hominem accusation because you felt that Ryjae was ignoring your better arguments. But you had just responded to another post by Ryjae that addressed the other arguments! This is totally incongruous, and I'm forced that conclude that you're lying about why you made the ad hominem accusation. I think we're getting worked up over a matter of degrees here. I was dissatisfied with his responses, I felt he was dodging the questions or making excuses. The next thing he posts is an attack on the weakest part of my argument and the least relevant portion of the post. Read the first line of my first reply: I'm a new player, this is my first ever game of mafia in any format. Am I, too, supposed to grant you additional understanding? Does that sound like someone satisfied by an answer? I'm not trying to dig into ryjae here, but if I must establish the congruity of my actions, I have to cite that frustration. PS. What does YSI stand for?
|
|
|
Post by Høøpy Frøød on Mar 20, 2008 18:11:49 GMT -5
I read your post, NAF, and let me confirm that I'm grokking you correctly.
I think you're saying that Sinjin was the first to go out on a limb and mention that her win condition didn't quite match exactly what Smurf had posted, after Rysto said that his matched exactly, and how that wouldn't be something that scum would do.
Is that a correct assessment of your point?
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 18:11:59 GMT -5
You-Solve-It. It was a Mafia game played on the SDMB. NAF was one of the mods.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 20, 2008 18:14:51 GMT -5
More than happy to, would you mind giving me a page number or time of day or something so I can find the post in question and refresh my memory. I remember writing it, but damned if I remember the context now. (and I know you kind of gave the context, but not enough to refresh my memory.) Gotcha. My claim post was here: psychopathgame.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=tempy&action=display&thread=290&page=15#18780You're response in question is two posts down. AH! RIGHT! I remember now. (Thanks for the help, I couldn't handle scouring the thread for a single post right now.) The question wasn't relevant, because motivation assumes that you are doing something on purpose. Santo thought he caught you making a mistake. So you wouldn't have had a motivation other than to look townie and make an innocuous post. He thought you scewed up and exposed yourself as scum. So motive didn't really play into it. I still am glad you asked. ;D No, I still don't know who to vote for, but have VERY much enjoyed the last page or so of posts. Wish we started this yesteday. We have until midnight tomorrow right mods?No, you know what, fuck that. Fluid's game seems to have taken away a bit of my nerve. vote KatShe is lurking like crazy and she tried to drum up an argument against me for no reason this morning (last night...a long time ago.) I think I had decided not to vote for her because I didn't have a solid read, but she isn't one of the people I am unwilling to vote for and she has given me two reasons to vote for her.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 18:16:31 GMT -5
The day ends at 9PM EST.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Mar 20, 2008 18:17:04 GMT -5
I read your post, NAF, and let me confirm that I'm grokking you correctly. I think you're saying that Sinjin was the first to go out on a limb and mention that her win condition didn't quite match exactly what Smurf had posted, after Rysto said that his matched exactly, and how that wouldn't be something that scum would do. Is that a correct assessment of your point? Yes. For now I think it is enough to give me pause. It would be a VERY risky thing for scum to do. I don't consider sinj cleared, but I am giving him a +1 for town points.
|
|
|
Post by Rysto on Mar 20, 2008 18:17:53 GMT -5
That's on Friday, of course, not today. I should have clarified that.
|
|