I can't defend against platitudes, is my point. I've responded to every post like the one I'm responding to now, but you haven't given me anything to defend against besides one-liners.
You'll have to explain that in better English.
You never explained to him/challenged him on the Chris case.
Yes, he could possibly gain a slight advantage he were scum. But you're not interpreting his posts here to show the scum wording.
It's not like buddying up to players is an important objective for the mafia that reaps them all kinds of advantages. It's a subtle advantage at best.
What you're actually doing is identifying a possible (weak) scum motivation, and assuming it's the motivator. Without effectively weighing the intent or reliability of your tell. I don't think that post is the type of behavior that can generate a strong read.
I disagree. I think buddying up to townies is quintessential scum behavior. Clearly you can't call it in every case, but in serious ones, like the one mentioned, it deserves analysis.
Explain the blue part, because I don't understand.
WoD is town. Most of the tells against him are for logic. This is a poor vote.
See, this is why you're giving me conniptions. There's nothing I can do with that line but say, "okay then" or "NO U". It's frankly obnoxious, because you say "Xyre is scum", but then don't elaborate beyond a trite rationale. I have no place to respond, and am forced to ignore you - which in turn fuels your belief I'm scum.
\Furthermore the reason he gave in #191 wasn't that he thought Kraj defended himself well enough, but that he rethought his points and they didn't make sense.
These aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, the former is a strong factor in the latter.
Yeah, I would have skipped the randomvote in a PBPA.
You understand what PBPA stands for, right?
I was, and still am, completely blasé about Netfinity. I don't think expressing an opinion is as "useless" as you say. Let me put it this way instead. I have a neutral read on that post and on Netfinity in general. I don't think he's scum.
Silly argument. At the beginning of the game, everybody has a neutral read on everyone else, because they have no information. So saying "I have a neutral read on him" and equating that to "I don't think he's scum" may be functionally true (though, since it doesn't exclude scumminess, that's not even quite true), but it's useless overall; it indicates at best disregard for scumhunting and at worst feigned ignorance. A neutral opinion is no opinion at all when it comes to a game focused on choosing townies and scum; this is why I view your "I was expressing an opinion" (that was a non-opinion) as forced.
Toastboy immediately jumped to Chris's defence by quoting metagame analysis that would be unreliable at best.
Ah. When I hear "metagame analysis", I don't think "player history". I guess my question is: why Toast and not Netfinity?
If he wanted further reasoning, he didn't ask me to provide any.
Argumentation is not a "shoot first, ask questions later" matter. Give the reasoning.
That is just the vibe I got from the exchange. I don't think Kraj expected it to whip back on it as much as it did, but yeah still felt like a subtle redirection attempt to me.
Really? He didn't expect people to call him on a bandwagoning vote? Slash he just made up the trap argument as a rather convoluted method to briefly divert attention from a scumbuddy? What exactly gave you this vibe?
Have you read the end of Persona Mafia? Paranoia factored heavily into my play. Did you notice how at the end of the game I roleblocked DYH rather than obvscum Andelijah? Paranoia keeps one alive.
This is a fair point, I'll admit; I know you've referenced "paranoia" at least once before in the thread. Sigh.
Because as of right now, you and kraj and toastboy seem to be by far the scummiest players to me, especially you and kraj. I'm not saying right now that I'm 100% confident in the scumness, especially with Toastboy, just that I'm noticing things, and will continue to notice things.
We can go in circles on this - it all falls into the paranoia bit. Sigh.
"I have to admit"? Like you're reluctant? Sure.
Hey, no fair glossing over my arguments on unnecessary colloquial phrases and attacking me for same.
I took the liberty of looking over your games as scum, and I got the impression you were more aggressive and less agreeable in them; while I've never seen the paranoia in you (which made me think you were acting against nature), the vote on me and others at least suggests the WoD I'm used to, namely the bandwagoneer. I guess I'm going back to my gut reaction. Damn, wrong again.
Unvote
No idea where to go next. Maybe Netfinity.
Town/Leaning Town
Azrael
Kraj
kpaca
WoD
andelijah/CM
ChrisXIV
Skander
Suspects
AH (though I can't shake the feeling this is how he always is)
PhantomS
Netfinity
Toastboy
I can't defend against platitudes, is my point. I've responded to every post like the one I'm responding to now, but you haven't given me anything to defend against besides one-liners.
*snip*
See, this is why you're giving me conniptions. There's nothing I can do with that line but say, "okay then" or "NO U". It's frankly obnoxious, because you say "Xyre is scum", but then don't elaborate beyond a trite rationale. I have no place to respond, and am forced to ignore you - which in turn fuels your belief I'm scum.
[/quote]
So you can't respond to succinct cases?
Come on. If I say your vote on WoD was bad and faked, you have a very simple response: explain how it's not bad, and how it's flowing from a genuine thought process. Not exactly rocket science here...
But then, perhaps you prefer a less transparent form of debate? Massive dreadnoughts that no one reads bashing up against one another? No thanks, not when a concise case states my concerns adequately and allows others to keep tabs on your defense.
Quote from xyre »
Explain the blue part, because I don't understand.
Not all tells were created equal. You're glossing over the questions of how often townies "buddy up" to analysts, and the strength of the townie impulse versus the scum impulse. Frankly, I think both impulses are fairly weak, so it's not a very useful tell.
I took the liberty of looking over your games as scum, and I got the impression you were more aggressive and less agreeable in them; while I've never seen the paranoia in you (which made me think you were acting against nature), the vote on me and others at least suggests the WoD I'm used to, namely the bandwagoneer. I guess I'm going back to my gut reaction. Damn, wrong again.
Unvote
No idea where to go next. Maybe Netfinity.
Holy unnatural forced language, Batman. See the bolded. You're strangely apologetic in the parentheses (why apologize for honest suspicions?), a single piece of evidence which "suggests" the typical Wod causes you to back off, and not only back off but say "Damn, wrong again". How do you know you're wrong? Why feel that strongly, based off only a single piece of evidence?
A townie doesn't know anything of the kind. This isn't natural language: this is a scum poorly trying to imitate a change of mind.
Xyre is retreating in a very awkward manner here. This looks like scum pulling an awkward fall back after being called on a bad vote and seeing the wagon disintegrate.
Not to mention that blatantly obvious mason tell from a few days ago that he seems to have glossed over and missed...
The mason pairing is not confirmed in my case. I'm not familiar with what you mean by the bad feeling about it being "Janus" mafia Az. I'm not really familiar with the reference, other that Janus was the two faced Roman god I believe.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Official Moderator of The [Gutter]
Think the MtgStaff is just swell? Join today! You too can be involved in an 8 year grudge and delete nearly 9000 of kpaca's posts!
The mason pairing is not confirmed in my case. I'm not familiar with what you mean by the bad feeling about it being "Janus" mafia Az. I'm not really familiar with the reference, other that Janus was the two faced Roman god I believe.
Yeah. It sounds as though we have to worry about our masons being opposite alignment from one another. One pairing, two faces.
Come on. If I say your vote on WoD was bad and faked, you have a very simple response: explain how it's not bad, and how it's flowing from a genuine thought process. Not exactly rocket science here...
But then, perhaps you prefer a less transparent form of debate? Massive dreadnoughts that no one reads bashing up against one another? No thanks, not when a concise case states my concerns adequately and allows others to keep tabs on your defense.
Okay, Az, this is pissing me off. MY CASE is my proof that it's not bad. You're saying it's bad, but I don't know WHAT is bad. What, am I supposed to go back through EVERY SINGLE POINT and explain it again? Your "concise case", as I noted, is a single line. What the hell am I supposed to do with that?
Holy unnatural forced language, Batman. See the bolded. You're strangely apologetic in the parentheses (why apologize for honest suspicions?), a single piece of evidence which "suggests" the typical Wod causes you to back off, and not only back off but say "Damn, wrong again". How do you know you're wrong? Why feel that strongly, based off only a single piece of evidence?
Apologize? Where did I apologize? I said my theory was wrong and unvoted accordingly. I don't know I'm wrong, inasmuch as you never truly know anything in this game, but I recognized my assumptions (e.g. WoD was acting against nature) were faulty, which undermines the case.
A townie doesn't know anything of the kind. This isn't natural language: this is a scum poorly trying to imitate a change of mind.
Now you're trying to put definitions on my words. I've already explained in a prior post that "know" in simple English and "know" in this game are different things - and yet you're ignoring that and immediately arguing my recognition of being wrong is invalid.
I have a great deal of respect for you, but you're just dead wrong. If you aren't going to provide me anything to defend, then by all means piss off.
Seriously, I can't get over this. So I'm going to explain to you EXACTLY HOW your argument is full of ****.
1) I argue a case.
2) You say "you're wrong".
3) I say "how so?"
4) You say "lol you're not responding vote vote vote"
Simply put, I can't respond to 2, for several reasons: one, you haven't proven anything so I have nothing to disprove; two, your absolute conviction means that as soon as I say such, you take that as a sign of scumminess and vote me. It's pissing me off. Your absurd reliance on your abstract conception of scumminess is a massive crutch, Az, and it's made you run around this game waving your reputation around to justify every half-baked or completely raw argument. And the town is following along without question, and indeed have adopted your poor habits of not explaining anything.
You want to know WHY I post long cases? Because I focus on proof. Sometimes, it doesn't all come together, but at least I'm making an effort to make clear arguments, while your arguments have all the clarity and subtlety of a mortar.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
Okay, Az, this is pissing me off. MY CASE is my proof that it's not bad. You're saying it's bad, but I don't know WHAT is bad.
Your case is only proof that your vote isn't bad if your case isn't embarrassing. I had already pointed out the pattern of errors you were committing in your previous series of attacks. I saw no need to mimic a broken record.
Quote from Xyre »
What, am I supposed to go back through EVERY SINGLE POINT and explain it again? Your "concise case", as I noted, is a single line. What the hell am I supposed to do with that?
What can you do in response?
1. You can cease making poor votes with poor and unnatural rationales.
2. You can explain why your points against WoD were reliable. Analysis isn't simply supplying reasons for a vote: it's evaluating the strength of those reasons. You've neglected that step, this entire game.
3. You can admit why your vote against WoD was terrible, but explain why you made that post as a townie.
4. Complain.
Number three was your best response there, because even you backed right off of your WoD vote after I called you on it. But number four is a good, classic scum response, so there's a fair argument that you made the best decision for your alignment.
(To defend against this point, you can retroactively try number three, and/or explain why you opted for number 4. Bonus points for explaining why you evaded answering two of my points: how/why you missed or ignored WoD's ginormous mason tell, and whether you now agree or disagree about the strength of the townie and scum impulses to buddy up. Double bonus points for actually answering those.)
Quote from Xyre »
Apologize? Where did I apologize?
Quote from Xyre »
(which made me think you were acting against nature)
Being apologetic. Attempting to excuse yourself, if you prefer. The nervous emotion is the same.
(To defend against this point, explain why you were being apologetic, or explain how that is a misreading of the parenthetical.)
Quote from Xyre »
I said my theory was wrong and unvoted accordingly. I don't know I'm wrong,
Quote from xyre »
Damn, wrong again.
You could have convinced me otherwise.
And that's the problem. A townie doesn't know whether he's wrong. But you say that you arewrong. You could be right about him for the wrong reasons, and WoD could be scum. But you don't say that. You say, I'm wrong. Completely and totally unnatural for a townie. There's no reservation of skepticism about him.
(To defend against this, you can explain how a townie mindset led you to use that strange and unusual wording.)
Quote from Xyre »
I have a great deal of respect for you, but you're just dead wrong. If you aren't going to provide me anything to defend, then by all means piss off.
A reaction as bitter and vehement as this is typical when scum feel they're being taken down for poor reasons or a badly argued case. The townie reaction to a thin case isn't normally this radical.
(To defend against this, you explain why your reaction to this was so radical, and why that still fits a townie mentality.)
Your absurd reliance on your abstract conception of scumminess is a massive crutch, Az, and it's made you run around this game waving your reputation around to justify every half-baked or completely raw argument.
What is my abstract conception of scumminess, Xyre, and how is it flawed? What would you prefer that I rely upon, Xyre? Whether I make a PBPA or a short and concise post, presumably my abstract conception of scumminess is going to inform either.
Two, your frustration is misdirected. My arguments are simple and coherent. They need not come in PBPA form, or as an exhaustive list of universal tells, because I am focusing only upon your recent history of weak vote reasoning, and mindset and wording tells.
You are simply unaccustomed to how you should respond to arguments based on mindset and wording analysis. Since that is the case, I have made some suggestions for you. I hope you find them...useful.
(To defend against this, explain how the above quote isn't merely a scare tactic, answer the question posed above, and please cite where I have been waving my reputation in support of my case against you.)
Quote from Xyre »
And the town is following along without question, and indeed have adopted your poor habits of not explaining anything.
This is simply off-base. I have dissected your last several posts in excruciating detail. I am cryptic when it serves my purposes in gathering information. I am not cryptic when I am launching a full assault.
And the latter clause of your sentence is a gross generalization.
Quote from Xyre »
You want to know WHY I post long cases? Because I focus on proof. Sometimes, it doesn't all come together, but at least I'm making an effort to make clear arguments, while your arguments have all the clarity and subtlety of a mortar.
So excuse me if I'm not taking you seriously.
I'm not quite certain what is unclear about a mortar. But I agree that my attacks have not been subtle. In fact, the remainder of the thread has not expressed any difficulty in following along with them. Some of them have even been convinced by them.
The difficulty is that you do not know how to respond to them. That is not a problem of clarity. That is a function of your unfamiliarity with this style of attack.
My vote remains in place. The frustration in this post is not town-indicative.
Directly to your point Ande, this isn't a post that screams, "I'm a townie". This is a post that screams "I am a victim". That doesn't say anything positive about his alignment.
Your case is only proof that your vote isn't bad if your case isn't embarrassing. I had already pointed out the pattern of errors you were committing in your previous series of attacks. I saw no need to mimic a broken record.
Where? All I saw on the WoD case, the primary one we're talking about, was that one-liner you quoted for me. That's not a pattern, or even a single pointed logical deconstruction, but rather a statement. This is why this entire discussion has derailed.
1. You can cease making poor votes with poor and unnatural rationales.
2. You can explain why your points against WoD were reliable. Analysis isn't simply supplying reasons for a vote: it's evaluating the strength of those reasons. You've neglected that step, this entire game.
I strenuously disagree. As to why I thought it was strong, look below.
Number three was your best response there, because even you backed right off of your WoD vote after I called you on it. But number four is a good, classic scum response, so there's a fair argument that you made the best decision for your alignment.
I complained because I felt you weren't showing me your arguments. Rather than show me your arguments, you continue arguing I'm just being a whiner. Do you understand why that might piss me off?
(To defend against this point, you can retroactively try number three, and/or explain why you opted for number 4. Bonus points for explaining why you evaded answering two of my points: how/why you missed or ignored WoD's ginormous mason tell, and whether you now agree or disagree about the strength of the townie and scum impulses to buddy up. Double bonus points for actually answering those.)
1) Nice condescension: the "to defend against this" and the last bit. Considering you haven't given me anything to work with and I've been quite forthcoming with answering direct questions, it seems quite hypocritical of you to ask me for answers.
2) I opted for #4 because you weren't providing me anything. You still haven't provided me anything. And before you say "oh, I did so, so you're just being a pill", a) I have seen no such things, hence the frustration, so try a bit harder, and b) you could just repost those things and save us a ton of grief, and you've avoided that path for reasons that are beyond me.
3) (here's the "see below") I made that argument because for any player but Wrath of DoG, paranoia would be a scum tell, or at least a tell of a really scummy townie. WoD is exceptional, as he pointed out, because that's something he does, and as I discovered with research after making my post, he acts differently as scum, more targeted and less all-over-the-board. I unvoted because I recognized I made a genuine mistake, not something a scum would traditionally do.
4) I'll say it again for those in the back - I didn't see it. Care to point it out for me? Saving grief etc.
5) I don't understand the "buddying up" bit. You mean the "everybody's a mason" aspect of this game, or something else?
Being apologetic. Attempting to excuse yourself, if you prefer. The nervous emotion is the same.
That's not an apology, that's a backtrack, and as I explained, I had good reason to do so. I'm not excusing myself, either - I am completely cognizant that I made a mistake.
(To defend against this point, explain why you were being apologetic, or explain how that is a misreading of the parenthetical.)
You could have convinced me otherwise.
And that's the problem. A townie doesn't know whether he's wrong. But you say that you arewrong. You could be right about him for the wrong reasons, and WoD could be scum. But you don't say that. You say, I'm wrong. Completely and totally unnatural for a townie. There's no reservation of skepticism about him.
Ugh. My point was that I was wrong about WoD acting against his norm. As I said, I don't know that he isn't scum, but I have a strong suspicion to that effect, and that is largely due to my recognition that he is playing within his normal townie style.
(To defend against this, you can explain how a townie mindset led you to use that strange and unusual wording.)
A reaction as bitter and vehement as this is typical when scum feel they're being taken down for poor reasons or a badly argued case. The townie reaction to a thin case isn't normally this radical.
Au contraire. At this stage in the argument, where the other debater is arguing the same poor reasons with little disregard for the player's arguments or concerns, a townie would be more likely to lash out in recognition of the seemingly Kafkaesque state they've been put in (see my 4-point metaphor above for a good breakdown of the progression so far); a townie is more likely to stiffen at criticism they feel is weak because they are so cognizant of its weakness.
Your perspective here, I feel, is tarnished by your experience with Grakthis in 1001 Nights, where he lashed out severely against what he percieved as a weak case. First of all, that case wasn't as weak as yours here (and why are we calling it a case at all, actually? You haven't given me anything to fight against, and thus it isn't a case. Call it a prop case), and second of all, Grakthis is Grakthis. You're misconceiving my frustration as antagonism.
(To defend against this, you explain why your reaction to this was so radical, and why that still fits a townie mentality.)
What is my abstract conception of scumminess, Xyre, and how is it flawed? What would you prefer that I rely upon, Xyre? Whether I make a PBPA or a short and concise post, presumably my abstract conception of scumminess is going to inform either.
The argument about "abstraction", Az, is your overrealiance on your system of scum tells. Your article is good, Az, but you use it so much, Az, that you frequently, Az, end up looking where there are no scum tells. This, Az, is no better than a gut reaction, dressed up, Az, as some structural analysis. Then, Az, you use that system to justify short and overly useless (concise, Az, being the wrong word for a post utterly lacking proof) post and sell it to the masses. If you produced a PBPA, Az, at least then I could argue against it, but, as I emphasized previously, I can't do **** to a statement. Especially, Az, not one that says nothing more than "you're wrong". Where? How exactly? Logically invalid is a cute buzzword, Az, but it's no good when you're trying, Az, to break down an argument - and unless you break down an argument, Az, you can't get to the core of it and truly refute it, Az.
Two, your frustration is misdirected. My arguments are simple and coherent. They need not come in PBPA form, or as an exhaustive list of universal tells, because I am focusing only upon your recent history of weak vote reasoning, and mindset and wording tells.
"Free markets are good" is also, Az, by your standard, simple and coherent, Az. However, Az, without any proof, Az, it's utterly useless, Az. And you're saying that, Az, in response to my short essay, Az, on how, to continue this metaphor, Az, free markets are bad, Az. Your one-liner may be short and concise, Az, but it kills debate, Az, and when I can't respond to it and you use that as an attack, Az, it might just piss me off a little, Az. You understand how that might piss me off a little, Az?
You are simply unaccustomed to how you should respond to arguments based on mindset and wording analysis.
Oh, Az, then by all means, Az, would you please teach me how to respond to these arguments, Az, because I just graduated from elementary school and don't have any understanding of semantics, Az, and haven't participated in this and other forums of argumentation, Az, to recognize a **** argument dressed up as a prime cut when I see one, Az. For you see, Az, I'm a total moron and require your guidance, Az, to succeed in the big scary world where one-line arguments pass for palpable proof, Az.
For example, Az:
"Azrael is a genius and everyone should take him seriously."
See, Az? With that one line, I just disproved my entire argument, Az. See how useful that is, Az? And if I were to, say, ignore that because it lacks any evidentiary warrant, Az, well, Az, I guess that would just be wrong, Az, because in Az-land that one line is all I need to prove anything, Az.
Quote from Since that is the case, I have made some suggestions for you. I hope you find them...useful.[/QUOTE »
Oh, thank you, Az, you generous, handsome, not-at-all-a-douchebag gentleman, Az.
[QUOTE](To defend against this, explain how the above quote isn't merely a scare tactic, answer the question posed above, and please cite where I have been waving my reputation in support of my case against you.)
:mad:... Az.
This is simply off-base. I have dissected your last several posts in excruciating detail. I am cryptic when it serves my purposes in gathering information. I am not cryptic when I am launching a full assault.
Excrutiating detail, eh, Az? Well, Az, by golly that one-liner argument you used to throw my WoD case in the trash was definitely excrutiating... Az. Why don't we go relive it in excrutiating detail.
Quote from Azrael, post 289 »
WoD is town. Most of the tells against him are for logic. This is a poor vote.
Oh, man, Az, that was just devastating, Az.Thank... God for your excrutiating... analysis, Az, of my long case, Az, which totally deserved to be mucked, Az, for no good reason. Hell, Az, when I mucked my own case for a good reason, Az, I was totally off-base, Az; I should have... realized, that a one-line-but-wholly-excrutiating argument was sufficient, Az, to muck it. Why respond to WoD's responses at all, Az, when I could have just mucked it, Az?
It's not about being cryptic, Az: it's about you being nonresponsive, Az.
And the latter clause of your sentence is a gross generalization.
Oh, Az, I'm sorry, Az; I was under the impression, Az, that in Az's Forum of Excrutiating Cases, Az, gross generalizations are par for the course. Thank you again, Az, for pointing out the error in my... ways.
I'm not quite certain what is unclear about a mortar.
It blows out your hearing, Az? It makes a mess, Az? It generally wrecks whatever is going on, Az? I guess the question is, Az: who gives a damn?
But I agree that my attacks have not been subtle. In fact, the remainder of the thread has not expressed any difficulty in following along with them. Some of them have even been convinced by them.
Oh, well then, Az, thank you for teaching me about argumentum ad populum rather than reposting and explaining, Az. That makes things a lot easier, Az, and not at all... time-consuming.
My vote remains in place. The frustration in this post is not town-indicative.
Oh, then, Az, by all means, explain to the kid in the dunce cap in the corner what would constitute town-indicative frustration, Az, so the next time I try to convince you that you're talking out of your ass, Az, I'll be properly equipped to demonstrate to you... such. Was I not using enough obscenities, Az? Was it my underuse of smilies, Az? Was it my overuse of my simple demonstration of your aforementioned overuse of ****** proof, Az? Please, explain, Az.
Re: my post in the Council thread. That post is not a ploy; nor did I make any assertions about my alignment in that post. My intention here is to prove to you that I am town independent of external circumstances. My bout with Az notwithstanding (all I really want is to provoke him to provide me something to argue against, fyi), I intend to play this game fairly to the end.
Where? All I saw on the WoD case, the primary one we're talking about, was that one-liner you quoted for me. That's not a pattern, or even a single pointed logical deconstruction, but rather a statement. This is why this entire discussion has derailed.
99 and 276. And did you really want to see me copy-pasta my 'logic tells are bad evidence' argument?
If you'd like a more satisfactory word-count, I can insert that into the statement instead, and it will appear to be much, much longer and more substantive.
But the argument will have precisely the same amount of truth or proof in either circumstance.
Quote from Xyre »
4) I'll say it again for those in the back - I didn't see it. Care to point it out for me? Saving grief etc.
WrathOfDog: "By the way, I can vouch somewhat for PhantomS".
#260.
Quote from xyre »
The argument about "abstraction", Az, is your overrealiance on your system of scum tells.
*snip*
If you produced a PBPA, Az, at least then I could argue against it, but, as I emphasized previously, I can't do **** to a statement.
I'm still waiting for you to explain the overreliance argument, and how an Az PBPA based on the same system of tells wouldn't be just as susceptible to error.
Quote from xyre »
And you're saying that, Az, in response to my short essay, Az, on how, to continue this metaphor, Az, free markets are bad, Az.
*snip*
For you see, Az, I'm a total moron and require your guidance, Az, to succeed in the big scary world where one-line arguments pass for palpable proof, Az.
For example, Az:
"Azrael is a genius and everyone should take him seriously."
See, Az? With that one line, I just disproved my entire argument, Az.
Can you or can you not respond to a proposition?
Proposition: WoD is town. Most of the tells you listed against him were for logic (and logic tells are unreliable). Therefore, your vote was poor.
You can't respond to that? This is why I've been incredulous at your claimed inability to reply. These propositions are gateways to more substantive arguments. The burden of proof increases in tandem with the level of detail.
Perhaps you seem to believe the burden of proof is more properly placed upon the aggressive party. In the present case I disagree, as you are more intimately familiar with your own reasoning, and your own position/dualing proposition have/had yet to be established. I can't argue in any detail until I know the position that you're taking in opposition. As a consequence, I put the ball in your court. If I don't like where you kick it, I might begin to narrow down problem areas where your answers fail to impress.
But instead you stared at the ball, looked confused, and complained that you didn't know what to do with it.
Just kick it. I'll kick it back. And eventually we'll get down to details.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
I'm interested in this bit of your post. Because WoD's answer looks like a defense/explanation to me. Therefore: Why is it not?
You must be confused. Saying something feels like legitimization is an attempt to discredits the poster by way of motivation. It's not a defense and not an explanation. You may be referring to WoD's short references to his other post, a schizophrenic theory tying three people together as scum, and the accompanying excuses. That may be generously referred to as an explanation, but its certainly not a good one or a defense.
Quote from Skander »
Also in the second paragraph he disregards WoD's entire defence by just saying it didn't do anything.
See above. There was no defense.
Quote from Skander »
The next problem is that you said that you didn't remember what alignment WoD was when you were in games with him. Yet now you're saying that you know this definitely not his town play.
Don't twist this. Abnormal behavior, especially when it doesn't positively affect the town, is a good indicator. I don't do research. If you need details, they are out there for your perusal. I've played with WoD. As town. This isn't normal.
Abnormal behavior, especially when it doesn't positively affect the town, is a good indicator.
I'm astounded you didn't vote for me earlier, if that's the case.
There's an important distinction between abnormal town behavior and normal scum behavior. I've found it useful to look at both before laying into someone. Would you disagree?
Quote from Abandon Hope »
I don't do research. If you need details, they are out there for your perusal. I've played with WoD. As town. This isn't normal.
Xyre, if you're looking to attack someone for not going into detail...
Directly to your point Ande, this isn't a post that screams, "I'm a townie". This is a post that screams "I am a victim". That doesn't say anything positive about his alignment.
[quote=Abandon Hope;4178613Don't twist this. Abnormal behavior, especially when it doesn't positively affect the town, is a good indicator. I don't do research. If you need details, they are out there for your perusal. I've played with WoD. As town. This isn't normal.[/quote]
I'm not twisting anything. I just don't understand how you didn't remember what alignment WoD was in the games you were with him in and then afterwards clearly stated that you were in games with him as town. Clear this up for me please.
You asked what games and what alignments. I can't give you that. I can tell you that he's been town with me. Your disconnect seems to be with the idea of general information. I don't remember specifics.
You asked what games and what alignments. I can't give you that. I can tell you that he's been town with me. Your disconnect seems to be with the idea of general information. I don't remember specifics.
@Xyre (and Kraj, since you haven't posted yet): Name the last game you played of each alignment. I have to refresh my meta of each of you since we haven't played together for a while.
Unless I'm forgetting something, my last completed game as mafia was Persona. Prior to that was Dictionary. My last completed town game was Harry Potter. You were in all three.
Unless I'm forgetting something, my last completed game as mafia was Persona. Prior to that was Dictionary. My last completed town game was Harry Potter. You were in all three.
I was hoping for something more recent than Harry Potter, especially because I died shortly after you replaced in.
You asked what games and what alignments. I can't give you that. I can tell you that he's been town with me. Your disconnect seems to be with the idea of general information. I don't remember specifics.
Translation: "I cannot be ****ed going back and checking said previous games to back up my statements."
I think you really should invest the ten minutes it might take you to find the names of said games, at very least, before you make these kinds of statements, or else you can expect to be ignored.
Here's a hint: DotA Mafia might be a good place to start.
I agree with Az that Xyre's case on WoD is forced especially after considering the fact that Xyre called at least one of WoD's posts scummy then when much earlier he had read that exact same post as town citing it as a WoD like thing to do. And then he ended his cases saying that WoD was acting unWoD-like. I have some more to say but enough time. I'll try to post later.
99 and 276. And did you really want to see me copy-pasta my 'logic tells are bad evidence' argument?
If you'd like a more satisfactory word-count, I can insert that into the statement instead, and it will appear to be much, much longer and more substantive.
But the argument will have precisely the same amount of truth or proof in either circumstance.
1) Huh?
2) I responded to those posts.
3) Back to this long-posts-are-bad argument. I don't really care what you think about long arguments, to be honest. My major point is short arguments = bad, as shown above.
WrathOfDog: "By the way, I can vouch somewhat for PhantomS".
#260.
Ah, right. Had I thought about that for more than two seconds, I would have counterclaimed him. I just forgot about it.
I'm still waiting for you to explain the overreliance argument, and how an Az PBPA based on the same system of tells wouldn't be just as susceptible to error.
Can you or can you not respond to a proposition?
Proposition: WoD is town. Most of the tells you listed against him were for logic (and logic tells are unreliable). Therefore, your vote was poor.
Alright, fine, I'll deal with this issue.
I assume by "logic tells" you mean "tells based on suspicious/bad logic used by the suspect." First, I'd like to see that copypasta re: this issue. Furthermore, many of the tells I pointed out are not "logic tells". Many of them sound like logic tells only inasmuch as they point out acts that don't make sense from a townie perspective - the very definition of a tell. E.g. the cornerstone of that case, 193, in which he feebly holds up three suspects who he wants offed, and provides little support for them (or none, in my case). This isn't a "logic tell", like argumentum ad populum (though that one sometimes applies, it usually isn't a true scum tell because many people make that mistake); these are actions that are illogical only if the player is town.
WoD is a corner case, as he frequently violates these traditional behaviors. This is why I mistook him for scum.
You can't respond to that? This is why I've been incredulous at your claimed inability to reply. These propositions are gateways to more substantive arguments. The burden of proof increases in tandem with the level of detail.
Nope. There is always a minimum burden of proof, for several reasons. For one, you wouldn't suspect me at all if you had no proof, so you have no reason to not provide any evidence; for another, it supports your argument and promotes debate. Debating statements (or, rather, affirmative statements, aka arguments) is a waste of time if not backed up by evidence. We could carry on a debate about the merits of, to go grab my metaphor, free markets, but I can't just say "I think free markets are good" and instantly my burden of proof shifts. All arguments require proof.
Perhaps you seem to believe the burden of proof is more properly placed upon the aggressive party. In the present case I disagree, as you are more intimately familiar with your own reasoning, and your own position/dualing proposition have/had yet to be established.
More metaphors! A criminal may have an innate understanding of his own psychology, but the burden in criminal law is not "guilty until proven innocent." You're going to law school, right? You should know that better than anyone else here.
Clearly I may have perspectives that can't immediately be factored into your case - that's why it's a dialogue, not a pair of monologues. But if you have nothing going into a suspicion, it's a belief, and is incredible. It's as simple as that.
I can't argue in any detail until I know the position that you're taking in opposition. As a consequence, I put the ball in your court. If I don't like where you kick it, I might begin to narrow down problem areas where your answers fail to impress.
Paradox: The burden of proof in a debate for the negative is the status quo, meaning they merely must prove the affirmative is wrong. But I can't prove you're wrong if I have nothing to address. No evidence = no address. So we're caught in an infinite loop. This is why your modus operandi has been so stymied me.
Just kick it. I'll kick it back. And eventually we'll get down to details.
A rule-based competitive debate is often encouraged in high schools and colleges. Often, it takes the form of a contest with explicit rules. It may be presided over by one or more judges. Each side seeks to win, by following the rules, and even by using some rules to break other rules, within limits. Each side is either in favor ("for, 'Affirmative' "), or opposed to ("against, 'Negative' "), a statement (proposition, moot or Resolution) which if adopted would change something with the exception of some high school and college debate where moots may hold no outcome ie. the moot "ignorance is bliss". Some of the rules are broad and must be followed in a general way. For example, those in favor of the proposition are
required to show the need for it to be adopted as it is written, and yet are
allowed to define the scope of the proposition; i.e. they choose what it will mean if adopted.
To further illustrate the importance of rules, those opposed must destroy these arguments, sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition, and are not required to propose any alternative solutions.
The rules of this game are simple: you're on offense, I'm on defense. I can't block shots you don't take, and likewise, you claiming points for shots not taken is unfair. So kick it!
I can't defend against platitudes, is my point. I've responded to every post like the one I'm responding to now, but you haven't given me anything to defend against besides one-liners.
You never explained to him/challenged him on the Chris case.
I disagree. I think buddying up to townies is quintessential scum behavior. Clearly you can't call it in every case, but in serious ones, like the one mentioned, it deserves analysis.
Explain the blue part, because I don't understand.
See, this is why you're giving me conniptions. There's nothing I can do with that line but say, "okay then" or "NO U". It's frankly obnoxious, because you say "Xyre is scum", but then don't elaborate beyond a trite rationale. I have no place to respond, and am forced to ignore you - which in turn fuels your belief I'm scum.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
These aren't mutually exclusive. Indeed, the former is a strong factor in the latter.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
You understand what PBPA stands for, right?
Silly argument. At the beginning of the game, everybody has a neutral read on everyone else, because they have no information. So saying "I have a neutral read on him" and equating that to "I don't think he's scum" may be functionally true (though, since it doesn't exclude scumminess, that's not even quite true), but it's useless overall; it indicates at best disregard for scumhunting and at worst feigned ignorance. A neutral opinion is no opinion at all when it comes to a game focused on choosing townies and scum; this is why I view your "I was expressing an opinion" (that was a non-opinion) as forced.
Ah. When I hear "metagame analysis", I don't think "player history". I guess my question is: why Toast and not Netfinity?
Argumentation is not a "shoot first, ask questions later" matter. Give the reasoning.
Really? He didn't expect people to call him on a bandwagoning vote? Slash he just made up the trap argument as a rather convoluted method to briefly divert attention from a scumbuddy? What exactly gave you this vibe?
This is a fair point, I'll admit; I know you've referenced "paranoia" at least once before in the thread. Sigh.
We can go in circles on this - it all falls into the paranoia bit. Sigh.
Hey, no fair glossing over my arguments on unnecessary colloquial phrases and attacking me for same.
I took the liberty of looking over your games as scum, and I got the impression you were more aggressive and less agreeable in them; while I've never seen the paranoia in you (which made me think you were acting against nature), the vote on me and others at least suggests the WoD I'm used to, namely the bandwagoneer. I guess I'm going back to my gut reaction. Damn, wrong again.
Unvote
No idea where to go next. Maybe Netfinity.
Town/Leaning Town
Azrael
Kraj
kpaca
WoD
andelijah/CM
ChrisXIV
Skander
Suspects
AH (though I can't shake the feeling this is how he always is)
PhantomS
Netfinity
Toastboy
What a motley bunch.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
And I'm counter-claiming you, scum.
Unvote, Vote kpaca.
Oh, **** me. My hypothesis about this game was right.
Unvote him, it's not going to do you any good.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Everybody is a god damned mason.
Well, ****.
I'm not a mason, so not everybody is a mason.
*finishes waiting*
Ugh. I mean, it's not like WoD wasn't already super-obvious, but...
Yeah. Kpaca, WoD, Phantom: are you guys alignment-confirmed?
*frowns* Janus mafia, eh? I'm starting to get a bad feeling about this...I assume everyone is familiar with the Janus reference by now?
[/quote]
So you can't respond to succinct cases?
Come on. If I say your vote on WoD was bad and faked, you have a very simple response: explain how it's not bad, and how it's flowing from a genuine thought process. Not exactly rocket science here...
But then, perhaps you prefer a less transparent form of debate? Massive dreadnoughts that no one reads bashing up against one another? No thanks, not when a concise case states my concerns adequately and allows others to keep tabs on your defense.
Not all tells were created equal. You're glossing over the questions of how often townies "buddy up" to analysts, and the strength of the townie impulse versus the scum impulse. Frankly, I think both impulses are fairly weak, so it's not a very useful tell.
Holy unnatural forced language, Batman. See the bolded. You're strangely apologetic in the parentheses (why apologize for honest suspicions?), a single piece of evidence which "suggests" the typical Wod causes you to back off, and not only back off but say "Damn, wrong again". How do you know you're wrong? Why feel that strongly, based off only a single piece of evidence?
A townie doesn't know anything of the kind. This isn't natural language: this is a scum poorly trying to imitate a change of mind.
Xyre is retreating in a very awkward manner here. This looks like scum pulling an awkward fall back after being called on a bad vote and seeing the wagon disintegrate.
Not to mention that blatantly obvious mason tell from a few days ago that he seems to have glossed over and missed...
Confirm vote on Xyre, approve pressure on AH.
The mason pairing is not confirmed in my case. I'm not familiar with what you mean by the bad feeling about it being "Janus" mafia Az. I'm not really familiar with the reference, other that Janus was the two faced Roman god I believe.
Yeah. It sounds as though we have to worry about our masons being opposite alignment from one another. One pairing, two faces.
I've been considering it for a while tbh.
No. My PM expresses uncertainty in my mason partner.
Okay, Az, this is pissing me off. MY CASE is my proof that it's not bad. You're saying it's bad, but I don't know WHAT is bad. What, am I supposed to go back through EVERY SINGLE POINT and explain it again? Your "concise case", as I noted, is a single line. What the hell am I supposed to do with that?
Apologize? Where did I apologize? I said my theory was wrong and unvoted accordingly. I don't know I'm wrong, inasmuch as you never truly know anything in this game, but I recognized my assumptions (e.g. WoD was acting against nature) were faulty, which undermines the case.
Now you're trying to put definitions on my words. I've already explained in a prior post that "know" in simple English and "know" in this game are different things - and yet you're ignoring that and immediately arguing my recognition of being wrong is invalid.
I have a great deal of respect for you, but you're just dead wrong. If you aren't going to provide me anything to defend, then by all means piss off.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
1) I argue a case.
2) You say "you're wrong".
3) I say "how so?"
4) You say "lol you're not responding vote vote vote"
Simply put, I can't respond to 2, for several reasons: one, you haven't proven anything so I have nothing to disprove; two, your absolute conviction means that as soon as I say such, you take that as a sign of scumminess and vote me. It's pissing me off. Your absurd reliance on your abstract conception of scumminess is a massive crutch, Az, and it's made you run around this game waving your reputation around to justify every half-baked or completely raw argument. And the town is following along without question, and indeed have adopted your poor habits of not explaining anything.
You want to know WHY I post long cases? Because I focus on proof. Sometimes, it doesn't all come together, but at least I'm making an effort to make clear arguments, while your arguments have all the clarity and subtlety of a mortar.
So excuse me if I'm not taking you seriously.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Xyre - 4 (Az, PhantomS, Toastboy, kpaca)
WoD - 2 (AH, Xyre)
Abandon Hope - 1 (Skander)
kpaca - 1 (Kraj)
Azrael - 1 (Netfinity)
7 to lynch
A couple people need to pick up their posting or prods will be going out soon.
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
I think all us masons should nameclaim.
I am Mason B.
Well, I suppose you already spilled the beans entirely on you and I being masons together with your earlier "hint"....
I am Mason A.
What will that possibly accomplish?
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Also, masons should stop name claiming unless they can provide a valid reason to do so. We don't know if it will help or hurt us.
Vote: Kraj
He, on the other hand, seems to be avoiding the thread.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
Your case is only proof that your vote isn't bad if your case isn't embarrassing. I had already pointed out the pattern of errors you were committing in your previous series of attacks. I saw no need to mimic a broken record.
What can you do in response?
1. You can cease making poor votes with poor and unnatural rationales.
2. You can explain why your points against WoD were reliable. Analysis isn't simply supplying reasons for a vote: it's evaluating the strength of those reasons. You've neglected that step, this entire game.
3. You can admit why your vote against WoD was terrible, but explain why you made that post as a townie.
4. Complain.
Number three was your best response there, because even you backed right off of your WoD vote after I called you on it. But number four is a good, classic scum response, so there's a fair argument that you made the best decision for your alignment.
(To defend against this point, you can retroactively try number three, and/or explain why you opted for number 4. Bonus points for explaining why you evaded answering two of my points: how/why you missed or ignored WoD's ginormous mason tell, and whether you now agree or disagree about the strength of the townie and scum impulses to buddy up. Double bonus points for actually answering those.)
Being apologetic. Attempting to excuse yourself, if you prefer. The nervous emotion is the same.
(To defend against this point, explain why you were being apologetic, or explain how that is a misreading of the parenthetical.)
You could have convinced me otherwise.
And that's the problem. A townie doesn't know whether he's wrong. But you say that you are wrong. You could be right about him for the wrong reasons, and WoD could be scum. But you don't say that. You say, I'm wrong. Completely and totally unnatural for a townie. There's no reservation of skepticism about him.
(To defend against this, you can explain how a townie mindset led you to use that strange and unusual wording.)
A reaction as bitter and vehement as this is typical when scum feel they're being taken down for poor reasons or a badly argued case. The townie reaction to a thin case isn't normally this radical.
(To defend against this, you explain why your reaction to this was so radical, and why that still fits a townie mentality.)
What is my abstract conception of scumminess, Xyre, and how is it flawed? What would you prefer that I rely upon, Xyre? Whether I make a PBPA or a short and concise post, presumably my abstract conception of scumminess is going to inform either.
Two, your frustration is misdirected. My arguments are simple and coherent. They need not come in PBPA form, or as an exhaustive list of universal tells, because I am focusing only upon your recent history of weak vote reasoning, and mindset and wording tells.
You are simply unaccustomed to how you should respond to arguments based on mindset and wording analysis. Since that is the case, I have made some suggestions for you. I hope you find them...useful.
(To defend against this, explain how the above quote isn't merely a scare tactic, answer the question posed above, and please cite where I have been waving my reputation in support of my case against you.)
This is simply off-base. I have dissected your last several posts in excruciating detail. I am cryptic when it serves my purposes in gathering information. I am not cryptic when I am launching a full assault.
And the latter clause of your sentence is a gross generalization.
I'm not quite certain what is unclear about a mortar. But I agree that my attacks have not been subtle. In fact, the remainder of the thread has not expressed any difficulty in following along with them. Some of them have even been convinced by them.
The difficulty is that you do not know how to respond to them. That is not a problem of clarity. That is a function of your unfamiliarity with this style of attack.
My vote remains in place. The frustration in this post is not town-indicative.
Directly to your point Ande, this isn't a post that screams, "I'm a townie". This is a post that screams "I am a victim". That doesn't say anything positive about his alignment.
Xyre has unvoted WoD.
Where? All I saw on the WoD case, the primary one we're talking about, was that one-liner you quoted for me. That's not a pattern, or even a single pointed logical deconstruction, but rather a statement. This is why this entire discussion has derailed.
I strenuously disagree. As to why I thought it was strong, look below.
I complained because I felt you weren't showing me your arguments. Rather than show me your arguments, you continue arguing I'm just being a whiner. Do you understand why that might piss me off?
1) Nice condescension: the "to defend against this" and the last bit. Considering you haven't given me anything to work with and I've been quite forthcoming with answering direct questions, it seems quite hypocritical of you to ask me for answers.
2) I opted for #4 because you weren't providing me anything. You still haven't provided me anything. And before you say "oh, I did so, so you're just being a pill", a) I have seen no such things, hence the frustration, so try a bit harder, and b) you could just repost those things and save us a ton of grief, and you've avoided that path for reasons that are beyond me.
3) (here's the "see below") I made that argument because for any player but Wrath of DoG, paranoia would be a scum tell, or at least a tell of a really scummy townie. WoD is exceptional, as he pointed out, because that's something he does, and as I discovered with research after making my post, he acts differently as scum, more targeted and less all-over-the-board. I unvoted because I recognized I made a genuine mistake, not something a scum would traditionally do.
4) I'll say it again for those in the back - I didn't see it. Care to point it out for me? Saving grief etc.
5) I don't understand the "buddying up" bit. You mean the "everybody's a mason" aspect of this game, or something else?
That's not an apology, that's a backtrack, and as I explained, I had good reason to do so. I'm not excusing myself, either - I am completely cognizant that I made a mistake.
Ugh. My point was that I was wrong about WoD acting against his norm. As I said, I don't know that he isn't scum, but I have a strong suspicion to that effect, and that is largely due to my recognition that he is playing within his normal townie style.
Au contraire. At this stage in the argument, where the other debater is arguing the same poor reasons with little disregard for the player's arguments or concerns, a townie would be more likely to lash out in recognition of the seemingly Kafkaesque state they've been put in (see my 4-point metaphor above for a good breakdown of the progression so far); a townie is more likely to stiffen at criticism they feel is weak because they are so cognizant of its weakness.
Your perspective here, I feel, is tarnished by your experience with Grakthis in 1001 Nights, where he lashed out severely against what he percieved as a weak case. First of all, that case wasn't as weak as yours here (and why are we calling it a case at all, actually? You haven't given me anything to fight against, and thus it isn't a case. Call it a prop case), and second of all, Grakthis is Grakthis. You're misconceiving my frustration as antagonism.
The argument about "abstraction", Az, is your overrealiance on your system of scum tells. Your article is good, Az, but you use it so much, Az, that you frequently, Az, end up looking where there are no scum tells. This, Az, is no better than a gut reaction, dressed up, Az, as some structural analysis. Then, Az, you use that system to justify short and overly useless (concise, Az, being the wrong word for a post utterly lacking proof) post and sell it to the masses. If you produced a PBPA, Az, at least then I could argue against it, but, as I emphasized previously, I can't do **** to a statement. Especially, Az, not one that says nothing more than "you're wrong". Where? How exactly? Logically invalid is a cute buzzword, Az, but it's no good when you're trying, Az, to break down an argument - and unless you break down an argument, Az, you can't get to the core of it and truly refute it, Az.
"Free markets are good" is also, Az, by your standard, simple and coherent, Az. However, Az, without any proof, Az, it's utterly useless, Az. And you're saying that, Az, in response to my short essay, Az, on how, to continue this metaphor, Az, free markets are bad, Az. Your one-liner may be short and concise, Az, but it kills debate, Az, and when I can't respond to it and you use that as an attack, Az, it might just piss me off a little, Az. You understand how that might piss me off a little, Az?
Oh, Az, then by all means, Az, would you please teach me how to respond to these arguments, Az, because I just graduated from elementary school and don't have any understanding of semantics, Az, and haven't participated in this and other forums of argumentation, Az, to recognize a **** argument dressed up as a prime cut when I see one, Az. For you see, Az, I'm a total moron and require your guidance, Az, to succeed in the big scary world where one-line arguments pass for palpable proof, Az.
For example, Az:
"Azrael is a genius and everyone should take him seriously."
See, Az? With that one line, I just disproved my entire argument, Az. See how useful that is, Az? And if I were to, say, ignore that because it lacks any evidentiary warrant, Az, well, Az, I guess that would just be wrong, Az, because in Az-land that one line is all I need to prove anything, Az.
:mad:... Az.
Excrutiating detail, eh, Az? Well, Az, by golly that one-liner argument you used to throw my WoD case in the trash was definitely excrutiating... Az. Why don't we go relive it in excrutiating detail.
Oh, man, Az, that was just devastating, Az.Thank... God for your excrutiating... analysis, Az, of my long case, Az, which totally deserved to be mucked, Az, for no good reason. Hell, Az, when I mucked my own case for a good reason, Az, I was totally off-base, Az; I should have... realized, that a one-line-but-wholly-excrutiating argument was sufficient, Az, to muck it. Why respond to WoD's responses at all, Az, when I could have just mucked it, Az?
It's not about being cryptic, Az: it's about you being nonresponsive, Az.
Oh, Az, I'm sorry, Az; I was under the impression, Az, that in Az's Forum of Excrutiating Cases, Az, gross generalizations are par for the course. Thank you again, Az, for pointing out the error in my... ways.
It blows out your hearing, Az? It makes a mess, Az? It generally wrecks whatever is going on, Az? I guess the question is, Az: who gives a damn?
Oh, well then, Az, thank you for teaching me about argumentum ad populum rather than reposting and explaining, Az. That makes things a lot easier, Az, and not at all... time-consuming.
Oh, then, Az, by all means, explain to the kid in the dunce cap in the corner what would constitute town-indicative frustration, Az, so the next time I try to convince you that you're talking out of your ass, Az, I'll be properly equipped to demonstrate to you... such. Was I not using enough obscenities, Az? Was it my underuse of smilies, Az? Was it my overuse of my simple demonstration of your aforementioned overuse of ****** proof, Az? Please, explain, Az.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
So - cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
99 and 276. And did you really want to see me copy-pasta my 'logic tells are bad evidence' argument?
If you'd like a more satisfactory word-count, I can insert that into the statement instead, and it will appear to be much, much longer and more substantive.
But the argument will have precisely the same amount of truth or proof in either circumstance.
WrathOfDog: "By the way, I can vouch somewhat for PhantomS".
#260.
I'm still waiting for you to explain the overreliance argument, and how an Az PBPA based on the same system of tells wouldn't be just as susceptible to error.
Can you or can you not respond to a proposition?
Proposition: WoD is town. Most of the tells you listed against him were for logic (and logic tells are unreliable). Therefore, your vote was poor.
You can't respond to that? This is why I've been incredulous at your claimed inability to reply. These propositions are gateways to more substantive arguments. The burden of proof increases in tandem with the level of detail.
Perhaps you seem to believe the burden of proof is more properly placed upon the aggressive party. In the present case I disagree, as you are more intimately familiar with your own reasoning, and your own position/dualing proposition have/had yet to be established. I can't argue in any detail until I know the position that you're taking in opposition. As a consequence, I put the ball in your court. If I don't like where you kick it, I might begin to narrow down problem areas where your answers fail to impress.
But instead you stared at the ball, looked confused, and complained that you didn't know what to do with it.
Just kick it. I'll kick it back. And eventually we'll get down to details.
Xyre - 4 (Az, PhantomS, Toastboy, kpaca)
WoD - 1 (AH)
Abandon Hope - 1 (Skander)
kpaca - 1 (Kraj)
Azrael - 1 (Netfinity)
Kraj - 1 (Ande)
7 to lynch
Updated and corrected. I'll be sending out a round of prods on Monday if certain people don't start posting.[/quote]
MTGS stats (won/played)
As scum - 3/5
As town - 5/7
As neutral - none
(I really have been scum a lot)
I'm now writing for Eye of the Vortex, come check out MTG articles and other geek culture
I also moderate the MTG forum, so register (it's free) and voice your thoughts.
Good. There's nothing more annoying than a mod who can't get a simple vote-count correct.
I'm astounded you didn't vote for me earlier, if that's the case.
There's an important distinction between abnormal town behavior and normal scum behavior. I've found it useful to look at both before laying into someone. Would you disagree?
Xyre, if you're looking to attack someone for not going into detail...
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
I'm not twisting anything. I just don't understand how you didn't remember what alignment WoD was in the games you were with him in and then afterwards clearly stated that you were in games with him as town. Clear this up for me please.
Because scum sometimes feel oppressed and ill-used as well.
Please respond.
Unless I'm forgetting something, my last completed game as mafia was Persona. Prior to that was Dictionary. My last completed town game was Harry Potter. You were in all three.
Fun. Game name makes sense now.
Nor am I.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Salvation Mafia Clan
Mafia Stats
last updated 03/23/11
I think you really should invest the ten minutes it might take you to find the names of said games, at very least, before you make these kinds of statements, or else you can expect to be ignored.
Here's a hint: DotA Mafia might be a good place to start.
I was pointing out a game where I was town, with Abandon Hope. He's implied there's more than one, but I don't recall any more.
Role related.
1) Huh?
2) I responded to those posts.
3) Back to this long-posts-are-bad argument. I don't really care what you think about long arguments, to be honest. My major point is short arguments = bad, as shown above.
Ah, right. Had I thought about that for more than two seconds, I would have counterclaimed him. I just forgot about it.
Alright, fine, I'll deal with this issue.
I assume by "logic tells" you mean "tells based on suspicious/bad logic used by the suspect." First, I'd like to see that copypasta re: this issue. Furthermore, many of the tells I pointed out are not "logic tells". Many of them sound like logic tells only inasmuch as they point out acts that don't make sense from a townie perspective - the very definition of a tell. E.g. the cornerstone of that case, 193, in which he feebly holds up three suspects who he wants offed, and provides little support for them (or none, in my case). This isn't a "logic tell", like argumentum ad populum (though that one sometimes applies, it usually isn't a true scum tell because many people make that mistake); these are actions that are illogical only if the player is town.
WoD is a corner case, as he frequently violates these traditional behaviors. This is why I mistook him for scum.
Nope. There is always a minimum burden of proof, for several reasons. For one, you wouldn't suspect me at all if you had no proof, so you have no reason to not provide any evidence; for another, it supports your argument and promotes debate. Debating statements (or, rather, affirmative statements, aka arguments) is a waste of time if not backed up by evidence. We could carry on a debate about the merits of, to go grab my metaphor, free markets, but I can't just say "I think free markets are good" and instantly my burden of proof shifts. All arguments require proof.
More metaphors! A criminal may have an innate understanding of his own psychology, but the burden in criminal law is not "guilty until proven innocent." You're going to law school, right? You should know that better than anyone else here.
Clearly I may have perspectives that can't immediately be factored into your case - that's why it's a dialogue, not a pair of monologues. But if you have nothing going into a suspicion, it's a belief, and is incredible. It's as simple as that.
Paradox: The burden of proof in a debate for the negative is the status quo, meaning they merely must prove the affirmative is wrong. But I can't prove you're wrong if I have nothing to address. No evidence = no address. So we're caught in an infinite loop. This is why your modus operandi has been so stymied me.
Here's a simple suggestion: you kick it first!
Seems simple to me.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
The rules of this game are simple: you're on offense, I'm on defense. I can't block shots you don't take, and likewise, you claiming points for shots not taken is unfair. So kick it!
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia