Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:12:39 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 1, 2007 12:12:39 GMT -5
I am increasingly sure that you don't actually know what the word "misrepresentation" means. You said that I was arguing that the town's information deficit was smaller in this game than in others, and that I couldn't possibly believe that. I replied that I do believe that, and explained why. There is no misrepresentation there, and using that word over and over doesn't make it so. DING DING! I obviously do, because that is NOT my case against you! Ad hominem attacks do not become you, Storyteller. Hogwash. This is true of EVERY game. We've generally had roles that equate to masons, doctors, and detectives. What makes it okay to lynch in a game where we KNOW that there are roles out there that have extra information, but not okay when we don't even know whether or not they exist and how they operate? In other. You of all people should know this. I'm quite certain you admitted this in your anti-lynch post, but even so, perhaps it is a bit meta-gamey, so I'm willing to let that point slide. AGAIN with ad hominem attack. I'll say this slowly: This is a game of information. The town gains information through deaths. Resigning control of who dies to the scum A) makes it impossible to win, since they'll never kill scum (except for possibly a SK role) and B) allows them to manipulate and/or minimize the information we gain. How is that NOT intuitive? Strawmen don't become you either. I never claimed you were stupid. In fact, I think it's a brilliant move, because you convinced others to go along with you AND, obviously, many others are giving you the benefit of the doubt. Remember, it has been said, by you among others, that scum will manipulate certain logic to appear to be solid on the surface, but be tenuous when taken under close examination. I think that is exactly what you are doing here. You take a premise that is believable on the surface and, at worst, results to a defense of "well, that's what I believed" and then you use that to reach a scum-favorable conclusion, but with logic that looks, on the surface, to be pro-town. So Mad "lied"? Do you still see him as scummy? Lying implies that he intended to deceive, and it was clear that he just misremembered. It's entirely possible and, in fact, reasonable to assume, that people will not necessarily remember things 100% accurately. As far as the "lynch all liars" adage goes, we have to consider motivation for the untruth. If he had been scum, why would he lie about something that could easily be verified with a little bit of research, especially knowing that you're the type to do such research? That to me, stinks of an OMGUS vote at best, and a reactionary and defensive vote more likely. My goodness... Care to name them, simply saying you went after others doesn't make it so, because I didn't see it. And mentioning Ui doesn't count for much either because A) I hadn't read far enough to even know he was in the game at the time when I responded to this and B) I find your arguments against him rather unconvincing and C) Yes he's a bit of a harsh, but I don't see anything at this point that makes me particularly suspicious. I never said you did vote for him. I said "aggression" and that you reacted with suspicion and emotion. I would think that classifying "I think he just plain doesn't like me" among with the cursing as an emoitional response is completely within reason Hogwash again. In the post I quoted, to give a specific example, you end the post with a bunch of questions "alluding" to thoughts about whether I'm scum or not. This is what has come to be known as smudging. Namely, I think you're using lighter statements like that because you're scum, and the last thing you want is to be one of the first people attaching his name to the lynching of a townie unless you can point to definitive proof like you could with Mad. IOW, it may not be overtly going "I am suspicious of you", but it's certaintly designed to plant seeds or fan existing suspicions. No, my case against you is more than that, as you should be able to see through this post if no others. The thing is my main point is, unfortunately, convoluted and the rest has been largely drowned out by the rest of the noise in the thread. I'm plenty prepared to explain my actions if/when I'm on the lynching block, because I've been as transparent as I possibly can. As for the information that I got from Dotchan's death, it included raised suspicion of Greedy Smurf (confirmed SK), you (100% scum), Hockey Monkey (probably scum as well), and Atarus (least likely of the four to be scum, but he's on my suspicious list now). We also learned that the name/role correlation is bunk, which puts people like Cat (who was only saved by the nameclaim) back into possition for being lynched. In fact, I'm willing to be dollars to donuts that the information from her death was one of the major contributing factors to Greedy Smurf's death and, if it hadn't been then, I would have been pushing at least as hard for his lynch today as I am for yours. That information would have resulted in AT LEAST a 1-1 trade, which makes that extra-ordinarily useful information. You're on. Contact me via PM for payment details. Either way, anyone else see the contradiction there? In the very same post, he says he said he didn't really know, and now says he'd vote for me. Oh boy... Either way, unfortunately, it looks like you'll have to wait until tomorrow.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:14:53 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 1, 2007 12:14:53 GMT -5
is a wonderful thing. And not prohibited. Would you care to explain why you put that sentence in almost-white? Is there a reason why you didn't want people to read it? I guess you didn't realize that you can change the background color of the boards... --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:20:57 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 1, 2007 12:20:57 GMT -5
I just want to know where the sentence following "points against me" came from. It does not appear in ui's post as far as I can tell. is a wonderful thing. And not prohibited.But... why? I mean, that's just weird. Irrelevant, though. Continue.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:23:47 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 1, 2007 12:23:47 GMT -5
Either way, anyone else see the contradiction there? In the very same post, he says he said he didn't really know, and now says he'd vote for me. Oh boy... Actually, in the post to which you refer, I said that in my previous post I had said that I wasn't sure. Your response strengthened my opinion that regard. All the same, and no offense, but I'm not going to spend a hundred years replying to you right now. There are much more important issues to be dealt with, and your dishonesty and misrepresentation - see, I can use it, too! - are going to have to wait until later.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:25:20 GMT -5
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 12:25:20 GMT -5
is a wonderful thing. And not prohibited. Would you care to explain why you put that sentence in almost-white? Is there a reason why you didn't want people to read it? I guess you didn't realize that you can change the background color of the boards... --FCOD You obviously don't understand that changing the color of the boards is a scum tell Also leaving leaving clues for after I die seems like a good thing in my opinion.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:29:23 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 1, 2007 12:29:23 GMT -5
FTR, I'm not particularly suspicious of ui, certainly not enough to vote for him under normal circumstances. Given a choice between the top two candidates, I'm more inclined to vote for Cookies, but even still, she's a far cry from the ones peaking my list like Storyteller, Hockey Monkey, etc. That is, I inclined to suspect her because I found her tone suspect on Day One; however, I do not find her slip anywhere near as compelling as several others do. So a vote for her would be mostly a gut read. Ui, OTOH, seems to be largely garnering votes over a distaste for his style. I see a few other votes express other sentiments like his certainty in information, or potentially muddying the waters. However, AFAICT, he's made some legitimate arguments, many of which I happen to agree with (where were you yesterday?)
That all said, I'm not particularly happy with either of these candidates; however, I am willing to vote to ensure a lynch, even if it is one with which I do not agree. So, for now, much to my dismay, unvote Storyteller.
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:31:11 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 1, 2007 12:31:11 GMT -5
Either way, anyone else see the contradiction there? In the very same post, he says he said he didn't really know, and now says he'd vote for me. Oh boy... Actually, in the post to which you refer, I said that in my previous post I had said that I wasn't sure. Your response strengthened my opinion that regard. All the same, and no offense, but I'm not going to spend a hundred years replying to you right now. There are much more important issues to be dealt with, and your dishonesty and misrepresentation - see, I can use it, too! - are going to have to wait until later. Perfectly reasonable. You can always be lynched tomorrow.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:31:41 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 1, 2007 12:31:41 GMT -5
Can one of the FFs chime in concerning a "Badger" in the show? <snip> Also leaving leaving clues for after I die seems like a good thing in my opinion. I don't understand. Why couldn't you just leave these "clues" you speak of in plain text? Concerning the content of said "clues", how did you draw said conclusion?
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:32:32 GMT -5
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 12:32:32 GMT -5
(where were you yesterday?) I was busy getting lynched in Tarot mafia, a game with a 2500 post day 1, 500 of which were mine.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:35:02 GMT -5
Post by RoOsh on Oct 1, 2007 12:35:02 GMT -5
The proper followup to a mistake, poor logic, or an inconsistency is not an attack, it is an inquiry. Find out why they are wrong. Proving someone wrong is not a victory, demonstrating a scummy thought process where they can't demonstrate a town process is.Just because someone is innocent does not mean their judgment is good. Never trust an innocent except in matters of fact and even then ensure they've not overlooked something. Nothing is confirmed unless the mod explicitly says so - look for assumptions and then question them. Equally poor judgment does not mean someone is scum, but again follow up questionable judgment with an inquiry. The single most valuable question in finding scum is "why?", and it is almost always more effective when you keep the question as open as possible - i.e. "why?" is better than " why are you voting ds instead of phodos?". Everyone has a gut and a brain. Use both but learn how far you can trust each of them (in my case, my brain is pretty reliable but my gut is poor). Don't waste time arguing about things unless they're important. It's hard enough to absorb and process an entire game when it isn't spammed up, and people will be more willing to respond if you don't get into a bitchfight every time. To play a Tings game properly you need to take notes, but the important things to note are statements of fact and opinion. "Behaviour" is invariably a null tell, as is lurking. Don't get too attached to your arguments or position. If you're attacking someone for something potentially scummy and they justify it, it's not backing down to retract your arguments, nor is it scummy to overlook possible reasons, nor were you at any point wrong in attacking them. Never speak for someone else until they have spoken for themselves.[/quote] I have heard of Seol, and I agree with many of his points. Unfortunately, I feel you haven't done the same. In fact, your very first post of this game was "Roosh is scum. Calling it right now." Not any explaination, not any evidence, just that, followed up by a continuously childish behavior of driving attention to yourself without presenting a clear case. That i think was your biggest problem. You immediately put me on a defensive position (and then would later call me out for BEING defensive, a tactic that you should know is just not Helpful). Rather than engaging in dialogue with me, especially with incomplete data, you have been single mindedly pursuing me with NO other thoughts other than your sole idea. You have not tried to helpfully prove your case, but went about it with through agression 100%. That is just not helpful. In the future, you should present your ideas, ask questions, and try to then examine what was going on. Your methods may work on Outside boards (as it reminds me of Fritzler actually quite a bit, but more verbose and less confident), but still, it's not really helpful to just show up, present one idea and do NOTHING else by drive that one idea up my arsehole to make it fit. Because you didn't even assume that you could be flawed. You didn't even try to understand from a townie perspective why I would say or do the things I have done. You assumed this is best for Scum, therefore only scum would suggest it. This is the first closed game for many of us, and on Day 1 no ideas were being presented other than a debate on the word "majority" and could we lynch. I wanted to spark a debate, I had an idea by which to do it, and I did so. You mention my attack on BlasterMaster, yet, you don't have the posts in which i apoligize for my behavior, because It was rude, and a pure 100% OMGUS attack against him. I understood what I did was unhelpful, it just took me a while to admit it. And I backed down. Not Unwillingly, I was quite willing IN THE END to do so, once I had calmed down and realized that the ideas being presented were quite valid (others presented them in a more coherent, and nicer manner). I am not unreasonable, nor evasive. I would have answered every questioned posed towards me, and I did on Day 1 or at least tried to. That led the boards breaking. But still. Yet, every post of yours hasn't really addressed me, it's been an ignoring tone towards me, and more in just trying to get the OTHERS to vote me out. You don't engage in debates with me, or discuss ANY of your ideas with me before you present them, you just assume this is what I meant, present it, and all the while add your own spin to it. It weakens your arguements. I liked Seol's words, because I believe I do tend to follow them quite a bit, especially his last paragraph (on backing down). I present my arguements, but I don't hold them in stone 100%. If I see my debates are flawed, or I have missed a point, i will retract them and modify them and THEN re-submit them. Because now, as you are so close to lynch, you're not leaving anything more helpful to the town OTHER than you think I'm scum, and that pehaps Cat is as well. Where are the other ideas we can attribute to you? what advice can you give us of your own, your own thoughts, suspicions and such? You've left nothing but "Roosh is Scum" and then "Here are someone elses' words. I like them". Well I like them too. Great. My worry is that if you're town, you've helped SCREW over the town with unhelpful behavior. Because I believe Pygmy pointed it out with his 4 ideas on what he thinks is going on. And his point C is that he thinks we're both scum. (I actually believe D might be the case more so) and if it is, we're fucked. Because by your death (if townie) you will have caused a hell of unnessesary suspicion upon ANTOHER townie, and when we get around to lynching me it's going to waste another day for the town. So if you are town, you've effectively killed 2 townies. It's a possibility i just began to consider while in class, and it's one that saddens me greatly. Because the way your arguements were presented, it was ALL or none. Your actions were justified because I was scum. It begged the question, WHY was I scum. Well because of the stuff he said on the beginning of DAY ONE. And nothing that was said after the eating of posts. You have no mention of the ModClarifications, No mention of the reactions and apolgies, no mentions of the trying to improve his helpfullness by retracting his ideas and shutting up about it. Because you weren't there. You had incomplete Data, yet you have just shat all over myself with your vitrolic words, and I fear you have GREATLY hurt this town if you ARE indeed Town. If such is the case, I suggest you look at Seol's words again, Go to the Perfect Knowlege forums, and then sit back down and look at Seol's words again. And that's all I have to say about that. Unless of course you have any questions. ~Roosh.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:35:56 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 1, 2007 12:35:56 GMT -5
There is a Badger on the show. He's a criminal that the crew of Serenity works for on a few occasions. wiki article--FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:39:02 GMT -5
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 12:39:02 GMT -5
Can one of the FFs chime in concerning a "Badger" in the show? "You're late." "You're lying" "...What did you just say to me?" "You know full well that we got here half an hour afore we planned to with all the goods you asked for intact, ready to roll. If it's your decision to get tetchy, say we're late, means you're lookin' to put us on the defensive right up front. Which means something's gone wrong. Didn't go wrong on our end, so's how about we start over with you tellin' us what's up?" "You're later then I'd like" "Well, I'm sorry to hear that." "If you'd gotten here sooner, you might have been able to beat the bulletin that came up, saying 'Rugue vessel, classification Firefly, was spotted pullin' illegal salvage on a derelict transport.'" <snip> Also leaving leaving clues for after I die seems like a good thing in my opinion. I don't understand. Why couldn't you just leave these "clues" you speak of in plain text? Concerning the content of said "clues", how did you draw said conclusion? It's useful for things like breadcrumbs and such, and it's banned on Misetings but not here, so I wanted to have some fun with them.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:42:06 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 1, 2007 12:42:06 GMT -5
<snip>It's useful for things like breadcrumbs and such, and it's banned on Misetings but not here, so I wanted to have some fun with them. Okay, the snipped part makes zero sense to me. Tell me, why is it banned on Misetings?
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:45:10 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 1, 2007 12:45:10 GMT -5
ui, your invisible "clue" may be the weirdest thing I've ever seen in a game of Mafia. How were you planning for the town to use this information? Illegally posting while dead to say, "Hay guys select my posts for extra help"? How could your clue be helpful anyway? It's fairly obvious that several scum are voting for you... Here's a better idea of how you can help: just die. We'll get all the clues we need from your death scene. --FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:48:38 GMT -5
Post by Idle Thoughts on Oct 1, 2007 12:48:38 GMT -5
This requires the assumption that one or more of the Serenity's crew are scum. It is also concerning because after a while your assumption will be that any of the crew left is scum and you will want to lynch them regardless because obviously you are right. Sorry, not buying it, ui. Whatever you intended to write, I have interpreted differently. But then, that's part of what this game is about isn't it. You know, something I always found interesting about this whole thing is the fact that IF someone WAS SCUM with a "good" name, they'd obviously be saying what you're saying anyway. "What? What an insane idea! I don't buy it!" Lunchtime. I'll comment on this. And on top of that, you have reduced the pool of players that are likely to contain power roles making it much easier for the scum nightkill them. If it had taken place at the start of Day 1, there are 2 or 3 night killers who would go through the group in 5-6 days. 5 or 6 lynches would not be enough to take out the scum in the vanilla group and would only confirm a few of the townies as real vanilla. How have you reduced the pool of players that are likely to have power roles? Are you trying to claim you believe that only the players with actual crew names will have power roles? Where did I say that? Now you know why I called zumachan out on it. She was saying the same thing and I was saying to her what you're saying to Cat right here. I still have two and a half pages to catch up on.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:49:06 GMT -5
Post by Zeriel on Oct 1, 2007 12:49:06 GMT -5
I'm not ashamed to admit that, aside from the fact I think he's acting like a scummy distracting scumdog, a small part of me is voting ui because I really don't want basic lectures on how to play the game (with bragging about how much he's played this type of game) with my daily read. Like I said before, son, this is the SDMB (or close enough), not whatever sissy board you play on normally. We're a bit different here.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:51:02 GMT -5
Post by Zeriel on Oct 1, 2007 12:51:02 GMT -5
NETA: Gee, in a majority-must-lynch game of 30, 3-4 voters on your bandwagon are scum, and you feel that's sufficiently epic to hidden-breadcrumb it? Hell, it's practially a statistical necessity.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:52:48 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 1, 2007 12:52:48 GMT -5
You know what, fuck it. I'm sitting around waiting for replies from ui, so let's do this now. I am increasingly sure that you don't actually know what the word "misrepresentation" means. You said that I was arguing that the town's information deficit was smaller in this game than in others, and that I couldn't possibly believe that. I replied that I do believe that, and explained why. There is no misrepresentation there, and using that word over and over doesn't make it so. DING DING! I obviously do, because that is NOT my case against you! Ad hominem attacks do not become you, Storyteller. If that is so, then please restate your "case" against me, in two or three simple sentences. What is it about my position in re: the no-lynch that cannot be explained by the statement "I believe that the information deficit is smaller in this game than in others?" I've said this already, and I don't expect to convince you, ever, but in previous games we have ALL, scum and town alike, known how the power roles function. As my example of the Doctor in the Hispaniola game demonstrates, there are times when the exact nature of a power role is tremendously valuable information. In this game, we (not collectively, but individually) have that information and the scum don't. You have, it seems, decided to mis-represent my position as being in favor of a no-lynch all the time. I was in favor of a no-lynch yesterDay, specifically, because I felt that the leading candidate was highly likely to be town and didn't feel that the increase in certainty was worth the death. That is, I was willing to forego the small increase in information in exchange for keeping a likely pro-town player alive. You are also using a definition of "intuitive" that seems to suggest that what is intuitive to you is automatically intuitive to others. "Don't lynch someone you think is probably on your side" is intuitive to me. I'll bet it's intuitive to others. If it's not intuitive to you, fine, but that doesn't make it counterintuitive, as you seem inclined to argue. Sure, that's a good description of what scum will do. I just don't agree with the premise that anything I've said is bad for the town, or that you've demonstrated that my logic has been faulty. It's not "what I believed," it's what I believe, and when your entire argument hinges on the idea that I'm making arguments that are disingenuous, whether or not I genuinely believe what I'm saying is very much an important issue. Obviously not. He has been proven otherwise. I've been wrong before, and will be again. Sure! But I would not use a point I dimly remember as a reason to vote for someone. It was possible that he misremembered, but at the time - with the less than perfect information available to me - it seemed unlikely that someone who was legitimately on the side of the angels was going to push a lynch on half-remembered information. I figured legit pro-townies would want a solid lynch, and would do their homework. In fairness, the reason I suspected Mad is the same as my reason for suspecting you right now - you didn't bother to do your homework before chucking false accusations my way, which seems rather more scummy than not. I was wrong then, and may be wrong this time. Time will tell. Sure! I started early with FoSes on Idle and Greedy, retracting the former in fairly short order. Then I spent about 25 posts or so hounding Roosh about problems I had with his posts. I then voted for him. Then I voted for Mad. I unvoted after his role claim, and after that started to think about a no-lynch. ToDay I have done little but respond to your attacks and deal with ui. You keep moving the goalposts. First you say, "you haven't gone after anyone who didn't go after you first." Then I point out that, well, yes, I have, and instead of just saying, "whoops, I was wrong," you say, "oh, that doesn't count." It counts. If your point is that all my suspicion is retalitory, and I show you two cases of nonretalitory suspcicion, that is called refuting your point. Not really. Because I specifically denied any suspicion of mtgman throughout the affair. Look, the thing with him was crappy in many ways. The bottom line was that I felt his attack on me was completely personal - about me, the person (or at least, the poster), not the player. It offended me on a personal level and I responded as such. I shouldn't have done so, because it's inappropriate and because it fouls up everyone's radar, but I did. This is an explanation that you (and everyone) will either have to accept or not; I can't prove it in any meaningful way. That thing had nothing to do with the game, at least not from my end. Wait - offering thoughts about whether someone is scum or not is "smudging?" Particularly when directly asked whether you think someone is scum or not? I'm suspicious of everyone, other than those with role claims that I am currently choosing to accept. If someone asks me whether I think player X is scum, I'm going to answer with consideration of both sides of the question. Which is what I did. Really? Those things arose from dotchan's death specifically? If she were still alive you wouldn't be suspicious of me or hockeymonkey? And I hate to break it to you, but you're spectacularly wrong about me. When you learn that for certain, will it temper your incredible confidence at all? Don't think we "learned" anything of the sort. We learned that it is possible for a vanilla townie to have a name not from the Firefly universe. That proves nothing at all about the relationship between Serenity crew member name and alignment. That's a fascinating point. How so?
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:52:49 GMT -5
Post by CatInASuit on Oct 1, 2007 12:52:49 GMT -5
Well, it looks like it's time for me to claim. I'ma Badger, Vanilla townie. Take that as you will, and I'm currently addressing the points against me. Three-four people votine me are scumNope, no problems dropping the hammer here either if the town is in agreement. I read the quote and I keep asking myself why would you act the way I do, and each time I keep seeing your motivation as to run interference with the rest of the game. And to do that you will aim to lynch Roosh. If not lynch him, then cause enough confusion so that he is considered a suspect. I am quite happy to change my position given argument, yours has been immutable since you started and you have refused to listen to any argument. Effectively not following the piece you have just asked us to read. You have also failed to answer my simple question. Why have you gone for a lynch on Roosh and not me? Can someone point out the clues for those of us who haven't found them. Oh and I see I get to be labelled as scum in one of the off-white posts. Perhaps you would like to point out in your above example who the three or four scum are who are posting for you.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:56:23 GMT -5
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 12:56:23 GMT -5
The proper followup to a mistake, poor logic, or an inconsistency is not an attack, it is an inquiry. Find out why they are wrong. Proving someone wrong is not a victory, demonstrating a scummy thought process where they can't demonstrate a town process is.Just because someone is innocent does not mean their judgment is good. Never trust an innocent except in matters of fact and even then ensure they've not overlooked something. Nothing is confirmed unless the mod explicitly says so - look for assumptions and then question them. Equally poor judgment does not mean someone is scum, but again follow up questionable judgment with an inquiry. The single most valuable question in finding scum is "why?", and it is almost always more effective when you keep the question as open as possible - i.e. "why?" is better than " why are you voting ds instead of phodos?". Everyone has a gut and a brain. Use both but learn how far you can trust each of them (in my case, my brain is pretty reliable but my gut is poor). Don't waste time arguing about things unless they're important. It's hard enough to absorb and process an entire game when it isn't spammed up, and people will be more willing to respond if you don't get into a bitchfight every time. To play a Tings game properly you need to take notes, but the important things to note are statements of fact and opinion. "Behaviour" is invariably a null tell, as is lurking. Don't get too attached to your arguments or position. If you're attacking someone for something potentially scummy and they justify it, it's not backing down to retract your arguments, nor is it scummy to overlook possible reasons, nor were you at any point wrong in attacking them. Never speak for someone else until they have spoken for themselves.[/quote] I have heard of Seol, and I agree with many of his points. Unfortunately, I feel you haven't done the same. In fact, your very first post of this game was "Roosh is scum. Calling it right now." Not any explaination, not any evidence, just that, followed up by a continuously childish behavior of driving attention to yourself without presenting a clear case. That i think was your biggest problem. You immediately put me on a defensive position (and then would later call me out for BEING defensive, a tactic that you should know is just not Helpful). I haven't called you out for 'being defensive.' I haven't even suggested it. Rather than engaging in dialogue with me, especially with incomplete data, you have been single mindedly pursuing me with NO other thoughts other than your sole idea. You have not tried to helpfully prove your case, but went about it with through agression 100%. That is just not helpful. In the future, you should present your ideas, ask questions, and try to then examine what was going on. Your methods may work on Outside boards (as it reminds me of Fritzler actually quite a bit, but more verbose and less confident), but still, it's not really helpful to just show up, present one idea and do NOTHING else by drive that one idea up my arsehole to make it fit. And if I hadn't constantly explained why your actions make sense as scum and asked for/stated that I don;t see how your actions make sense for town, you might have a point. Additionally, Every game I've found that at least two scum were identified by a little twinge in my gut. It twinged on you early, which is why I voted you early. Because you didn't even assume that you could be flawed. You didn't even try to understand from a townie perspective why I would say or do the things I have done. You assumed this is best for Scum, therefore only scum would suggest it. This is the first closed game for many of us, and on Day 1 no ideas were being presented other than a debate on the word "majority" and could we lynch. I'm pretty sure that I asked where my logic breaks down multiple times and people only responded to side-issues. I wanted to spark a debate, I had an idea by which to do it, and I did so. You mention my attack on BlasterMaster, yet, you don't have the posts in which i apoligize for my behavior, because It was rude, and a pure 100% OMGUS attack against him. I understood what I did was unhelpful, it just took me a while to admit it. And I backed down. Not Unwillingly, I was quite willing IN THE END to do so, once I had calmed down and realized that the ideas being presented were quite valid (others presented them in a more coherent, and nicer manner). And that has... nothing to do with your alignment. So why would I talk about it when discussing your alignment? I am not unreasonable, nor evasive. I would have answered every questioned posed towards me, and I did on Day 1 or at least tried to. That led the boards breaking. But still. You were minimizing your role in yesterday's lynch before I had even read the lynch, much less called you out on it. Yet, every post of yours hasn't really addressed me, it's been an ignoring tone towards me, and more in just trying to get the OTHERS to vote me out. You don't engage in debates with me, or discuss ANY of your ideas with me before you present them, you just assume this is what I meant, present it, and all the while add your own spin to it. It weakens your arguements. Yeah, all those times where I ask where my logic breaks down or I directly reply to you don't count, right? And once I felt that my case was good enough to lynch you with, OF COURSE I'd try to get the others to lynch you. I'm never going to convince you that you're scum, after all. I liked Seol's words, because I believe I do tend to follow them quite a bit, especially his last paragraph (on backing down). I present my arguements, but I don't hold them in stone 100%. If I see my debates are flawed, or I have missed a point, i will retract them and modify them and THEN re-submit them. Because now, as you are so close to lynch, you're not leaving anything more helpful to the town OTHER than you think I'm scum, and that pehaps Cat is as well. And that Cookie is town and other things. But it's common to go from 3 votes to 11 or so while I'm asleep, right? Because I wasn't exactly expecting to get lynched last night. Where are the other ideas we can attribute to you? what advice can you give us of your own, your own thoughts, suspicions and such? You've left nothing but "Roosh is Scum" and then "Here are someone elses' words. I like them". Well I like them too. Great. You mean, "Roosh is scum, Cat is likely scum, Cookie is almost guaranteed town, mhaye is probably town, oh, and I think that there are fundamental problems in how the game is played here." That's nothing? ...dammit. My worry is that if you're town, you've helped SCREW over the town with unhelpful behavior. Because I believe Pygmy pointed it out with his 4 ideas on what he thinks is going on. And his point C is that he thinks we're both scum. (I actually believe D might be the case more so) and if it is, we're humped. So you thought I was town but voted me before it was a case of me vs. you? Because by your death (if townie) you will have caused a guay of unnessesary suspicion upon ANTOHER townie, and when we get around to lynching me it's going to waste another day for the town. So if you are town, you've effectively killed 2 townies. No, I'm pretty sure that if I die and you get lynched, I just went 1-1 with the scum. And if people take the rest of my advice, fewer townies will die and more scum will. It's a possibility i just began to consider while in class, and it's one that saddens me greatly. Because the way your arguements were presented, it was ALL or none. Your actions were justified because I was scum. It begged the question, WHY was I scum. Well because of the stuff he said on the beginning of DAY ONE. And nothing that was said after the eating of posts. Like that stuff that I talked about in day 2? You have no mention of the ModClarifications, No mention of the reactions and apolgies, no mentions of the trying to improve his helpfullness by retracting his ideas and shutting up about it. You still said that you liked your theory once or twice and you said that the data supported it. How's that 'shutting up about it'? Because you weren't there. You had incomplete Data, yet you have just shat all over myself with your vitrolic words, and I fear you have GREATLY hurt this town if you ARE indeed Town. If such is the case, I suggest you look at Seol's words again, Go to the Perfect Knowlege forums, and then sit back down and look at Seol's words again. Your argument is based off assuming that you're town. You haven't shown why your actions make sense as town. I have explained why your actions make sense as scum. You have NO RIGHT to discount my case because "posts were lost." You have NO RIGHT to say "Sigh... if only you had known" when you weren't showing it.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:56:25 GMT -5
Post by The Real FCOD on Oct 1, 2007 12:56:25 GMT -5
I just went through all of ui's posts and didn't see anymore "clues". Too bad... it would have been funny to see "There are 5-6 scum playing in the game" in white.
--FCOD
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 12:57:34 GMT -5
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 12:57:34 GMT -5
ui, your invisible "clue" may be the weirdest thing I've ever seen in a game of Mafia. How were you planning for the town to use this information? Illegally posting while dead to say, "Hay guys select my posts for extra help"? How could your clue be helpful anyway? It's fairly obvious that several scum are voting for you... Here's a better idea of how you can help: just die. We'll get all the clues we need from your death scene. --FCOD 3-4 out of 9 or 10 is much higher then the average. It helps the numbers and subdivides the town across a new division, both things that make it harder for scum to hide.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 13:02:35 GMT -5
Post by storyteller0910 on Oct 1, 2007 13:02:35 GMT -5
You mean, "Roosh is scum, Cat is likely scum, Cookie is almost guaranteed town, mhaye is probably town, oh, and I think that there are fundamental problems in how the game is played here." That's nothing? You know, if you survive this - and it's not looking good, not least because you keep hammering on the Roosh stuff instead of addressing the points people are making - and if you actually want to contribute in a positive way, you might consider cutting back on stuff like the above. Seriously, "fundamental problems in how the game is played here?" Check out the sigs - the town has won all but one of six games between here and the Dope, so I'd guess that the problems aren't that fundamental. The superiority complex is off-putting, and it makes it harder to listen to what you're saying.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 13:04:35 GMT -5
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 13:04:35 GMT -5
Well, it looks like it's time for me to claim. I'ma Badger, Vanilla townie. Take that as you will, and I'm currently addressing the points against me. Three-four people votine me are scumNope, no problems dropping the hammer here either if the town is in agreement. I read the quote and I keep asking myself why would you act the way I do, and each time I keep seeing your motivation as to run interference with the rest of the game. If you think that I'm 'running interference,' that means that I was able to read through the entire archives in two or three hours and that Cookie is scum. Do you really think that? I am quite happy to change my position given argument, yours has been immutable since you started and you have refused to listen to any argument. Effectively not following the piece you have just asked us to read. Nobody's said why his actions make sense as town. AS I HAVE SAID ABOUT 10 TIMES. His case is built on his actions not making sense as town. That's the case in a nutshell. Nobody's argued against it. You have also failed to answer my simple question. Why have you gone for a lynch on Roosh and not me? I HAVE SAID THAT TOO. I WAS AND AM NOT AS SURE ABOUT YOU AS I AM ABOUT ROOSH. ROOSH HAS DONE A MULTITUDE OF THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE FROM A TOWN PERSPECTIVE. OF COURSE I WANT HIM DEAD. Can someone point out the clues for those of us who haven't found them. Oh and I see I get to be labelled as scum in one of the off-white posts. Perhaps you would like to point out in your above example who the three or four scum are who are posting for you. Roosh, maybe you and two others. Right now I don't exactly know who those other two are, but I believe that they are there. Or is not having the setup in front of me a scum tell?
|
|
Blaster Master
Mome Rath
The player formerly know as BLAM!
Now 34.788% less repellant to Sharks! :( [on:I WANT TO DIE!][of:I WANT TO LIVE!]
Posts: 0
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 13:05:23 GMT -5
Post by Blaster Master on Oct 1, 2007 13:05:23 GMT -5
ui, your invisible "clue" may be the weirdest thing I've ever seen in a game of Mafia. How were you planning for the town to use this information? Illegally posting while dead to say, "Hay guys select my posts for extra help"? How could your clue be helpful anyway? It's fairly obvious that several scum are voting for you... Here's a better idea of how you can help: just die. We'll get all the clues we need from your death scene. --FCOD 3-4 out of 9 or 10 is much higher then the average. It helps the numbers and subdivides the town across a new division, both things that make it harder for scum to hide. ui, unforatunately, I believe Mad tried a similar approach in MV on the Dope and IIRC, he was just plain WAY off. While I'm inclined to believe that certain individuals are voting for you for spurious reasons and are likely scum, I don't think it's provable that any hard statistic, especially one larger than a random sample, would necessarily be voting for you.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 13:06:12 GMT -5
Post by Hal Briston on Oct 1, 2007 13:06:12 GMT -5
Oh, that was not a fun reread.
Anyway, to business: I still don't like her slip-up, bit but -- unvote Cookies. I'm still keeping my eye on you, though...*does that annoying point-two-fingers-at-own-eyes-and-then-at-Cookies-and-then-back-and-forth-a-couple-of-times thing*.
Now then, for the crimes of thread-distortion, making my headache much worse, and generally showing extremely questionable tactics throughout, I'm very happy to: vote ui
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 13:07:37 GMT -5
Post by Santo Rugger on Oct 1, 2007 13:07:37 GMT -5
<snip>My worry is that if you're town, you've helped SCREW over the town with unhelpful behavior. Because I believe Pygmy pointed it out with his 4 ideas on what he thinks is going on. And his point C is that he thinks we're both scum. (I actually believe D might be the case more so) and if it is, we're humped.<snip> Just to clarify, I didn't state that I thought you were both scum. It is actually the scenario I think is least likely of the three I specified.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 13:07:57 GMT -5
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 13:07:57 GMT -5
You mean, "Roosh is scum, Cat is likely scum, Cookie is almost guaranteed town, mhaye is probably town, oh, and I think that there are fundamental problems in how the game is played here." That's nothing? You know, if you survive this - and it's not looking good, not least because you keep hammering on the Roosh stuff instead of addressing the points people are making - and if you actually want to contribute in a positive way, you might consider cutting back on stuff like the above. Seriously, "fundamental problems in how the game is played here?" Check out the sigs - the town has won all but one of six games 'twixt here and the Dope, so I'd guess that the problems aren't that fundamental. The superiority complex is off-putting, and it makes it harder to listen to what you're saying. The game is played very differently here, and it clashes with pretty much everything I know about the game. And what are the points being made against me other then "He's loud and aggressive. Also confident"? Because that's how I play. I've explained why it's extremely unlikely that I was blocking for Cookie, and that seemed to be the one concrete argument against me.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 13:09:05 GMT -5
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 13:09:05 GMT -5
3-4 out of 9 or 10 is much higher then the average. It helps the numbers and subdivides the town across a new division, both things that make it harder for scum to hide. ui, unforatunately, I believe Mad tried a similar approach in MV on the Dope and IIRC, he was just plain WAY off. While I'm inclined to believe that certain individuals are voting for you for spurious reasons and are likely scum, I don't think it's provable that any hard statistic, especially one larger than a random sample, would necessarily be voting for you. Provable? Probably not. It's gut. It explains why this built up from nothing into a lynch. That's all.
|
|
|
Day Two
Oct 1, 2007 13:11:27 GMT -5
Post by ui on Oct 1, 2007 13:11:27 GMT -5
Now then, for the crimes of thread-distortion, making my headache much worse, and generally showing extremely questionable tactics throughout, I'm very happy to: vote uiOh, no no no. You do NOT get to come in here like that. Those things I would do as either scum or town. And use specific cases. Right now this is a bandwagon vote of the highest order, and I don't like how it looks. 5 scum on my wagon.
|
|