CC - what's your opinion of the things I pointed to in 125?
The third person thing I think is valid, but it's a small tell in general, and I tend to find Zionite's phrasing a little weird anyway. Other then that, it seems like you are seeing what you want to see.
Not even the bit about a third vote from kpaca? I thought that part was pretty telling, myself.
I mean, he specifically stated that he was looking specifically at his wagon. While it may ultimately be a narrow approach, it isn't hard to understand why someone would notice the votes on themselves while paying less attention to votes on other people.
It's also different because kpaca was the only serious vote when he voted for drey, meaning he was the first to apply real pressure, while people were actually starting to apply real pressure to Zionite when voted.
This game is already boring. Why always I must be the only one to do crazy stuff to make the game advance?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
CC - what's your opinion of the things I pointed to in 125?
The third person thing I think is valid, but it's a small tell in general, and I tend to find Zionite's phrasing a little weird anyway. Other then that, it seems like you are seeing what you want to see.
Not even the bit about a third vote from kpaca? I thought that part was pretty telling, myself.
I mean, he specifically stated that he was looking specifically at his wagon. While it may ultimately be a narrow approach, it isn't hard to understand why someone would notice the votes on themselves while paying less attention to votes on other people.
It's also different because kpaca was the only serious vote when he voted for drey, meaning he was the first to apply real pressure, while people were actually starting to apply real pressure to Zionite when voted.
SCUM-LOGIC 82: Oh, hey, you know what's interesting about Zionite accusing CropCircles of being scum for putting the third vote on him?
KPACA PUT THE THIRD VOTE ON DREY AFTER THE LATTER DID HIS SILLY CLAIM THING AND ZIONITE DIDN'T EVEN FLINCH.
That right there sends my head spinning a little. Sure, Zionite might hide behind the "but CC wasn't in the random vote stage" argument, but anyone with a little sense can tell CC's vote was a joke (and anyway, arguments based on "random votes" are by and large meaningless at best anyway). Certainly his vote was more of a joke than kpaca's, and kpaca voted DRey for the same reason I voted DRey seriously (I was 2nd in line) - because his post was super-scummy.
What's the phrase Zionite used? Oh yeah:
the 3rd vote on a single target in a mini. Even if it were RVS, that's an indication of scum opportunism with no interest in scum hunting.
I've bolded the important, fatal part. That part alone is a reason to hang Zionite.
Why didn't Zionite pick out kpaca? Methinks because kpaca, Zionite, and DRey are scum buddies and the former didn't pose a real threat to the latter. Certainly Zionite would have no reason to call out his scum-buddy for a faux pas like he would CropCircles.
I think it's pretty silly that you think you have the scum team figured out 160 post into the game. The reason for ignoring kpaca's vote is because a pressure vote on kpaca is useless. He won't react to it no matter how you dress it, at least not a reaction you can use. Not only that, but again, I wanted to analyze the first wagon of the game: my own. The first wagon is a treasure trove of content, and kpaca was not a participant so it didn't make sense to randomly charge at him with a wooden stick. Trying to make this into "kpaca is Zionite's scumbuddy" is very Ancient Aliens.
DRey's vote was fourth (strike), doesn't cite reasons (strike), and doesn't proffer reasons when asked (strike). But then Zionite doesn't even mention the similarity to CropCircles' situation, instead giving a lame reason to call DRey town... because scum don't want to end RVS? That's the worst argument I've heard so far this year, and patently untrue.
CC makes one post with a joke vote, is hiding a scum vote. DRey makes multiple scummy posts (that are later revealed to be townie posts), is "scum hunting", is thus town. The hypocrisy is incredible.
I didn't know it was a joke at the time, which is why pressure was needed for more information. But I thought DRey's gambit was very pro-town; scum aren't looking to stick their neck out there when it's so easy to "vote the mod lol" and be good to go. As far as the first 50 posts go, that's good town stuff. His vote on you was less so, but that's another topic altogether.
85: "I have no reason to call him scum at this juncture" is meaningless positioning. It leaves the door open to jumping on me in the future. If he doesn't have any idea what to say about me, on account of being hard to read, he'd just say "no idea", not check the water for blood.
This also counts as a point in the hypocritical reasoning column. In his immediately previous post, he characterized Caex's post (in which he states a willingness to vote for Zionite) as "an opportunistic reservation to the right to vote Zionite later."
You're chasing phantoms here. I could just as easily swap those two quotes and have the same understanding. "No idea" is meaningless positioning...etc. It's all in the presentation; Caex expressed suspicion whereas I did not.
There are many little examples of arguments that he makes here that shift to become more accusatory after his exchange with DRey (see below, re: that exchange). For example, in 102, he makes note of the possibilities I posited for his vote on CC. He refers to them like so:
Quote from Z, 102 »
I'm putting vote pressure on CC to get to talking, so none of your possibilities for my reasoning include the reality.
Neutral reasoning - "you're incorrect". Okay.
Jump forward to 113, and now we have:
Quote from Z, 113 »
My suspicions however come from flaws in Xyre's logic, particularly the false dilemma shown here:
[snip]
The option he ignored, which was quite obvious to everyone else, that my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him. He then uses this fallacy to conclude that I do not have a town mindset.
Accusatory - implying I deliberately left those possibilities out, despite the truth being apparent to everyone, in order to pin suspicion on Zionite. Incorrectly uses the logical fallacy of a false dilemma, which also was not previously mentioned, and states that his suspicions stem from that original list.
All of this is new, and weirdly so. If the truth was apparent to everyone, why didn't he point that out the first time he responded to my list, rather than just correcting me? Answer: because between these two posts, he decided to pounce. (Again, see below.)
But maybe he just reconsidered (notwithstanding the context of DRey). Well, take a look at another shift.
Zionite's reaction to my request for a claim after putting him to L-2, in 102:
Quote from Z, 102 »
That's fine. But I'm content to watch how this plays out for now.
"Okay, well, we'll see."
Cut to 113:
And immediately pushes for a claim. This reads as a scum curious to see what possible threats may be out there, and striking at the opportunity to get me to claim range despite simultaneously arguing that CC's vote was RANDOM. In which case, I would NOT be in claim range if CC had been present recently.
Whoa! That placid response is gone. Now I'm trying to push for a claim before it's due. Another sudden realization? I don't think so.
No, I think Zionite did exactly what he implicitly promised to do when he said he had no reason to suspect me - he saw a drop of blood in the water and he went after it, teeth out. If all these scum tells were apparent, there'd be no reason for this sudden shift in demeanor; certainly it wouldn't be so abrupt a shift. But it makes more sense for a scum.
Side note: Again I'll reiterate the previously-mentioned logical knot in his claim that I was simultaneously tiptoeing forward and boldly pushing for a claim. That is, Zionite's argument makes no sense, internally.
I switched from interacting to campaigning, so naturally I'll be accusatory and pounce on what I have. This isn't because I'm scum; it's because I went into a scum-catching mode. I don't think "well maybe I'm wrong but it looks like this might be deliberate" sounds very compelling. But I did mention the false dilemma earlier (you quoted it here), but I didn't explain/link it. Simply put, I just don't think this shift is as scummy as you make it out to be. I had just decided to case you since DRey expressed interest in my points and wanted to see if anyone else agreed.
Look to the post series beginning with Zionite's response to my vote on him in post 102. Zionite's response to my vote on him expresses very little suspicion of me personally, and not until near the end; mostly it just uses deflective logic.
Then DRey immediately jumps in to unvote Zionite in 105, despite having previously asked for more votes on Zionite in 78. Well, okay, that doesn't look great, but he's a newer player, could just be a knee-jerk reaction. But then he says he thinks Caex and I are scumbuddies, preferring the latter to vote.
The very next post, 107, shows Zionite immediately coming around on the "Xyre is scum" idea, indeed thinking the "evidence against Xyre" is stronger than Caex, despite the fact that up until this post, he's expressed very little suspicion of me. That's the kicker - not just the fact that he OMGUSes me, but that he does it after getting the idea of pushing this Caex-Xyre scumbuddy notion from DRey. Classic scum follow behavior.
Well, you say, that could well be Zionite just joining in on DRey's silly notion because he thinks he can ride it along - DRey may still be town. Well, that's where we get the cherry on top, in post 111:
Aren't you sure you are being blinded by a natural OMGUS knee-jerk reaction?
If that's not coaching, I don't know what is.
(And if you think DRey doesn't coach his scumbuddies, that's exactly what kpaca, also a scumbuddy, nailed him for in Seasons. Enjoy, meta argument haters.)
Again, Ancient Aliens stuff here. You're really going to hang the town game on weak tells like this? The case on you, as I presented, was way better than the case on Caex. It's very easy to see a malicious Xyre behind a push to claim with a random vote on the wagon. It's equally easy to see Caex as a new player who doesn't know he's basically talking in circles.
And to imply DRey would even need to coach me is kind of insulting.
This is a little thing, but it keeps bugging me. What kind of crazy goon thinks of himself in the third person?
But it goes to mindset. In reference to Zionite's argument in 102, either way is "correct" in the sense of being grammatical, but he refers to himself in the third person because he doesn't want to come across as staging a personal defense when he's making a general point. But he's talking about someone voting for him! Of course the matter is personal. And referring to yourself in a non-first person is weird unless you're the Queen or a narcissist, neither of which Zionite is. (I think.)
I argue the third person mindset is a scum tell. This is clearer when we're looking at his point w/r/t CropCircles, rather than Caex, notwithstanding his effort to change the topic in 102.
As I previously noted, in 82, when defending his vote for CropCircles, Zionite refers to that vote as "the 3rd vote on a single target in a mini". Who's the single target? Zionite. Why not just say "the 3rd vote on me"? Because that would be OMGUS.
I posit a scum is far more likely than a townie to employ unusual grammatical constructions for the purpose of avoiding charges of OMGUS. Likewise, w/r/t the third person construction in 102, Zionite doesn't want to appear to be defensive. Both of these are important indications that Zionite's mindset is not normal.
Bottom line: Zionite's definitely scum. And DRey's very likely his scum buddy.
The 3rd person thing has to do with presentation. I've been doing some reading about arguments and their pitfalls to improve my mafia performance. If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to keep my posts neater lately with lots of bells and whistles. This is one of those features. Yeah, I was definitely avoiding the OMGUS thing, but not from a scum motivation. It's because I want to show the general tell: a 3rd, supposedly "random", vote in a mini is a good start to go off of, completely disregarding the effect it has on me. OMGUS votes are usually reaction votes to justified attacks; instead of responding appropriately, they attack back. I didn't think that was applicable here as CC's vote wasn't justified.
Also, the "What kind of crazy goon..." thing is another logic abuse I learned about where you paint someone as ridiculous to make them less credible. Very easy to spot, especially when you open with it. It's not logically right or wrong, but the reader conjures up an image that puts the opponent in a negative light without relying on factual information.
Is this whole "making me look like a scumbag" thing compulsive for you? You can't say I'm wrong, I must be fake too.
and yet you use it to conclude I don't have a town mindset. Don't you think that's a bit like playing with a few cards missing from the deck? If you weren't sure, why not just ask what my reasons were instead of soliciting an unnecessary claim? It's an anti-town action at best.
How is not trusting the person you think is scum to give their honest reasoning anti-town?
You're strawmanning my argument here, and using rhetoric ("sliming") instead of logic to try to bolster your rebuttal.
1) How was that argument a strawman? Please explain in detail.
2) Explain how your use of biased rhetoric there was not "sliming". (Don't say the rhetoric wasn't biased. "Ignored" implies intention - that is, it implies I deliberately left out the "correct" choice, with malicious intent. Any other interpretation of that word choice is wrong.)
The point is that you left out a very possible option that led to your conclusion that I don't have a town mindset. Debating whether or not other players saw that doesn't change the fact that you decided to push me to claim range instead of simply asking for clarification. You deliberately used an incomplete list to justify voting me.
And that's where we get to my intention again. As previously noted, that directly contradicts my entire meaning in that section - I indicated rather clearly that I didn't know the correct reason, and was just spitballing. Hence why all the possibilities that sprang to mind were all prefaced by "maybe". Yeesh.
You got kind of clip-happy here so you missed my explanation of how it's a strawman. It starts with "The point is..."
Basically, if you're going to vote for someone, it should be couched in something solid. Your list, by your own words, was just spitballing. Yet you found spitballing solid enough to push for a vote, and by extension, a claim. Whether it was deliberate or not doesn't change that you used it as leverage for a vote. One intention is scummy and the other is reckless.
You're dodging my argument again. Why is it that you think a claim is justified when I have a supposedly "random" vote on me still? It's a complete contradiction. You can't say that CC's vote is random and say I should claim at the same time, because excluding the random vote I'd still be outside claim range.
And YOU'RE putting words in my mouth again. I've specifically said I don't stand on principle. I don't care if CC's vote was random or not - I want to see you claim, now, because I think you're scum and I'm feeling impatient. What's "justified" never was part of the conversation.
Much in the same way I don't believe in RVS, I also don't believe in "claim ranges", especially because people wield them like gospel. Claim ranges exist only to ensure claims don't occur too frequently, spilling a lot of unnecessary information.
I want you to claim because you're scum. You're free to ignore me. That's how the game really works - I can't compel you to claim even with five votes you deem legitimate. Hell, you're free to ignore me even when the rope's being fitted, too. I won't take it personally.
Claim ranges also exist to protect town from having to claim unnecessarily. The fact that you don't really care if a claim is justified or not as long as you get your information is quite reckless and hurts your team if you're town, which is why I don't like this reasoning at all.
The loaded words you're passing off as logic ("strategic idiot") doesn't hold water; it doesn't matter whether you're an idiot or not, you're still presenting faulty reasoning to justify voting me at a most convenient time for scum. What's even more interesting is that you're grasping for straws, trying to present self meta as legitimate proof. The over-confidence of "Sit down. Your done." attempts to use your (constructed) authority to leverage a self-meta argument that is absurd, even by vanilla Mafia standards. You even know that these are never accepted as legitimate. I can only assume it's your anger that prompted you to grasp at straws like you did here.
Hey, you know what's interesting? None of the above actually responds to my argument!
Zionite waves it away by trying to chip away at my rhetorical style, and deflects my argument ("it doesn't matter whether...") to make the same tired point about his conception of my pressure on him.
He doesn't say a damn thing about my key point, which is that his logic is ass-backwards - he's trying in that original post to argue I'm simultaneously playing passive and active scum. A contradiction in terms, and yet he completely ignores that point.
Why? Because he knows it's nonsense and figures I'll flinch if he keeps deploying biased cliches like "grasping at straws" and "strawman". He even tries using my confidence and frustration with him as weapons against me - as a means of ignoring my argument! It's adorable, in a way.
I like how you ***** at me for being condescending but have no qualms doing it yourself.
You think you're doing this passive thing but I just don't read it that way. I think it's only active. I'm not arguing this simultaneous dance you seem to be getting from me. Your conclusion is wrong.
Your 2) presented here is using circular logic: "I'm asking you for a claim because I want a claim." Your conclusion is begging the question. Instead of saying what you want a claim for, you simply say you want a claim. Sorry, that doesn't fly. And no, I'm not going to claim when there is clearly Xyre-scum on the wagon.
Again, just because you know how to put wikipedia links in your post doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
(For that matter, I don't think you understand what begging the question is. Begging the question is different from circular logic - they're related, but they aren't the same. Begging the question is when you choose a flawed premise that directly proves the conclusion you want to reach. And the above argument ain't begging the question, it's circular logic. If you're going to lie, at least lie correctly.)
It isn't circular logic, either, because my justification for asking for your claim isn't just that I want your claim - that'd be a stupid thing for me to say. No, I want your claim because I think you're scum. I'm asking for your claim because I want your claim because I think you're scum, is the full piece.
And it's cute that you use your suspicion of me along with the CC feint to beg off claiming. By that logic, nobody would ever have to claim if they felt a twitch of OMGUS in their bones.
You're quite an arrogant piece, you know that?
It never crosses your mind that hey, you might be wrong? Your case doesn't support a justification for me to claim, otherwise there would be more support for it. Same goes for me and my case; if more people thought it was good, then I'd sure as hell push for a claim from you too. But the difference here is that I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm always right, even if my logic is sound.
Your meta tells for Caex are great and all, but they don't do anything for the rest of us to determine Caex's alignment. They are essentially null unless "confidence" is a metric we can actually use. Care to submit anything about Caex using evidence from this game?
Why don't you give me a good reason why my meta arguments are unsound? I have a pretty good track record with this thing, as Ataghan indicates. Besides, Caex is a subject of little importance to me right now, when I'm busy dealing with your mountains of rhetorical arguments and my other two suspects besides. I'm not going to do your job for you when I don't care.
A) It's equally strange to not try to push the game forward at all, even in the first 100 posts of the game. How is baiting reactions to get a read considered anti-town at this point of the game?
Because baiting reactions from a player who isn't here is a waste of time, one, and baiting reactions from a joke vote is doubly so, two.
B) Why are you again ignoring the reference CC made about RVS being over? There's nothing personal about it; it was an odd post that deserved pressure, especially at the end of RVS when there isn't a lot to go on. It doesn't matter whether the vote was on me; what matters is that the post acknowledges the ending of RVS while refusing to participate in it. To take this further, why would scum-Zionite single out CC as a target when there are plenty of other OMGUS opportunities available?
Because he's the easiest one. Personally, if I were in your position, I'd be going after DRey, since his play is just godawful even out of the context of you. Hence my surprise that you haven't.
C) This is the fallacy of composition/division. Even assuming you're correct about either/both A and B, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm scum. You gloss over this part of your explanation by simply saying it "makes more sense", but to us it doesn't.
More wikipedia. Sigh. You're misusing this one, too. Obviously I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt you're scum. All arguments are probabilistic in mafia. But even aside from that, fallacy of composition is a "forest for the trees" fallacy, which doesn't apply here. I'm using your actions to point to your likely mindset to get some sense of your scumminess. A fallacy of composition would be more like saying "if someone claims, we'll better know if he/she is scum, so everyone should claim so we better know if each of them is scum."
I'm not misusing all of these, but you might be right here. Oh well, I'm still learning.
Regardless, I think meta arguments in general should play only as a compliment to current-game evidence. You rely on them as your primary source, and I don't dig it regardless of your track record. I've already addressed your response to A) (couldn't know it was going to be a dead pressure vote, or a joke).
For posterity, I'll address your points anyway. I didn't have the need for a scapegoat at this point in the game, which I don't even think you're using this term correctly; how am I mis-attributing blame here when CC is the sole player responsible for CC's actions? I think you mean to say I needed misdirection, but even this doesn't make sense unless you can show that CC's vote was random, and that's not possible without CC himself. Assuming you still think that my vote on CC was not in the interest of finding scum, how do you explain my vote as not trying to bait a reaction? Isn't that exactly how to get out of RVS and into the meat of Day 1?
You're missing the point. OMGUS is usually a scapegoating action. I assume you know what a scapegoat is, right? After the Biblical sacrificial goat who carried the sins of the Israelites? Ergo, a metaphor for someone onto whom someone else sloughs their blameworthiness, in the case of mafia. I postulate you tried to start a case on CropCircles to divert attention from yourself. (And then of course CC shows up to save me the trouble of reiterating that his vote was indeed random.)
Besides, as you yourself said, we were supposedly out of RVS at that point, so there was no need to bait a response from CropCircles! We had plenty to talk about without you stretching CC's meaning to slam him.
D) I never said that CC posting only one time was a tell either way. I only analyzed the limited content I was given in the context of the posts before it. CC's meta is irrelevant here.
Then you must be the most myopic person I've met. You're telling me you gave no mind to the fact that CC never posted again after your supposed "pressure" vote? Or what, did you think he was trying to lurk it out? Because the fact that you never accused him of lurking seems to suggest otherwise.
There's a contradiction here. If you think I should have known CC wouldn't be around to react and thus should have picked a better target, why would I think attacking a target who isn't here would be a sufficient diversion? I would have known that no response would come from it and it would make me look bad, and thus picked a different scapegoat. In either case, you're wrong. I wasn't trying to scapegoat CC, I just wanted to see more from him.
Thanks for framing up your meta and guiding the discussion, but the detour isn't necessary. There's plenty of content here to hang you.
What content? You've incorrectly cited three different wikipedia pages, you've butchered rhetorical analysis, and generally failed to respond to half my points. I just spent an hour dealing with this mess, and all that time the one thought in my head was "I'm wasting my life telling a guy on the internet what a scapegoat is."
Respond to my true arguments, and my case, or hush up. If your next post is just like this one, I'm not going to sacrifice yet another hour responding.
Well, you can't blame me for trying. I thought it was pretty damn good. And I spent longer than you on it, so :p.
Regardless, I'm not interested in going after Caex at the moment since I'm now convinced Zionite is where we should be focused. Vote Zionite. Beyond Xyre's pretty compelling case, Zionite's latest post didn't do him any favours. This in particular...
With that kind of accuracy, what wouldn't you ask of caught scum? Why, you could ask anything you need to in order to show the town your amazing scum hunting skills. But why bother when you already know who's scum, right?
feels pretty desperate and almost reads like a confession to me.
His response to Caex feels fake, and too forgiving. I'm going to go out on a limb and call these two scum buddies.
This is so far the only reason you've given for suspecting me, and while it lies countered with no rebuttal from you, you still maintain that I'm scum. Again, I doubt you're doing this on purpose, but it's severely frustrating when you're making claims but refuse to back them up with your own evidence, or even take into account responses to others' evidence you've barned.
But anyway, Zionite, if you could answer the question I asked you in this post, that would surely be appreciated.
I have trouble with the fact that, out of all the very good content I've put up for you to analyze, the only point you present to justify the vote for me is where I take a very sarcastic tone (denoted by the only real sarcasm tag, the eye roll). Either you didn't understand that since you clipped it, or you decided it was irrelevant, which it isn't. I feel like if you legitimately think I'm scum then you should have better reasons to back up that claim by this point. You don't even explain why it's desperate and reads like a confession to you; you simply state that it does. Furthermore, you completely avoid specifying what about Xyre's case is compelling to you. This is a bad vote, and moves you up a few notches on my suspect list.
You are somewhat correct that I was too forgiving in my response to Caex, and reading over it I can see how you'd get that impression. At the time I was more focused on Xyre as a target and didn't want to split my focus, and there was some hesitation due to my concerns about Caex's experience level. The points against Caex just weren't as good to me as the points against Xyre. I don't know whether Caex was intentionally abusing logical fallacies, and his indignation when accused of it told me I could always press him more later. And "later" is coming soon.
Zionite, why did you reply back with "my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him" instead of "my CC vote was because I think he's scum"? Clearly you were reading that into your analysis of his jump onto your wagon. Why wasn't that your first thought when replying now?
I never seriously entertained the idea of lynching CC, nor actually suspected him for his single post. The vote was for pressure, so I said so. I said his post was scummy but that doesn't mean that I suspect him or want him lynched. You can't vote someone and say "Ha! That's for pressure!" and expect the same reaction. That's why I gave up the ghost about my vote; The pressure didn't work and there was no point in acting for the rest of the crowd.
I'm not feeling as strongly about it as I was yesterday and a few other players have expressed disinterest in the whole thing...
Zionite, are the two bolded bits here related?
Yes, but independent as well. What I gathered from reactions to the debate is that my points weren't as concrete as I thought they were, even though I couched them in very easy to understand explanations. Reading over Xyre's response also gives me a different impression than the posts he made that sparked my case. And if I had made better arguments, it would have garnered a more positive response. There comes a time when you have to take off the blinders and listen to the team, and given that this is my first serious suspect of Day 1, this is probably one of those times. I've made too many games worse by keeping the blinders on and being stubborn (See: Ozone Underground, and every other game where I end up dead Day 1).
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
Ya'll are going to feel awfully stupid if this nonsense keeps up.
I'm not sure why people aren't seeing what I'm seeing with Stardust. He's had a hyper-defensive mindset right from the start of the game.
When I said I'd vote him without giving a reason, his response was to say "I'm always scummy and I'll probably scumslip, but ignore that".
When I call him for it he accuses me of OMGUS, handwaving, trying to lynch a newbie, and that I should know better based on his non-existent meta. He's shotgunning attacks at me to get something to stick.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
Not only that, but again, I wanted to analyze the first wagon of the game: my own. The first wagon is a treasure trove of content, and kpaca was not a participant so it didn't make sense to randomly charge at him with a wooden stick.
But if DRey's post and the subsequent votes on it were serious enough to end RVS, why aren't they serious enough to examine?
But I thought DRey's gambit was very pro-town; scum aren't looking to stick their neck out there when it's so easy to "vote the mod lol" and be good to go. As far as the first 50 posts go, that's good town stuff. His vote on you was less so, but that's another topic altogether.
But that implies the player is playing rationally. Have you ever played with DRey before? If so, you'd know he's not a normal player. You can't apply a generic "best play" mindset to his play as scum.
Hence why I cite his early game in Seasons - indeed, I originally mistook a post he made (asking a lot of questions) for genuine scumhunting because I made this mistake myself. Not making that mistake again.
I switched from interacting to campaigning, so naturally I'll be accusatory and pounce on what I have. This isn't because I'm scum; it's because I went into a scum-catching mode. I don't think "well maybe I'm wrong but it looks like this might be deliberate" sounds very compelling. But I did mention the false dilemma earlier (you quoted it here), but I didn't explain/link it. Simply put, I just don't think this shift is as scummy as you make it out to be. I had just decided to case you since DRey expressed interest in my points and wanted to see if anyone else agreed.
So explain to me the order of events. You make the original post - pretty neutral in demeanor. DRey posts, says he suspects Caex and me. You decide that means there's some value of pursuing it, so you crank up the heat? That's the chain of events? Because it feels like that sharp rise in pressure isn't represented in the tone of the original post.
And if the normal process of voting someone is interacting to deciding to campaigning (that's a reasonable chain, right?), then that means you made your decision based on DRey's post. And DRey didn't post any new evidence or interpretation, he just said he suspected me. You followed him. That doesn't seem weird to you?
You're really going to hang the town game on weak tells like this?
Another wording thing.
The case on you, as I presented, was way better than the case on Caex. It's very easy to see a malicious Xyre behind a push to claim with a random vote on the wagon. It's equally easy to see Caex as a new player who doesn't know he's basically talking in circles.
Right, but my point is before DRey posted, it wasn't a case, it was a series of observations apropos of nothing and with no association to guilt. You didn't make the true case until after he said he suspected me.
And as we both agree you aren't the kind of person who'd follow DRey, I'm wondering why his opinion nonetheless played such a role.
And to imply DRey would even need to coach me is kind of insulting.
Coaching doesn't imply a need, it just implies something someone else believes could be improved. (And I'd argue DRey is the kind of person who'd read need into someone else when they aren't actually in need.) And, town or scum, it's pretty clear you're personally invested in this whole thing.
It's because I want to show the general tell: a 3rd, supposedly "random", vote in a mini is a good start to go off of, completely disregarding the effect it has on me.
As someone who's tried proving such a relation between a particular voting pattern and scum (I tried proving that a certain number of scum would vote in the first half of each wagon), trust me, there's no pattern to those primes.
Also, the "What kind of crazy goon..." thing is another logic abuse I learned about where you paint someone as ridiculous to make them less credible. Very easy to spot, especially when you open with it. It's not logically right or wrong, but the reader conjures up an image that puts the opponent in a negative light without relying on factual information.
I'm not calling you a crazy goon, Zionite! What I'm saying by that is this: if you were to see someone on the street talking about himself in the third person, you'd think "That guy is a crazy goon!" Clearly you are not a crazy goon; hence the implication that there's more to this story. Because there is one explanation for talking about yourself in the third person: dissociation. So why would one dissociate as town? Why would one dissociate as scum? Which makes more sense/is more likely? etc.
Your efforts to learn more about argumentation do explain all the wikipedia pages. I applaud your efforts, errors notwithstanding.
You got kind of clip-happy here so you missed my explanation of how it's a strawman. It starts with "The point is..."
etc. I cut because I no longer think this matters. We were arguing this point from different directions. But in the interest of fairness: if memory serves, I spitballed a list to try to explain suspicious behavior. The behavior was suspicious independent of the motivation, but I always try to at least keep the mindset in mind, even when it's ultimately inscrutable.
To use a metaphor: you see a guy skulking around in a public place, you don't know WHY he's skulking around, but you have a pretty good sense it's something not-good. You might speculate at why he's skulking around, but no matter what you postulate, you'll (fairly) look at that guy and say "that guy is suspicious".
Claim ranges also exist to protect town from having to claim unnecessarily. The fact that you don't really care if a claim is justified or not as long as you get your information is quite reckless and hurts your team if you're town, which is why I don't like this reasoning at all.
You keep saying people "having to claim". Nobody has to do anything in this game. Hell, you only have to post at all because the mod gets mad and people get suspicious. Claim ranges only exist as a service secondary to a lynch - the idea being that putting a player two votes away from a lynch is a pretty strong indication that that player could be lynched, and you should stop to get their claim to see if they're worth keeping alive/not worth lynching. (Two votes because that avoids hammers.) It's a matter of procedure more than actual game-sense.
I'd argue my supposed recklessness is less damaging than hanging onto tired "traditions" like RVS and claim ranges for dear life without considering why they exist in the first place. But that's a debate for another thread.
I like how you ***** at me for being condescending but have no qualms doing it yourself.
You think you're doing this passive thing but I just don't read it that way. I think it's only active. I'm not arguing this simultaneous dance you seem to be getting from me. Your conclusion is wrong.
Was I being condescending? Doesn't read that way to me. For one, that piece was directed at everyone else, not at you. For another, was I wrong in saying you didn't respond to my point?
And let's be clear: I'm using your words here, not mine! I don't think I was playing the passive thing, but you said I was sticking my head out to see if it got whacked off - which is the opposite of the aggressive play you and I agree I've been on. So why did you make that argument - and in a post where you fronted the aforementioned opposite point as well, no less? Because my key argument was that the logic of that post represents you trying to pull down any way to call my behavior "scum X", regardless of truth.
You're quite an arrogant piece, you know that?
Okay, THERE I agree I'm being condescending, but I'm not wrong on the wikipedia links.
It never crosses your mind that hey, you might be wrong? Your case doesn't support a justification for me to claim, otherwise there would be more support for it. Same goes for me and my case; if more people thought it was good, then I'd sure as hell push for a claim from you too. But the difference here is that I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm always right, even if my logic is sound.
There were five people on you for a brief moment, before DRey whipped his vote off almost without comment. That suggests there were people who agreed you were scummy.
Plus, there's this: usually townies in my experience don't argue "you're wrong because not enough people were voting for me" - they KNOW I'm wrong, they don't need to reverse argumentum ad populum fallacies to argue such.
And that's the difference between you and me. I will fight you to the grave to prove you wrong, but I sure as hell won't care what other people think about me, either. (Except to get angry at them for listening to your erroneous logic.) And I SURE as hell won't measure the validity of my wagon by the number of people who agree with it. So why are you, if you're a townie? Because you're angry with me for being a smug prick and want to cut me down by showing I'm not generating quite the buzz my behavior would suggest?
Or are you really scum and thus fronting this argument because you're always keeping an eye on the number of people voting for you?
Regardless, I think meta arguments in general should play only as a compliment to current-game evidence. You rely on them as your primary source, and I don't dig it regardless of your track record. I've already addressed your response to A) (couldn't know it was going to be a dead pressure vote, or a joke).
And these aren't primarily meta arguments, either. (Well, the one about kpaca is, but it's kpaca - you gotta go with what you know.) Guess how many of your games I can recall in defense of my case? Would you guess "none"?
And the only two games with DRey that come to mind are Seasons and Ataghan, which nicely complement each other because he was scum in the first and town in the second. But DRey's a special case anyway - a player whose behavior is dramatically different from the norm, and thus worthy of being judged on his own merits. (See also Wrath_of_DoG, whom I stone-cold pegged in Seasons because he has a very distinct town/scum meta.)
There's a contradiction here. If you think I should have known CC wouldn't be around to react and thus should have picked a better target, why would I think attacking a target who isn't here would be a sufficient diversion? I would have known that no response would come from it and it would make me look bad, and thus picked a different scapegoat. In either case, you're wrong. I wasn't trying to scapegoat CC, I just wanted to see more from him.
I don't think you knew he wouldn't show up, but you did take advantage when he didn't - the fact that it didn't work is incidental to your intentions before the fact.
For that matter, why pressure CC of all people? He's not the only person who's made almost no posts. There were several players who had also posted no content up to that point. No, you picked CC because he voted you.
So why place such importance on your personal position in the matter? That's the part that's bugging me. All these explanations - I was analyzing my own wagon, he shouldn't have made a joke outside the supposed RVS, etc. - feel secondary to the fact that you voted a guy, ultimately, for voting for you. And seeing as I know you're a good enough player to not vote someone because you're taking their vote personally, I can't help but wonder why.
That, and this is a subpoint to my true feeling that you picked CC over DRey, the better case, because of an ulterior motive. But apparently you don't like my conspiratorial thinking, so I'll revisit this after one of you is dead.
Ya'll are going to feel awfully stupid if this nonsense keeps up.
I'm not sure why people aren't seeing what I'm seeing with Stardust. He's had a hyper-defensive mindset right from the start of the game.
When I said I'd vote him without giving a reason, his response was to say "I'm always scummy and I'll probably scumslip, but ignore that".
When I call him for it he accuses me of OMGUS, handwaving, trying to lynch a newbie, and that I should know better based on his non-existent meta. He's shotgunning attacks at me to get something to stick.
More votes on Stardust, please.
I definitely see what you see on Stardust since my response to him in my last post. But I'm not ready to pursue that one yet. Your first sentence here feels pretty genuine if I'm right about my read on you.
@Zionite: Please explain where I was "abusing logical fallacies". Because I have no clue what you're talking about.
I've posted them here. Basically I don't like how you passed DRey's point against me as your own without even reading my response to said point, and then further pushed it and STILL haven't read my response. It's like you're not even paying attention to things that directly involve you.
Not only that, but again, I wanted to analyze the first wagon of the game: my own. The first wagon is a treasure trove of content, and kpaca was not a participant so it didn't make sense to randomly charge at him with a wooden stick.
But if DRey's post and the subsequent votes on it were serious enough to end RVS, why aren't they serious enough to examine?
I don't know what "votes on it" is referring to. But those post are pro-town for already explained reasons, so I didn't really need to examine them. It wasn't solely DRey's post that ended RVS, but my response to it. I've noted that in my early posts as well (something to the effect that engaging with it seriously ends RVS).
But I thought DRey's gambit was very pro-town; scum aren't looking to stick their neck out there when it's so easy to "vote the mod lol" and be good to go. As far as the first 50 posts go, that's good town stuff. His vote on you was less so, but that's another topic altogether.
But that implies the player is playing rationally. Have you ever played with DRey before? If so, you'd know he's not a normal player. You can't apply a generic "best play" mindset to his play as scum.
Hence why I cite his early game in Seasons - indeed, I originally mistook a post he made (asking a lot of questions) for genuine scumhunting because I made this mistake myself. Not making that mistake again.
Again, I don't trump current game reads with meta. It may be right and a great companion to a case, but it doesn't supersede what my current read is. Just because he may not play optimally doesn't mean I should delve into WIFOM and meta to justify his post as scummy. That being said, I have to reiterate that his jump on your wagon was probably the scummiest post of the game.
I switched from interacting to campaigning, so naturally I'll be accusatory and pounce on what I have. This isn't because I'm scum; it's because I went into a scum-catching mode. I don't think "well maybe I'm wrong but it looks like this might be deliberate" sounds very compelling. But I did mention the false dilemma earlier (you quoted it here), but I didn't explain/link it. Simply put, I just don't think this shift is as scummy as you make it out to be. I had just decided to case you since DRey expressed interest in my points and wanted to see if anyone else agreed.
So explain to me the order of events. You make the original post - pretty neutral in demeanor. DRey posts, says he suspects Caex and me. You decide that means there's some value of pursuing it, so you crank up the heat? That's the chain of events? Because it feels like that sharp rise in pressure isn't represented in the tone of the original post.
And if the normal process of voting someone is interacting to deciding to campaigning (that's a reasonable chain, right?), then that means you made your decision based on DRey's post. And DRey didn't post any new evidence or interpretation, he just said he suspected me. You followed him. That doesn't seem weird to you?
It's more like I was entertaining the idea of casing you since I had a foundation to work with, and DRey's response confirmed my thinking, so I went through with it. Again, I'm not going to be aggressive unless I have the intention of spending 2-3 hours explaining myself and I have to feel good about the case to do that. DRey's response made me feel good about it so I followed through.
And to imply DRey would even need to coach me is kind of insulting.
Coaching doesn't imply a need, it just implies something someone else believes could be improved. (And I'd argue DRey is the kind of person who'd read need into someone else when they aren't actually in need.) And, town or scum, it's pretty clear you're personally invested in this whole thing.
I'm as invested as anyone who spends a significant amount of time trying to convince others that he's right. But this coaching point of yours is only relevant if you have one of us as scum, and as you acknowledge you don't have that currently. So keep it noted if you think it's necessary.
Also, the "What kind of crazy goon..." thing is another logic abuse I learned about where you paint someone as ridiculous to make them less credible. Very easy to spot, especially when you open with it. It's not logically right or wrong, but the reader conjures up an image that puts the opponent in a negative light without relying on factual information.
I'm not calling you a crazy goon, Zionite! What I'm saying by that is this: if you were to see someone on the street talking about himself in the third person, you'd think "That guy is a crazy goon!" Clearly you are not a crazy goon; hence the implication that there's more to this story. Because there is one explanation for talking about yourself in the third person: dissociation. So why would one dissociate as town? Why would one dissociate as scum? Which makes more sense/is more likely? etc.
Your efforts to learn more about argumentation do explain all the wikipedia pages. I applaud your efforts, errors notwithstanding.
The one I was thinking about, which I just looked up, is the abusive analogy. Basically it's just the introduction of additional unargued information to influence eventual judgment. The book is here. Pretty cheap and you can read it on kindle. Highly recommend it even though a portion is only applicable to speech.
But i see what you're saying. I wasn't trying to dissociate myself to hide the OMGUS point, but to remove it from the equation since it didn't fit the logical course. I'm trying to streamline these things without all the side-stops explaining why this or that isn't relevant since it was already long enough without scenic detours. And it sounds pretty silly to preemptively explain why something isn't OMGUS.
You got kind of clip-happy here so you missed my explanation of how it's a strawman. It starts with "The point is..."
etc. I cut because I no longer think this matters. We were arguing this point from different directions. But in the interest of fairness: if memory serves, I spitballed a list to try to explain suspicious behavior. The behavior was suspicious independent of the motivation, but I always try to at least keep the mindset in mind, even when it's ultimately inscrutable.
To use a metaphor: you see a guy skulking around in a public place, you don't know WHY he's skulking around, but you have a pretty good sense it's something not-good. You might speculate at why he's skulking around, but no matter what you postulate, you'll (fairly) look at that guy and say "that guy is suspicious".
Yeah, but there's always other options that you may not have considered, especially if you have a prejudice against the suspicious guy. You could just ask the guy, "hey, what's with the skulking around?" and get an answer worth basing your judgement on. But you don't just immediately call the police and tackle the guy, which is what calling for a claim feels like.
Claim ranges also exist to protect town from having to claim unnecessarily. The fact that you don't really care if a claim is justified or not as long as you get your information is quite reckless and hurts your team if you're town, which is why I don't like this reasoning at all.
You keep saying people "having to claim". Nobody has to do anything in this game. Hell, you only have to post at all because the mod gets mad and people get suspicious. Claim ranges only exist as a service secondary to a lynch - the idea being that putting a player two votes away from a lynch is a pretty strong indication that that player could be lynched, and you should stop to get their claim to see if they're worth keeping alive/not worth lynching. (Two votes because that avoids hammers.) It's a matter of procedure more than actual game-sense.
I'd argue my supposed recklessness is less damaging than hanging onto tired "traditions" like RVS and claim ranges for dear life without considering why they exist in the first place. But that's a debate for another thread.
I'm not against throwing tradition out the window, because tradition in itself is simply a justification for carrying on a ritual with no other logical basis. But I think there is strategical value in following procedure in Mafia because it gives structure to something otherwise unwieldy. It provides a reason for questioning players who may have decided to quick lynch another player before a claim was heard, protection for PRs, and generates discussion from claim reactions. It's a useful convention in many ways.
It never crosses your mind that hey, you might be wrong? Your case doesn't support a justification for me to claim, otherwise there would be more support for it. Same goes for me and my case; if more people thought it was good, then I'd sure as hell push for a claim from you too. But the difference here is that I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm always right, even if my logic is sound.
There were five people on you for a brief moment, before DRey whipped his vote off almost without comment. That suggests there were people who agreed you were scummy.
Plus, there's this: usually townies in my experience don't argue "you're wrong because not enough people were voting for me" - they KNOW I'm wrong, they don't need to reverse argumentum ad populum fallacies to argue such.
And that's the difference between you and me. I will fight you to the grave to prove you wrong, but I sure as hell won't care what other people think about me, either. (Except to get angry at them for listening to your erroneous logic.) And I SURE as hell won't measure the validity of my wagon by the number of people who agree with it. So why are you, if you're a townie? Because you're angry with me for being a smug prick and want to cut me down by showing I'm not generating quite the buzz my behavior would suggest?
Or are you really scum and thus fronting this argument because you're always keeping an eye on the number of people voting for you?
Yeah, but if DRey is scum to you and CC's vote is random, that's only 3 possible town votes including your own, which isn't very much and certainly isn't in claim range.
You got me on the ad populum, but I feel like that's one of those fallacies you just have to deal with in Mafia. A case is only as strong as it's wagon because we have votes as a core mechanic. If we completely threw out ad populum, no one would ever get lynched. We always consider what's going on with the masses, not only in-game but in the whole subforum. Hell, we're still electing presidents by popular vote when no one knows a damn thing about what they stand for. It's a systemic fallacy to be aware of instead of avoiding.
I've ended many a game with a gaping mouth, full of regret that I should've listened to my team because of how terribly misguided I was. It's made me a little more humble and patient with my games and created a thirst for improvement all around. So no, I'm not arrogant enough to die with my ideas anymore because I'd rather keep playing. Again, Ozone is a good example of this. I tried to force the neutral role as pro-town even though it was impossible, pushed a futile lynch on the host even though it was fruitless, and fought to the death for my misguided ideas, and it always seems to be Day 1 when I do **** like this. It's because I'm wrong and refuse to admit it, and it's simply not as fun as living to Day 2. So I'm trying to be a little less arrogant recently.
There's a contradiction here. If you think I should have known CC wouldn't be around to react and thus should have picked a better target, why would I think attacking a target who isn't here would be a sufficient diversion? I would have known that no response would come from it and it would make me look bad, and thus picked a different scapegoat. In either case, you're wrong. I wasn't trying to scapegoat CC, I just wanted to see more from him.
I don't think you knew he wouldn't show up, but you did take advantage when he didn't - the fact that it didn't work is incidental to your intentions before the fact.
For that matter, why pressure CC of all people? He's not the only person who's made almost no posts. There were several players who had also posted no content up to that point. No, you picked CC because he voted you.
So why place such importance on your personal position in the matter? That's the part that's bugging me. All these explanations - I was analyzing my own wagon, he shouldn't have made a joke outside the supposed RVS, etc. - feel secondary to the fact that you voted a guy, ultimately, for voting for you. And seeing as I know you're a good enough player to not vote someone because you're taking their vote personally, I can't help but wonder why.
That, and this is a subpoint to my true feeling that you picked CC over DRey, the better case, because of an ulterior motive. But apparently you don't like my conspiratorial thinking, so I'll revisit this after one of you is dead.
I made a point to keep the focus on my wagon. For one, its a wagon on a townie. You don't know that (I think), but I do. There's a lot of value in knowing the alignment of the target of a wagon, which is why analyzing Day 1 lynches is so valuable Day 2. Focusing on someone else not on my wagon with no content would be a clear avoidance of being accused of OMGUS and altogether a scapegoat with no benefit to me whatsoever, and would more likely lack a worthy response. And again, we just simply disagree on DRey's earlier posts, but not the later ones.
After I get a response from Caex I'll be revising my top 3 and going from there.
I have trouble with the fact that, out of all the very good content I've put up for you to analyze...
I sometimes do massive posts, but I'm certainly not going to do one amid a bunch of other massive posts. More of that is not what the game needed. I had stated reasoning to suspect you before, you didn't answer those questions, then I didn't like your post. I picked out the two things I saw as most scummy that Xyre hadn't addressed because we don't need three players filling the game up with words. There was plenty there to justify my vote.
...the only point you present to justify the vote for me is where I take a very sarcastic tone (denoted by the only real sarcasm tag, the eye roll). Either you didn't understand that since you clipped it, or you decided it was irrelevant, which it isn't. I feel like if you legitimately think I'm scum then you should have better reasons to back up that claim by this point. You don't even explain why it's desperate and reads like a confession to you; you simply state that it does. Furthermore, you completely avoid specifying what about Xyre's case is compelling to you. This is a bad vote, and moves you up a few notches on my suspect list.
I know it was sarcastic. Let me see if I can explain this... I know it was sarcastic, but it was detailed enough that I feel like a townie wouldn't have gone to that depth to make a joke. Detailed is maybe not the right word... odd maybe? I don't think a townie would have even thought about that stuff, so I see it as your actual thought process masked as sarcasm.
You are somewhat correct that I was too forgiving in my response to Caex, and reading over it I can see how you'd get that impression. At the time I was more focused on Xyre as a target and didn't want to split my focus, and there was some hesitation due to my concerns about Caex's experience level. The points against Caex just weren't as good to me as the points against Xyre. I don't know whether Caex was intentionally abusing logical fallacies, and his indignation when accused of it told me I could always press him more later. And "later" is coming soon.
I just don't get this. Again you're pushing against a target only once it suits you, but this is even worse since you'd been calling him town up to this point. If you thought it was scummy and intented to come back to it, you would have said so instead of insisting Caex was town despite the bad stuff you pointed out. It just doesn't fit a town's mindset to excuse that if he's actually a suspect.
Zionite, why did you reply back with "my CC vote was for pressure to coax some content out of him" instead of "my CC vote was because I think he's scum"? Clearly you were reading that into your analysis of his jump onto your wagon. Why wasn't that your first thought when replying now?
I never seriously entertained the idea of lynching CC, nor actually suspected him for his single post. The vote was for pressure, so I said so. I said his post was scummy but that doesn't mean that I suspect him or want him lynched. You can't vote someone and say "Ha! That's for pressure!" and expect the same reaction. That's why I gave up the ghost about my vote; The pressure didn't work and there was no point in acting for the rest of the crowd.
I'm not feeling as strongly about it as I was yesterday and a few other players have expressed disinterest in the whole thing...
Zionite, are the two bolded bits here related?
Yes, but independent as well. What I gathered from reactions to the debate is that my points weren't as concrete as I thought they were, even though I couched them in very easy to understand explanations. Reading over Xyre's response also gives me a different impression than the posts he made that sparked my case. And if I had made better arguments, it would have garnered a more positive response. There comes a time when you have to take off the blinders and listen to the team, and given that this is my first serious suspect of Day 1, this is probably one of those times. I've made too many games worse by keeping the blinders on and being stubborn (See: Ozone Underground, and every other game where I end up dead Day 1).
Okay, that was a reasonable explanation. Could still be explained by scum jumping to the more popular wagon, but at least you've shown that there can be a town motivation too.
kpaca, I'd forgotten that Wessel unvoted Zionite too. Given that the two "shifty" people (Wessel and DRey) jumped off as soon as Xyre jumped on, how does that change your read of Zionite's wagon?
I find it interesting that you came to exactly the opposite conclusion as me, since Zionite seems to be the one imploding as far as I'm concerned. Please explain your read here, DRey.
Reading through again, I'm convinced that Caex is scum and Zionite is bussing him. DRey as the third makes this all work quite nicely! Interactions are there, but obviously we'll need a flip to prove it out.
I have trouble with the fact that, out of all the very good content I've put up for you to analyze...
I sometimes do massive posts, but I'm certainly not going to do one amid a bunch of other massive posts. More of that is not what the game needed. I had stated reasoning to suspect you before, you didn't answer those questions, then I didn't like your post. I picked out the two things I saw as most scummy that Xyre hadn't addressed because we don't need three players filling the game up with words. There was plenty there to justify my vote.
I disagree with this. You're not actually answering my argument; I didn't ask for a massive post, I asked for better reasons. You could have even posted a different, better reason for justifying the vote. The one you picked is weak.
...the only point you present to justify the vote for me is where I take a very sarcastic tone (denoted by the only real sarcasm tag, the eye roll). Either you didn't understand that since you clipped it, or you decided it was irrelevant, which it isn't. I feel like if you legitimately think I'm scum then you should have better reasons to back up that claim by this point. You don't even explain why it's desperate and reads like a confession to you; you simply state that it does. Furthermore, you completely avoid specifying what about Xyre's case is compelling to you. This is a bad vote, and moves you up a few notches on my suspect list.
I know it was sarcastic. Let me see if I can explain this... I know it was sarcastic, but it was detailed enough that I feel like a townie wouldn't have gone to that depth to make a joke. Detailed is maybe not the right word... odd maybe? I don't think a townie would have even thought about that stuff, so I see it as your actual thought process masked as sarcasm.
So the post was odd because it considers things you don't think a townie would consider, and the sarcasm is a ruse?
This explain how my statement was either desperate or a confession. It looks like you needed a unique reason to vote me, thought the smiles were a nice touch, and made up a reason (or several). The fact that you don't really know how to explain is a hint that it's a bad argument.
You are somewhat correct that I was too forgiving in my response to Caex, and reading over it I can see how you'd get that impression. At the time I was more focused on Xyre as a target and didn't want to split my focus, and there was some hesitation due to my concerns about Caex's experience level. The points against Caex just weren't as good to me as the points against Xyre. I don't know whether Caex was intentionally abusing logical fallacies, and his indignation when accused of it told me I could always press him more later. And "later" is coming soon.
I just don't get this. Again you're pushing against a target only once it suits you, but this is even worse since you'd been calling him town up to this point. If you thought it was scummy and intented to come back to it, you would have said so instead of insisting Caex was town despite the bad stuff you pointed out. It just doesn't fit a town's mindset to excuse that if he's actually a suspect.
I'm playing my reads close to the chest at the moment until Caex responds to me, so I don't feel like answering this. Later maybe.
I went back and read through all of the Xyre/Zionite headache, and I'm reading them both as town. Though they both got overly defensive and started drowning out their main points with the walls of texts, I think that people's reactions to the two of them will be interesting to analyze after today. For now though, I'd really like to hear more from Che.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
It's courteous to ask if something you intentionally cut out of a quote was meant to be there for whatever reason. It shows I'm not doing it for malice but for brevity. He did the same responding to me, with different words.
I don't feel like quoting and rereading but I want to spill the beans, so I'm gonna do it right with also my reads.
My first post was a joke, but not a total one. I really dislike D1 because I shine most at middle to endgame, by analyzing wagons and VCs(particularly of dead scum). I've passed the time where I was deluded to believe I could catch the whole scum team D1, this has never happened before and probably never will, I also don't try to do the "X is scum/town so Y is certainly scum/town", this is pointless without flips.
My vote on Zion was serious but a bit after I pressured him, he started towntelling like a madman, and I'm now confident with my read of town about him. Xyre started leaning town but after some feigned attacks (Xyre's is not that stupid as town) he's strongly in my leaning scum pile, that fact that he's not really scumhunting, as Wessel noticed (another town read) just made the vote easy. Caex is another one I have as scum, first because of his sig as Kpaca noticed(yes, that's a real point, sue me) second for the same reason of Xyre's, Caex is a smart guy, both as town or scum, when he starts crapping on me ("hey Xyre is acting like he's town self, this means he's scum, vote Xyre") things really get ugly. I think Caex is just doing a mistake I've done myself before as noob scum, he's trying to earn some town credit for busing a mate early ("see, I caught Xyre early") for no reason. Considering he was caught quite handily for his scumgame in Ataghan I can see he trying another approach as scum here.
I don't think I have other reads. I'm warming up for Star though, the guy oozes newbieness but not in a scummy way, looks like he really is trying his hardest imho.
town
Zion
Wessel
leaning town
Star
leaning scum
Xyre
Caex
Now that my kpaca impersonation is over, feel free to question me again if there's any question you still have for me, I would also love input from Zinda and CC.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Again, I don't trump current game reads with meta. It may be right and a great companion to a case, but it doesn't supersede what my current read is. Just because he may not play optimally doesn't mean I should delve into WIFOM and meta to justify his post as scummy. That being said, I have to reiterate that his jump on your wagon was probably the scummiest post of the game.
But you wouldn't suspect, say, Iso for making a post that would be out-of-character for the average player. When you make that exception, you're applying meta. So it follows that a "read trumps meta" rule cannot be absolute, right?
Why shouldn't a weak player's tendencies also matter in his case?
If his jump on my wagon was the scummiest post of the game, do you think he's scum?
It's more like I was entertaining the idea of casing you since I had a foundation to work with, and DRey's response confirmed my thinking, so I went through with it. Again, I'm not going to be aggressive unless I have the intention of spending 2-3 hours explaining myself and I have to feel good about the case to do that. DRey's response made me feel good about it so I followed through.
Meta question: do you find you usually follow barns like this (as town or as scum, I don't much care)?
I don't care about the weak tells thing itself (because it could go either way). I care about the phrase "the town game", which is really uncomfortable - much like the third person thing. Hence, "another".
But this coaching point of yours is only relevant if you have one of us as scum, and as you acknowledge you don't have that currently. So keep it noted if you think it's necessary.
I didn't acknowledge any such point. I still think DRey's likely scum, and I don't trust you enough to put you in the town column, either. And even then, I could see a case where scum DRey thinks coaching a townie is "helpful" = townish, so yes, I'll keep it noted.
Yeah, but there's always other options that you may not have considered, especially if you have a prejudice against the suspicious guy. You could just ask the guy, "hey, what's with the skulking around?" and get an answer worth basing your judgement on. But you don't just immediately call the police and tackle the guy, which is what calling for a claim feels like.
Based on the original list, do you think I was prejudiced?
Yeah, but if DRey is scum to you and CC's vote is random, that's only 3 possible town votes including your own, which isn't very much and certainly isn't in claim range.
So CC's vote wasn't a "possible town vote"? (Ignoring the continued semantic issue of what constitutes a reasonable margin at which to claim.)
You got me on the ad populum, but I feel like that's one of those fallacies you just have to deal with in Mafia. A case is only as strong as it's wagon because we have votes as a core mechanic. If we completely threw out ad populum, no one would ever get lynched. We always consider what's going on with the masses, not only in-game but in the whole subforum. Hell, we're still electing presidents by popular vote when no one knows a damn thing about what they stand for. It's a systemic fallacy to be aware of instead of avoiding.
You're missing the metaphorical forest for the tree. What I meant by "reverse ad populum" is this: how is "not enough people support you thinking I'm scum" something a townie would say? A townie KNOWS they're town - why not just prove my case wrong on its own merits?
And I don't think you addressed the last two paragraphs, so I'll copy them over:
And that's the difference between you and me. I will fight you to the grave to prove you wrong, but I sure as hell won't care what other people think about me, either. (Except to get angry at them for listening to your erroneous logic.) And I SURE as hell won't measure the validity of my wagon by the number of people who agree with it. So why are you, if you're a townie? Because you're angry with me for being a smug prick and want to cut me down by showing I'm not generating quite the buzz my behavior would suggest?
Or are you really scum and thus fronting this argument because you're always keeping an eye on the number of people voting for you?
I made a point to keep the focus on my wagon. For one, its a wagon on a townie. You don't know that (I think), but I do. There's a lot of value in knowing the alignment of the target of a wagon, which is why analyzing Day 1 lynches is so valuable Day 2. Focusing on someone else not on my wagon with no content would be a clear avoidance of being accused of OMGUS and altogether a scapegoat with no benefit to me whatsoever, and would more likely lack a worthy response. And again, we just simply disagree on DRey's earlier posts, but not the later ones.
You do realize, however, the reason Day 2 wagon analysis is better than Day 1 wagon analysis is because you know 100% the alignment of the target, whereas here we have to take you on your word. I can't believe you'd on the one be self-conscious enough to say all these weird argumentative and syntactical things I've noted, and on the other feel your towniness to be so self-apparent as to unironically do wagon analysis for yourself while you're still alive. It baffles me.
The very fact that we're still having this conversation should suggest to you the error in the latter thinking, at least.
I hate to bring meta into account since I've been off the scene for so long, but Xyre's anger and ferocity towards Zionite reminds me of angry TownXyre. I'm not convinced that his points are strong enough for me to bandwagon Zionite, but depending on Zionite's response to Xyre's post #138, that may change. Their argument is almost to the point of ad hominem and insults though.
Stop this active lurking. Tell me what you think makes Zionite town in your eyes to the extent they negate Xyre's arguments, and tell me why Zionite's coming reaction to Xyre might change your view of him negatively.
I resent that you're calling my play active lurking, as I've commented on everything so far in the game that I've had an opinion about.
Up until the quoted post, the tenacity in which Zionite was going after Xyre and defending himself was reading to me as a townie getting attacked and wanting to make sure there wasn't a mislynch, but some points in his argument in #124 that weren't sitting well with me.
At the time, his seemingly incorrect application of common game terms (Strawman, grasping at straws, circular logic, begging the question) as pointed out by Xyre made me feel like Zionite's basic argument was flawed, and if he continued down that path I feel that he would start to look scummier to me for pursuing a flawed argument after it had been debunked.
Zionite's response in #168 elaborated on these points, and in my opinion re-affirmed my town read on him.
Your case doesn't support a justification for me to claim, otherwise there would be more support for it. Same goes for me and my case; if more people thought it was good, then I'd sure as hell push for a claim from you too.
In my opinion, they both were reaching a bit, but neither seemed like they were attacking each other from a scum mindset.
I'm not liking DRey's play at all this game, but I'm not sure if that's because I think he's scum, or because his recent posts have been...sloppy/scummy/weird. Definitely something I'm going to read more into.
Can you be more specific? What do you dislike about DRey's play?
I believe that was mostly stemming from the language he used in #106 and his jump on Xyre's bandwagon in #140. I did go back through and re-read through all of his posts, though, and his first 4 posts seem town to me. In those posts he asked solid questions, voted to gauge a reaction, and then unvoted when we got to 5/7 votes way too early. To me it was a really weird shift and rubbed me the wrong way.
Adding onto that to take into account more recent posts:
I didn't like his post #164 because he seemed to ignore the fact that the game was active and there were questions pointed his way.
In #188 he gave some more content, but the English there is rough for me to read. It's worded oddly, and his logic is off. He says that Xyre "feigned attacks" which doesn't mesh with the actual events. Either he doesn't know what a feint is, or he's accusing Xyre of masterminding an entire hundreds-of-lines-of-text attack on a player to distract or mislead the town. He calls Xyre scum and simultaneously says that he isn't usually that "stupid as town." Which one is it, he's being stupid? Or creating a tactical diversion designed to distract or mislead? Or did he mean something else that I'm not getting?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
@Caex: Why haven't you reacted to kpaca's announcement he's going to vig you this Night?
Because he's just fishing for a reaction.
Ok, good. So tell me, what's your view on kpaca's statement in regards to alignment?
Town. Trying to provoke reactions is a positive thing.
So if he's town in your eyes for making that announcement, why not react to it?
Because I don't particularly care what kpaca thinks of me.
Do you care what anyone thinks of you?
Eh. I care to the extent that I'll debunk these cases on me so we can actually scumhunt. I'm not going to try to convince people I'm town; that'll become apparent as the game goes on.
I don't feel like quoting and rereading but I want to spill the beans, so I'm gonna do it right with also my reads.
My first post was a joke, but not a total one. I really dislike D1 because I shine most at middle to endgame, by analyzing wagons and VCs(particularly of dead scum). I've passed the time where I was deluded to believe I could catch the whole scum team D1, this has never happened before and probably never will, I also don't try to do the "X is scum/town so Y is certainly scum/town", this is pointless without flips.
My vote on Zion was serious but a bit after I pressured him, he started towntelling like a madman, and I'm now confident with my read of town about him. Xyre started leaning town but after some feigned attacks (Xyre's is not that stupid as town) he's strongly in my leaning scum pile, that fact that he's not really scumhunting, as Wessel noticed (another town read) just made the vote easy. Caex is another one I have as scum, first because of his sig as Kpaca noticed(yes, that's a real point, sue me)
A)It's my avatar not sig, B)kpaca is just looking for another reaction from me, C)I changed it to its current picture the day I signed up for this game, so it's not a real point.
Quote from DRey »
second for the same reason of Xyre's, Caex is a smart guy, both as town or scum, when he starts crapping on me ("hey Xyre is acting like he's town self, this means he's scum, vote Xyre") things really get ugly.
Lrn2read. I wasn't attacking Xyre because he was using meta. I was attacking Xyre because the meta he was using was weak. As I've said like ten times before: Xyre using meta arguments is null. I'm going off the strength of the meta argument, not its presence.
Quote from DRey »
I think Caex is just doing a mistake I've done myself before as noob scum, he's trying to earn some town credit for busing a mate early ("see, I caught Xyre early") for no reason. Considering he was caught quite handily for his scumgame in Ataghan I can see he trying another approach as scum here.
???
I don't think you're remembering Ataghan properly.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
@Zionite: Please explain where I was "abusing logical fallacies". Because I have no clue what you're talking about.
I've posted them here. Basically I don't like how you passed DRey's point against me as your own without even reading my response to said point, and then further pushed it and STILL haven't read my response. It's like you're not even paying attention to things that directly involve you.
I'm more interested in pursuing my own reads than responding to every post directed at me. It gets tedious. And burying stuff directed at me in walls o'text mainly dealing with your back-and-forth with Xyre is a good way for me to miss them.
I'd like to point out that I did give a reason for why I didn't think your answers were convincing: I said it looked like you scrambling to cover your ass when you were called on your early DRey posts. It's easy to say "I did it on purpose to get a reaction". Whether you did or didn't actually mean to do it originally, it's not something that can actually be proved, therefore it's mostly null to me.
Sometimes it's obvious, like when kpaca does it, but it's murkier when you say it after a post like yours.
I'm assuming you really want me to respond to this post the most, so I'll do just that.
Quote from Zionite »
If you had read my response to DRey, linked above, you'd have seen that Town can post fluff in an attempt to bait for reactions. It's perfectly possible for a town post to be a fake one. This is further supported by DRey's eventual vote on me with no answer to my question, goading me once more to react so he can get a read. Just because you misinterpreted my post doesn't magically change it's meaning; I never said "DRey's post is fake and therefore scummy", I said "DRey's post is fake and he should know better". So tell me, how is my post a contradiction, and how does it make me scum?
But wait... If a townie's post can purposefully be fake to bait reactions, something you're apparently claiming is a legitimate strategy, why should DRey "know better" than to do it?
I mean, you're claiming you knew it was a post designed to get a reaction from you, right? Why then slap his wrist and say "you should know better than this"? Am I just misunderstanding what you're saying? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems like my original read of "Covering his ass from a bad post" is the most likely explanation.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
Again, I don't trump current game reads with meta. It may be right and a great companion to a case, but it doesn't supersede what my current read is. Just because he may not play optimally doesn't mean I should delve into WIFOM and meta to justify his post as scummy. That being said, I have to reiterate that his jump on your wagon was probably the scummiest post of the game.
But you wouldn't suspect, say, Iso for making a post that would be out-of-character for the average player. When you make that exception, you're applying meta. So it follows that a "read trumps meta" rule cannot be absolute, right?
Why shouldn't a weak player's tendencies also matter in his case?
If his jump on my wagon was the scummiest post of the game, do you think he's scum?
I think kpaca is a better example. When I'm pushing cases, defensive meta is fine, offensive meta is not. So the fact that kpaca rarely says anything longer than a sentence is a reason to expect it rather than attack for it. Same goes for Iso. I expect him to be inconsistent and post frequently, so I don't attack those features. Offensive meta only works if you have a similar duplicate of their behavior from another complete game, and can be used to argue someone's alignment. But it gets messy because you have to assume people have read it or know what you're talking about, and you're speaking from a position of authority as "the guy who read the game" so no one can tell you you're wrong without researching it, so I avoid it.
It's more like I was entertaining the idea of casing you since I had a foundation to work with, and DRey's response confirmed my thinking, so I went through with it. Again, I'm not going to be aggressive unless I have the intention of spending 2-3 hours explaining myself and I have to feel good about the case to do that. DRey's response made me feel good about it so I followed through.
Meta question: do you find you usually follow barns like this (as town or as scum, I don't much care)?
I guess so. My intention was to have the case heard by someone if I was going to spend time to make it, so having that confirmation was good. I'd say I'd do that in any game if the pieces for a case were there.
Yeah, but there's always other options that you may not have considered, especially if you have a prejudice against the suspicious guy. You could just ask the guy, "hey, what's with the skulking around?" and get an answer worth basing your judgement on. But you don't just immediately call the police and tackle the guy, which is what calling for a claim feels like.
Based on the original list, do you think I was prejudiced?
Which list? Prejudiced or not, it was an over-reaching statement. I get it now you don't respect claim ranges, but I do. So I called you out on it.
Yeah, but if DRey is scum to you and CC's vote is random, that's only 3 possible town votes including your own, which isn't very much and certainly isn't in claim range.
So CC's vote wasn't a "possible town vote"? (Ignoring the continued semantic issue of what constitutes a reasonable margin at which to claim.)
It was a contradiction of mindset argument. I was arguing that it wasn't a random vote, you argued that it was a random vote, then put me in claim range. I thought, "but if CC's vote is random, I wouldn't be in claim range if CC was more active." I didn't consider "Xyre doesn't give a **** about claim ranges".
You got me on the ad populum, but I feel like that's one of those fallacies you just have to deal with in Mafia. A case is only as strong as it's wagon because we have votes as a core mechanic. If we completely threw out ad populum, no one would ever get lynched. We always consider what's going on with the masses, not only in-game but in the whole subforum. Hell, we're still electing presidents by popular vote when no one knows a damn thing about what they stand for. It's a systemic fallacy to be aware of instead of avoiding.
You're missing the metaphorical forest for the tree. What I meant by "reverse ad populum" is this: how is "not enough people support you thinking I'm scum" something a townie would say? A townie KNOWS they're town - why not just prove my case wrong on its own merits?
I thought I did prove you wrong.
What I'm saying is that I've lost games by being arrogant and thinking by ad nauseum I'll prove people wrong. So I'm trying to be a little more aware of other players viewpoints. If the case isn't there, than me restating it over and over isn't going to change minds but it might piss everyone off (it has).
If I'm usually wrong when I'm arrogant, then it can happen to anyone. And it's happened to you too. You don't really care or consider what others have to say because you're right and damn the alternatives, even if they might be correct.
And I don't think you addressed the last two paragraphs, so I'll copy them over:
And that's the difference between you and me. I will fight you to the grave to prove you wrong, but I sure as hell won't care what other people think about me, either. (Except to get angry at them for listening to your erroneous logic.) And I SURE as hell won't measure the validity of my wagon by the number of people who agree with it. So why are you, if you're a townie? Because you're angry with me for being a smug prick and want to cut me down by showing I'm not generating quite the buzz my behavior would suggest?
Or are you really scum and thus fronting this argument because you're always keeping an eye on the number of people voting for you?
I made a point to keep the focus on my wagon. For one, its a wagon on a townie. You don't know that (I think), but I do. There's a lot of value in knowing the alignment of the target of a wagon, which is why analyzing Day 1 lynches is so valuable Day 2. Focusing on someone else not on my wagon with no content would be a clear avoidance of being accused of OMGUS and altogether a scapegoat with no benefit to me whatsoever, and would more likely lack a worthy response. And again, we just simply disagree on DRey's earlier posts, but not the later ones.
You do realize, however, the reason Day 2 wagon analysis is better than Day 1 wagon analysis is because you know 100% the alignment of the target, whereas here we have to take you on your word. I can't believe you'd on the one be self-conscious enough to say all these weird argumentative and syntactical things I've noted, and on the other feel your towniness to be so self-apparent as to unironically do wagon analysis for yourself while you're still alive. It baffles me.
The very fact that we're still having this conversation should suggest to you the error in the latter thinking, at least.
I'm going to argue with the information I have. My towniness is a valuable asset to logically approaching cases. I'm not going to handicap myself simply because other players have to take my word for it; they are already in that position as soon as I open my mouth. My towniness isn't apparent now but it could be later so I'd like to have something useful to add.
I'm more interested in pursuing my own reads than responding to every post directed at me. It gets tedious. And burying stuff directed at me in walls o'text mainly dealing with your back-and-forth with Xyre is a good way for me to miss them.
That seems like a really easy way to ignore attacks against you while still leveraging for your own motives. If you're not reading the back-and-forth between me and Xyre, what the hell are you doing?
I'd like to point out that I did give a reason for why I didn't think your answers were convincing: I said it looked like you scrambling to cover your ass when you were called on your early DRey posts. It's easy to say "I did it on purpose to get a reaction". Whether you did or didn't actually mean to do it originally, it's not something that can actually be proved, therefore it's mostly null to me.
Sometimes it's obvious, like when kpaca does it, but it's murkier when you say it after a post like yours.
That's not a reason, that's an opinionated observation. You're right that it's null and that's exactly why it's not a point at all. Your reason was bad by your own conclusion.
If you had read my response to DRey, linked above, you'd have seen that Town can post fluff in an attempt to bait for reactions. It's perfectly possible for a town post to be a fake one. This is further supported by DRey's eventual vote on me with no answer to my question, goading me once more to react so he can get a read. Just because you misinterpreted my post doesn't magically change it's meaning; I never said "DRey's post is fake and therefore scummy", I said "DRey's post is fake and he should know better". So tell me, how is my post a contradiction, and how does it make me scum?
But wait... If a townie's post can purposefully be fake to bait reactions, something you're apparently claiming is a legitimate strategy, why should DRey "know better" than to do it?
I mean, you're claiming you knew it was a post designed to get a reaction from you, right? Why then slap his wrist and say "you should know better than this"? Am I just misunderstanding what you're saying? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems like my original read of "Covering his ass from a bad post" is the most likely explanation.
DRey's gambit was too obvious and could have been executed better, which I did.
@Caex: Why haven't you reacted to kpaca's announcement he's going to vig you this Night?
Because he's just fishing for a reaction.
Ok, good. So tell me, what's your view on kpaca's statement in regards to alignment?
Town. Trying to provoke reactions is a positive thing.
So if he's town in your eyes for making that announcement, why not react to it?
Because I don't particularly care what kpaca thinks of me.
Do you care what anyone thinks of you?
Eh. I care to the extent that I'll debunk these cases on me so we can actually scumhunt. I'm not going to try to convince people I'm town; that'll become apparent as the game goes on.
I don't feel like quoting and rereading but I want to spill the beans, so I'm gonna do it right with also my reads.
My first post was a joke, but not a total one. I really dislike D1 because I shine most at middle to endgame, by analyzing wagons and VCs(particularly of dead scum). I've passed the time where I was deluded to believe I could catch the whole scum team D1, this has never happened before and probably never will, I also don't try to do the "X is scum/town so Y is certainly scum/town", this is pointless without flips.
My vote on Zion was serious but a bit after I pressured him, he started towntelling like a madman, and I'm now confident with my read of town about him. Xyre started leaning town but after some feigned attacks (Xyre's is not that stupid as town) he's strongly in my leaning scum pile, that fact that he's not really scumhunting, as Wessel noticed (another town read) just made the vote easy. Caex is another one I have as scum, first because of his sig as Kpaca noticed(yes, that's a real point, sue me)
A)It's my avatar not sig, B)kpaca is just looking for another reaction from me, C)I changed it to its current picture the day I signed up for this game, so it's not a real point.
Quote from DRey »
second for the same reason of Xyre's, Caex is a smart guy, both as town or scum, when he starts crapping on me ("hey Xyre is acting like he's town self, this means he's scum, vote Xyre") things really get ugly.
Lrn2read. I wasn't attacking Xyre because he was using meta. I was attacking Xyre because the meta he was using was weak. As I've said like ten times before: Xyre using meta arguments is null. I'm going off the strength of the meta argument, not its presence.
Quote from DRey »
I think Caex is just doing a mistake I've done myself before as noob scum, he's trying to earn some town credit for busing a mate early ("see, I caught Xyre early") for no reason. Considering he was caught quite handily for his scumgame in Ataghan I can see he trying another approach as scum here.
???
I don't think you're remembering Ataghan properly.
My vote on you is serious, not a test for reactions. Also a large portion of said vote is indeed based off a theory I crafted due to your avatar.
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!
I think kpaca is a better example. When I'm pushing cases, defensive meta is fine, offensive meta is not. So the fact that kpaca rarely says anything longer than a sentence is a reason to expect it rather than attack for it. Same goes for Iso. I expect him to be inconsistent and post frequently, so I don't attack those features. Offensive meta only works if you have a similar duplicate of their behavior from another complete game, and can be used to argue someone's alignment. But it gets messy because you have to assume people have read it or know what you're talking about, and you're speaking from a position of authority as "the guy who read the game" so no one can tell you you're wrong without researching it, so I avoid it.
Okay, that's what you do, but that doesn't say anything about how you respond to my meta points. If anything, it suggests a natural willingness to consider them, notwithstanding information limitations. And I think I've pretty well explained the parallels between this game and Seasons - asking me to explain the entire game to you so you can feel fully informed is ridiculous.
So again: what's wrong with my use of meta, particularly with respect to DRey? (Besides "that's not what I'd do.")
And would you please answer my other two questions?
Why shouldn't a weak player's tendencies also matter in his case?
If his [DRey's] jump on my wagon was the scummiest post of the game, do you think he's scum?
I guess so. My intention was to have the case heard by someone if I was going to spend time to make it, so having that confirmation was good. I'd say I'd do that in any game if the pieces for a case were there.
As a side note, since you're so intent on learning about proper argumentation, the above is a classic example of a confirmation bias. (Or you're following a scum buddy, a possibility I'm not willing to discount.)
I haven't done any rereads of your old games yet, but I might try tracking down some examples.
Which list? Prejudiced or not, it was an over-reaching statement. I get it now you don't respect claim ranges, but I do. So I called you out on it.
The list of possible explanations, which I prefaced with a caveat as to my own uncertainty. How did that list exhibit prejudice?
It was a contradiction of mindset argument. I was arguing that it wasn't a random vote, you argued that it was a random vote, then put me in claim range. I thought, "but if CC's vote is random, I wouldn't be in claim range if CC was more active." I didn't consider "Xyre doesn't give a **** about claim ranges".
That doesn't answer my question. Did you or did you not consider CC's vote a possible townie vote (or, to be more clear, did you consider CC's vote a scum vote) at the time?
EDITOR's NOTE: I cut out a lot because it basically boiled down to Zionite asking me to take a lot on faith, and while I don't, I recognize that there's nothing more to be gained from a conversation that boils down to "trust me, this is how I think".
Come on Xyre, shifting the burden of proof? You're better than that.
I don't know what's in that argumentation book you bought, but you should demand a refund, because once again you're wrong.
Burden of proof falls on the person making a positive conjecture to prove it. He says it's a fake attack, it's his job to prove it, not mine to prove he's wrong.
Anyway: why does my post in response to DRey matter to you?
One more thing @ Zionite: offensive meta reads are better than defensive meta reads because there's no reason for a townie to post like a scum. So if a player is posting like they've posted in the past as scum, it's a surer sign that they're scum. By contrast, if a player is posting like they've posted as town, you can't be sure they haven't figured out their town meta and adjusted their play accordingly.
So why do you support defensive meta and scorn offensive meta, exactly?
I'll do a reread on Zionite's games in a little while, but first I'm just going to do an entire reread on Caex.
#53: This post is weird for two reasons - one, as I noted to Caex, aggressiveness and meta reads are my modus operandi and he knows that; and two, the phrasing of this post seems to suggest the aggressiveness, not the quality, was what caught his eye. His reaction to the kpaca part specifically is not indicative of anything, but this post's structure bothered and still bothers me.
#64: "Playing around it" seems at-odds with "playing terribly", which seems to have been the implication of the kpaca bit - particularly when that's the only element in this entire matter that seems to be evidence against me (as "you know your meta so you could be scum" is never evidence of anything).
#80: Tentative support for DRey's case on Zionite. Not sure how Stardust came into this.
Hey, Caex! What's your current opinion of Stardust? Cite specific examples, please. (If you think he's town now, please tell me what posts specifically made you think otherwise pre-80. Don't just say "I got bad vibes" - show me which posts exactly gave you bad vibes, and explain why those posts gave you those vibes.)
#83 and 84: Zionite's not the only one who believes claiming at L-2 is compulsory, it would seem.
The "if you want specifics" part feels tacked on, like he realized barning DRey and saying he saw bad "stuff" would look threadbare. I'm not reading any conviction.
#95: "He's the biggest wagon for a reason" is really strange. While I don't know if I agree with Stardust's specific point that Caex seems to be "setting [him]self up", per se, I agree it's weird Caex cites the wagon's size as evidence of its validity on the one hand and then demures on the matter of voting due to the presence of random votes on the other. The "pardon me if I'm interested in voting for scummy players" also feels forced.
And, without citing any evidence previously about Stardust's scumminess (or even citing cases where Caex's "gut" played into it), he jumps on him? What the hell?
The one thing that gives me pause is Caex's last line before the vote, which reads like somebody reading too much into a new player's overcompensation, but then again, Caex's tone is weird to me. If it's scummy, just say it's scummy, don't say it "isn't making me feel any better about you" - that feels like the kind of thing you say when you need to acknowledge something while dismissing it. (In this case, ignoring something that would definitely point to a player being new and thus deserving of a different standard for evaluation.)
#120: Twisting Zionite's words - Zionite is distinguishing the "argumentum ad populum" piece from the true reason Caex cited in suspecting Z. Caex's response is an overreaction. (Though that's not necessarily indicative, as I can attest. More evidence needed.)
#122: Caex's point on Stardust's disclaimer here doesn't match the tone he took in his voting post. If that was the reason you voted him, I'd expect a stronger view of the statement than "it doesn't do you any favors".
#123: Elaborates on the "stuff" he cited in voting Zionite by repeating the argument he already cited to vote Zionite. This is weird, as "stuff" usually implies more than one thing.
#155: The comparison to kpaca ain't doing him any favors, especially because it's obvious he wasn't actually looking for reactions from Stardust (or if he was, his plan was doomed from the get-go, because any reactions he did get would likely be attributable to the fact that he had no evidence). This feels less like Caex justifying his play than Caex looking for something to justify his play, if that makes sense.
#171: "You'll be sorry" doesn't fill me with confidence.
Now we get some more concrete sense that Caex was trolling for reactions from Stardust, which gives me pause if only because it's possible Caex cannot possibly give Stardust the benefit of the doubt and thinks he's caught him through sheer force of will. Though the last time I gave Caex the benefit of the doubt, I paid for it dearly. Hrmph.
#195: It's weird Caex isn't bothered that DRey's barning a kpaca joke as real evidence.
Hey, Caex! What's your opinion on me? Still think I'm scum? Again, be specific.
#196: Hypocritical - Caex has on at least one occasion this game disclaimed his scummy behavior as based on getting a reaction, and has tried comparing his use of such supposed plays to kpaca's to get off the hook. Accusing Zionite of doing the same really looks bad.
Hey, Caex! What's your opinion of Zionite. (Be specific.)
While I wait for the responses:
Vote Caex Kothar
I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with the conventional wisdom (and Zionite) - there's plenty there that stands out, especially in how Caex relates to other players and justifies his posts.
By my count, that's four votes total (CC, WoLG, Zionite, and me)
It's the weekend, so I'm liable to be a little more lenient. That said, if Che doesn't post by midnight, I'll send out a round of prods to him, CropCircles, and anyone else who needs prodding.
Along those lines, I would appreciate an increase in overall activity.
I thought having any avatar/sig related stuff being relevant to the game was against the rules because they can be edited.
Players using the avatars or sigs to convey information is strictly forbidden along the lines of more obvious rules violations such as privately communicating with players outside of the game thread without the host's knowledge and consent. I see nothing wrong with Caex's avatar usage.
I think kpaca is a better example. When I'm pushing cases, defensive meta is fine, offensive meta is not. So the fact that kpaca rarely says anything longer than a sentence is a reason to expect it rather than attack for it. Same goes for Iso. I expect him to be inconsistent and post frequently, so I don't attack those features. Offensive meta only works if you have a similar duplicate of their behavior from another complete game, and can be used to argue someone's alignment. But it gets messy because you have to assume people have read it or know what you're talking about, and you're speaking from a position of authority as "the guy who read the game" so no one can tell you you're wrong without researching it, so I avoid it.
Okay, that's what you do, but that doesn't say anything about how you respond to my meta points. If anything, it suggests a natural willingness to consider them, notwithstanding information limitations. And I think I've pretty well explained the parallels between this game and Seasons - asking me to explain the entire game to you so you can feel fully informed is ridiculous.
So again: what's wrong with my use of meta, particularly with respect to DRey? (Besides "that's not what I'd do.")
Don't explain it just for me, but for everyone who hasn't read your meta argument's game. If you don't want to, fine. But don't expect me to naturally draw the comparisons without context.
So aside from the fact that I don't really know what you're arguing with your meta on DRey, except to say it makes him scum, I feel your case could be better with posts from the current game.
And would you please answer my other two questions?
Why shouldn't a weak player's tendencies also matter in his case?
If his [DRey's] jump on my wagon was the scummiest post of the game, do you think he's scum?
A weak player's tendencies could be applicable, but I don't know how you define "weak". I could argue Iso's frantic posting style is weak, and he'd disagree. It depends on the argument.
He's probably congealed into 2nd or 3rd on a list of Caex, Stardust, and DRey. From a total actions taken standpoint, there's some good town tells in there. But in interactions it looks worse.
I haven't done any rereads of your old games yet, but I might try tracking down some examples.
Which list? Prejudiced or not, it was an over-reaching statement. I get it now you don't respect claim ranges, but I do. So I called you out on it.
The list of possible explanations, which I prefaced with a caveat as to my own uncertainty. How did that list exhibit prejudice?
I think the list didn't have prejudice, but your previous posts directed toward me were quite venomous that the list came off as prejudiced. This was when I was at 4 votes. It's a loaded question already with the parenthetical inclusion.
Hey Zionite, mind explaining the vote on CropCircles (for what appears to be voting for you)?
Reading it made me think that it didn't matter what my answer was, you'd use that to justify jumping on the wagon. If you hadn't used the loaded words and completely removed the parenthetical, then I wouldn't read it like a wagon jumping prep post. So the list was prejudiced, because you had already made up your mind on how you were going to approach this regardless of my explanation.
It was a contradiction of mindset argument. I was arguing that it wasn't a random vote, you argued that it was a random vote, then put me in claim range. I thought, "but if CC's vote is random, I wouldn't be in claim range if CC was more active." I didn't consider "Xyre doesn't give a **** about claim ranges".
That doesn't answer my question. Did you or did you not consider CC's vote a possible townie vote (or, to be more clear, did you consider CC's vote a scum vote) at the time?
A random vote is not a valid vote when determining when someone should claim, whether it's scum or town doing the vote. CC's vote I wasn't sure was random or not, which is why I wanted more information.
Burden of proof falls on the person making a positive conjecture to prove it. He says it's a fake attack, it's his job to prove it, not mine to prove he's wrong.
What I'm saying is that it's your job to prove your case is good. Not his job to prove you wrong. It has nothing to do with a fake attack.
I thought having any avatar/sig related stuff being relevant to the game was against the rules because they can be edited.
Players using the avatars or sigs to convey information is strictly forbidden along the lines of more obvious rules violations such as privately communicating with players outside of the game thread without the host's knowledge and consent. I see nothing wrong with Caex's avatar usage.
Does this change your position, kpaca? I think suspecting someone because of their avatar is kinda like saying you think they're scummy because you don't like their face.
@AsianInvasion Zinda unvoted me in in post 109, 6 days ago and has not posted since.
@DRey: What is your response to the points raised against you by myself and other players?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Don't explain it just for me, but for everyone who hasn't read your meta argument's game. If you don't want to, fine. But don't expect me to naturally draw the comparisons without context.
So aside from the fact that I don't really know what you're arguing with your meta on DRey, except to say it makes him scum, I feel your case could be better with posts from the current game.
I gave context way back when, though. I'll reiterate it for your (plural) benefit when I assemble something more definitive on DRey.
A weak player's tendencies could be applicable, but I don't know how you define "weak". I could argue Iso's frantic posting style is weak, and he'd disagree. It depends on the argument.
If you'd played with DRey before, you'd know what I'm talking about. The point is for players like him with weak/eccentric posting styles, the tendencies matter, as they're distinguishable from regular inexperience.
He's probably congealed into 2nd or 3rd on a list of Caex, Stardust, and DRey. From a total actions taken standpoint, there's some good town tells in there. But in interactions it looks worse.
What's your take on Stardust? I'd like some specific points from you on that matter, much as I'd like them from Caex.
A random vote is not a valid vote when determining when someone should claim, whether it's scum or town doing the vote. CC's vote I wasn't sure was random or not, which is why I wanted more information.
Again, you're not answering the question. I don't care about the validity of the vote, I care about this particular phrase you used of interest to me: "possible townie vote". Was CC's vote a "possible townie vote" or not? It's a simple question.
What I'm saying is that it's your job to prove your case is good. Not his job to prove you wrong. It has nothing to do with a fake attack.
I don't know what you're talking about. He claimed my case is fake. By the very fact that I made reasoned points and backed them up with evidence, the presumption is that those points are valid unless he provides some evidence to back up their "fakeness". This is basic stuff. If he wants to say I'm fronting, he can prove it.
Ya'll are going to feel awfully stupid if this nonsense keeps up.
I'm not sure why people aren't seeing what I'm seeing with Stardust. He's had a hyper-defensive mindset right from the start of the game.
When I said I'd vote him without giving a reason, his response was to say "I'm always scummy and I'll probably scumslip, but ignore that".
When I call him for it he accuses me of OMGUS, handwaving, trying to lynch a newbie, and that I should know better based on his non-existent meta. He's shotgunning attacks at me to get something to stick.
More votes on Stardust, please.
Why don't you defend the claims instead of saying its stupid and more people should vote stardust?
The whole "I don't care how person X thinks about me" isn't from a town mindset, because being town is about being part of a team.
Xyre feels scummier than Zionite from the back and forth walls of text (JESUS) but I'm not convinced either is scum. Unvote.
@Stardust: Hi! right back at ya
Wessel is strange. I feel that Wessel is actively lurking and prodding the fire of certain points that aren't really a proper hunt. Keeping a closer eye...
Everyone talks about meta, meta is both boring and doesn't include facts from the game that matters... the one we are playing! I don't count meta arguments as good cases towards a wagon.
Post #195 by Caex Kothar comes off as angry caught scum. This along with previous points makes him my #1 scumspect right now.
The DRey "no one is claiming" feels like a gambit for townie points. I'll be keeping an eye there as well.
@DRey: What is your response to the points raised against you by myself and other players?
Please repeat what you want me to address again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Ya'll are going to feel awfully stupid if this nonsense keeps up...
...Your first sentence here feels pretty genuine if I'm right about my read on you.
What does this mean, Zionite? You're voting for him, so you think Caex is scum, yes? So what's genuine about his sentence there?
Zionite, you said you'd answer this once Caex replied to you. He has and I'm still interested in the answer, if you'd be so kind.
Caex, I'm ready to vote for you anytime now, so a claim would be appreciated. If you claim vanilla, a list of reads with reasons would be helpful too. Thanks.
I think I really screwed myself this game. When I saw my role PM I basically thought "Hey, I'm unlynchable!" I took it as an excuse to play faster and looser than I normally would. Which is probably why I'm now forced to claim.
I'm Gloin and I'm the cop. I also have a passive ability that I'd really rather not claim if possible.
Everything scares me... kitties scare me... squirrels scare me... corpses....corpses bring forth a pletora of confusing feeling which i prefer not to dwell on...:p
I think I really screwed myself this game. When I saw my role PM I basically thought "Hey, I'm unlynchable!" I took it as an excuse to play faster and looser than I normally would. Which is probably why I'm now forced to claim.
I'm Gloin and I'm the cop. I also have a passive ability that I'd really rather not claim if possible.
Push for lynch
tries to reason with bad reasoning (unlyncable??) and then doesn't want to claim everything
Ok, this stuff is important, please pay attention everyone. The chances are very high Caex is lying, so if you are the cop, please don't counterclaim him.
@Caex why did you think being the cop would make you more resistant to lynching therefore you could play scummier? Are you saying you are an unlimited cop plus you have a beneficial passive?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
@everyone if you are the real gloin feel free to counterclaim him asap.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's also different because kpaca was the only serious vote when he voted for drey, meaning he was the first to apply real pressure, while people were actually starting to apply real pressure to Zionite when voted.
[The Family]
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Is this a joke post?
My vote was serious. [pout]
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
I trimmed some stuff; if you mind just say so. I don't think they were really important points.
I think it's pretty silly that you think you have the scum team figured out 160 post into the game. The reason for ignoring kpaca's vote is because a pressure vote on kpaca is useless. He won't react to it no matter how you dress it, at least not a reaction you can use. Not only that, but again, I wanted to analyze the first wagon of the game: my own. The first wagon is a treasure trove of content, and kpaca was not a participant so it didn't make sense to randomly charge at him with a wooden stick. Trying to make this into "kpaca is Zionite's scumbuddy" is very Ancient Aliens.
I didn't know it was a joke at the time, which is why pressure was needed for more information. But I thought DRey's gambit was very pro-town; scum aren't looking to stick their neck out there when it's so easy to "vote the mod lol" and be good to go. As far as the first 50 posts go, that's good town stuff. His vote on you was less so, but that's another topic altogether.
You're chasing phantoms here. I could just as easily swap those two quotes and have the same understanding. "No idea" is meaningless positioning...etc. It's all in the presentation; Caex expressed suspicion whereas I did not.
I switched from interacting to campaigning, so naturally I'll be accusatory and pounce on what I have. This isn't because I'm scum; it's because I went into a scum-catching mode. I don't think "well maybe I'm wrong but it looks like this might be deliberate" sounds very compelling. But I did mention the false dilemma earlier (you quoted it here), but I didn't explain/link it. Simply put, I just don't think this shift is as scummy as you make it out to be. I had just decided to case you since DRey expressed interest in my points and wanted to see if anyone else agreed.
Again, Ancient Aliens stuff here. You're really going to hang the town game on weak tells like this? The case on you, as I presented, was way better than the case on Caex. It's very easy to see a malicious Xyre behind a push to claim with a random vote on the wagon. It's equally easy to see Caex as a new player who doesn't know he's basically talking in circles.
And to imply DRey would even need to coach me is kind of insulting.
The 3rd person thing has to do with presentation. I've been doing some reading about arguments and their pitfalls to improve my mafia performance. If you haven't noticed, I've been trying to keep my posts neater lately with lots of bells and whistles. This is one of those features. Yeah, I was definitely avoiding the OMGUS thing, but not from a scum motivation. It's because I want to show the general tell: a 3rd, supposedly "random", vote in a mini is a good start to go off of, completely disregarding the effect it has on me. OMGUS votes are usually reaction votes to justified attacks; instead of responding appropriately, they attack back. I didn't think that was applicable here as CC's vote wasn't justified.
Also, the "What kind of crazy goon..." thing is another logic abuse I learned about where you paint someone as ridiculous to make them less credible. Very easy to spot, especially when you open with it. It's not logically right or wrong, but the reader conjures up an image that puts the opponent in a negative light without relying on factual information.
You got kind of clip-happy here so you missed my explanation of how it's a strawman. It starts with "The point is..."
Basically, if you're going to vote for someone, it should be couched in something solid. Your list, by your own words, was just spitballing. Yet you found spitballing solid enough to push for a vote, and by extension, a claim. Whether it was deliberate or not doesn't change that you used it as leverage for a vote. One intention is scummy and the other is reckless.
Claim ranges also exist to protect town from having to claim unnecessarily. The fact that you don't really care if a claim is justified or not as long as you get your information is quite reckless and hurts your team if you're town, which is why I don't like this reasoning at all.
I like how you ***** at me for being condescending but have no qualms doing it yourself.
You think you're doing this passive thing but I just don't read it that way. I think it's only active. I'm not arguing this simultaneous dance you seem to be getting from me. Your conclusion is wrong.
You're quite an arrogant piece, you know that?
It never crosses your mind that hey, you might be wrong? Your case doesn't support a justification for me to claim, otherwise there would be more support for it. Same goes for me and my case; if more people thought it was good, then I'd sure as hell push for a claim from you too. But the difference here is that I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm always right, even if my logic is sound.
I'm not misusing all of these, but you might be right here. Oh well, I'm still learning.
Regardless, I think meta arguments in general should play only as a compliment to current-game evidence. You rely on them as your primary source, and I don't dig it regardless of your track record. I've already addressed your response to A) (couldn't know it was going to be a dead pressure vote, or a joke).
There's a contradiction here. If you think I should have known CC wouldn't be around to react and thus should have picked a better target, why would I think attacking a target who isn't here would be a sufficient diversion? I would have known that no response would come from it and it would make me look bad, and thus picked a different scapegoat. In either case, you're wrong. I wasn't trying to scapegoat CC, I just wanted to see more from him.
Well, you can't blame me for trying. I thought it was pretty damn good. And I spent longer than you on it, so :p.
Let me know if I didn't get to anything pressing.
I have trouble with the fact that, out of all the very good content I've put up for you to analyze, the only point you present to justify the vote for me is where I take a very sarcastic tone (denoted by the only real sarcasm tag, the eye roll). Either you didn't understand that since you clipped it, or you decided it was irrelevant, which it isn't. I feel like if you legitimately think I'm scum then you should have better reasons to back up that claim by this point. You don't even explain why it's desperate and reads like a confession to you; you simply state that it does. Furthermore, you completely avoid specifying what about Xyre's case is compelling to you. This is a bad vote, and moves you up a few notches on my suspect list.
You are somewhat correct that I was too forgiving in my response to Caex, and reading over it I can see how you'd get that impression. At the time I was more focused on Xyre as a target and didn't want to split my focus, and there was some hesitation due to my concerns about Caex's experience level. The points against Caex just weren't as good to me as the points against Xyre. I don't know whether Caex was intentionally abusing logical fallacies, and his indignation when accused of it told me I could always press him more later. And "later" is coming soon.
I never seriously entertained the idea of lynching CC, nor actually suspected him for his single post. The vote was for pressure, so I said so. I said his post was scummy but that doesn't mean that I suspect him or want him lynched. You can't vote someone and say "Ha! That's for pressure!" and expect the same reaction. That's why I gave up the ghost about my vote; The pressure didn't work and there was no point in acting for the rest of the crowd.
Yes, but independent as well. What I gathered from reactions to the debate is that my points weren't as concrete as I thought they were, even though I couched them in very easy to understand explanations. Reading over Xyre's response also gives me a different impression than the posts he made that sparked my case. And if I had made better arguments, it would have garnered a more positive response. There comes a time when you have to take off the blinders and listen to the team, and given that this is my first serious suspect of Day 1, this is probably one of those times. I've made too many games worse by keeping the blinders on and being stubborn (See: Ozone Underground, and every other game where I end up dead Day 1).
{Magic: The RPG}
I'm not sure why people aren't seeing what I'm seeing with Stardust. He's had a hyper-defensive mindset right from the start of the game.
When I said I'd vote him without giving a reason, his response was to say "I'm always scummy and I'll probably scumslip, but ignore that".
When I call him for it he accuses me of OMGUS, handwaving, trying to lynch a newbie, and that I should know better based on his non-existent meta. He's shotgunning attacks at me to get something to stick.
More votes on Stardust, please.
{Magic: The RPG}
{Magic: The RPG}
But if DRey's post and the subsequent votes on it were serious enough to end RVS, why aren't they serious enough to examine?
But that implies the player is playing rationally. Have you ever played with DRey before? If so, you'd know he's not a normal player. You can't apply a generic "best play" mindset to his play as scum.
Hence why I cite his early game in Seasons - indeed, I originally mistook a post he made (asking a lot of questions) for genuine scumhunting because I made this mistake myself. Not making that mistake again.
So explain to me the order of events. You make the original post - pretty neutral in demeanor. DRey posts, says he suspects Caex and me. You decide that means there's some value of pursuing it, so you crank up the heat? That's the chain of events? Because it feels like that sharp rise in pressure isn't represented in the tone of the original post.
And if the normal process of voting someone is interacting to deciding to campaigning (that's a reasonable chain, right?), then that means you made your decision based on DRey's post. And DRey didn't post any new evidence or interpretation, he just said he suspected me. You followed him. That doesn't seem weird to you?
Another wording thing.
Right, but my point is before DRey posted, it wasn't a case, it was a series of observations apropos of nothing and with no association to guilt. You didn't make the true case until after he said he suspected me.
And as we both agree you aren't the kind of person who'd follow DRey, I'm wondering why his opinion nonetheless played such a role.
Coaching doesn't imply a need, it just implies something someone else believes could be improved. (And I'd argue DRey is the kind of person who'd read need into someone else when they aren't actually in need.) And, town or scum, it's pretty clear you're personally invested in this whole thing.
As someone who's tried proving such a relation between a particular voting pattern and scum (I tried proving that a certain number of scum would vote in the first half of each wagon), trust me, there's no pattern to those primes.
I'm not calling you a crazy goon, Zionite! What I'm saying by that is this: if you were to see someone on the street talking about himself in the third person, you'd think "That guy is a crazy goon!" Clearly you are not a crazy goon; hence the implication that there's more to this story. Because there is one explanation for talking about yourself in the third person: dissociation. So why would one dissociate as town? Why would one dissociate as scum? Which makes more sense/is more likely? etc.
Your efforts to learn more about argumentation do explain all the wikipedia pages. I applaud your efforts, errors notwithstanding.
etc. I cut because I no longer think this matters. We were arguing this point from different directions. But in the interest of fairness: if memory serves, I spitballed a list to try to explain suspicious behavior. The behavior was suspicious independent of the motivation, but I always try to at least keep the mindset in mind, even when it's ultimately inscrutable.
To use a metaphor: you see a guy skulking around in a public place, you don't know WHY he's skulking around, but you have a pretty good sense it's something not-good. You might speculate at why he's skulking around, but no matter what you postulate, you'll (fairly) look at that guy and say "that guy is suspicious".
You keep saying people "having to claim". Nobody has to do anything in this game. Hell, you only have to post at all because the mod gets mad and people get suspicious. Claim ranges only exist as a service secondary to a lynch - the idea being that putting a player two votes away from a lynch is a pretty strong indication that that player could be lynched, and you should stop to get their claim to see if they're worth keeping alive/not worth lynching. (Two votes because that avoids hammers.) It's a matter of procedure more than actual game-sense.
I'd argue my supposed recklessness is less damaging than hanging onto tired "traditions" like RVS and claim ranges for dear life without considering why they exist in the first place. But that's a debate for another thread.
Was I being condescending? Doesn't read that way to me. For one, that piece was directed at everyone else, not at you. For another, was I wrong in saying you didn't respond to my point?
And let's be clear: I'm using your words here, not mine! I don't think I was playing the passive thing, but you said I was sticking my head out to see if it got whacked off - which is the opposite of the aggressive play you and I agree I've been on. So why did you make that argument - and in a post where you fronted the aforementioned opposite point as well, no less? Because my key argument was that the logic of that post represents you trying to pull down any way to call my behavior "scum X", regardless of truth.
Okay, THERE I agree I'm being condescending, but I'm not wrong on the wikipedia links.
There were five people on you for a brief moment, before DRey whipped his vote off almost without comment. That suggests there were people who agreed you were scummy.
Plus, there's this: usually townies in my experience don't argue "you're wrong because not enough people were voting for me" - they KNOW I'm wrong, they don't need to reverse argumentum ad populum fallacies to argue such.
And that's the difference between you and me. I will fight you to the grave to prove you wrong, but I sure as hell won't care what other people think about me, either. (Except to get angry at them for listening to your erroneous logic.) And I SURE as hell won't measure the validity of my wagon by the number of people who agree with it. So why are you, if you're a townie? Because you're angry with me for being a smug prick and want to cut me down by showing I'm not generating quite the buzz my behavior would suggest?
Or are you really scum and thus fronting this argument because you're always keeping an eye on the number of people voting for you?
And these aren't primarily meta arguments, either. (Well, the one about kpaca is, but it's kpaca - you gotta go with what you know.) Guess how many of your games I can recall in defense of my case? Would you guess "none"?
And the only two games with DRey that come to mind are Seasons and Ataghan, which nicely complement each other because he was scum in the first and town in the second. But DRey's a special case anyway - a player whose behavior is dramatically different from the norm, and thus worthy of being judged on his own merits. (See also Wrath_of_DoG, whom I stone-cold pegged in Seasons because he has a very distinct town/scum meta.)
I don't think you knew he wouldn't show up, but you did take advantage when he didn't - the fact that it didn't work is incidental to your intentions before the fact.
For that matter, why pressure CC of all people? He's not the only person who's made almost no posts. There were several players who had also posted no content up to that point. No, you picked CC because he voted you.
So why place such importance on your personal position in the matter? That's the part that's bugging me. All these explanations - I was analyzing my own wagon, he shouldn't have made a joke outside the supposed RVS, etc. - feel secondary to the fact that you voted a guy, ultimately, for voting for you. And seeing as I know you're a good enough player to not vote someone because you're taking their vote personally, I can't help but wonder why.
That, and this is a subpoint to my true feeling that you picked CC over DRey, the better case, because of an ulterior motive. But apparently you don't like my conspiratorial thinking, so I'll revisit this after one of you is dead.
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
I definitely see what you see on Stardust since my response to him in my last post. But I'm not ready to pursue that one yet. Your first sentence here feels pretty genuine if I'm right about my read on you.
I've posted them here. Basically I don't like how you passed DRey's point against me as your own without even reading my response to said point, and then further pushed it and STILL haven't read my response. It's like you're not even paying attention to things that directly involve you.
I don't know what "votes on it" is referring to. But those post are pro-town for already explained reasons, so I didn't really need to examine them. It wasn't solely DRey's post that ended RVS, but my response to it. I've noted that in my early posts as well (something to the effect that engaging with it seriously ends RVS).
Again, I don't trump current game reads with meta. It may be right and a great companion to a case, but it doesn't supersede what my current read is. Just because he may not play optimally doesn't mean I should delve into WIFOM and meta to justify his post as scummy. That being said, I have to reiterate that his jump on your wagon was probably the scummiest post of the game.
It's more like I was entertaining the idea of casing you since I had a foundation to work with, and DRey's response confirmed my thinking, so I went through with it. Again, I'm not going to be aggressive unless I have the intention of spending 2-3 hours explaining myself and I have to feel good about the case to do that. DRey's response made me feel good about it so I followed through.
Quit clipping relevant stuff. I explained why it's weak immediately after.
I'm as invested as anyone who spends a significant amount of time trying to convince others that he's right. But this coaching point of yours is only relevant if you have one of us as scum, and as you acknowledge you don't have that currently. So keep it noted if you think it's necessary.
The one I was thinking about, which I just looked up, is the abusive analogy. Basically it's just the introduction of additional unargued information to influence eventual judgment. The book is here. Pretty cheap and you can read it on kindle. Highly recommend it even though a portion is only applicable to speech.
But i see what you're saying. I wasn't trying to dissociate myself to hide the OMGUS point, but to remove it from the equation since it didn't fit the logical course. I'm trying to streamline these things without all the side-stops explaining why this or that isn't relevant since it was already long enough without scenic detours. And it sounds pretty silly to preemptively explain why something isn't OMGUS.
Yeah, but there's always other options that you may not have considered, especially if you have a prejudice against the suspicious guy. You could just ask the guy, "hey, what's with the skulking around?" and get an answer worth basing your judgement on. But you don't just immediately call the police and tackle the guy, which is what calling for a claim feels like.
I'm not against throwing tradition out the window, because tradition in itself is simply a justification for carrying on a ritual with no other logical basis. But I think there is strategical value in following procedure in Mafia because it gives structure to something otherwise unwieldy. It provides a reason for questioning players who may have decided to quick lynch another player before a claim was heard, protection for PRs, and generates discussion from claim reactions. It's a useful convention in many ways.
Yeah, but if DRey is scum to you and CC's vote is random, that's only 3 possible town votes including your own, which isn't very much and certainly isn't in claim range.
You got me on the ad populum, but I feel like that's one of those fallacies you just have to deal with in Mafia. A case is only as strong as it's wagon because we have votes as a core mechanic. If we completely threw out ad populum, no one would ever get lynched. We always consider what's going on with the masses, not only in-game but in the whole subforum. Hell, we're still electing presidents by popular vote when no one knows a damn thing about what they stand for. It's a systemic fallacy to be aware of instead of avoiding.
I've ended many a game with a gaping mouth, full of regret that I should've listened to my team because of how terribly misguided I was. It's made me a little more humble and patient with my games and created a thirst for improvement all around. So no, I'm not arrogant enough to die with my ideas anymore because I'd rather keep playing. Again, Ozone is a good example of this. I tried to force the neutral role as pro-town even though it was impossible, pushed a futile lynch on the host even though it was fruitless, and fought to the death for my misguided ideas, and it always seems to be Day 1 when I do **** like this. It's because I'm wrong and refuse to admit it, and it's simply not as fun as living to Day 2. So I'm trying to be a little less arrogant recently.
I made a point to keep the focus on my wagon. For one, its a wagon on a townie. You don't know that (I think), but I do. There's a lot of value in knowing the alignment of the target of a wagon, which is why analyzing Day 1 lynches is so valuable Day 2. Focusing on someone else not on my wagon with no content would be a clear avoidance of being accused of OMGUS and altogether a scapegoat with no benefit to me whatsoever, and would more likely lack a worthy response. And again, we just simply disagree on DRey's earlier posts, but not the later ones.
After I get a response from Caex I'll be revising my top 3 and going from there.
I want you dead.
I sometimes do massive posts, but I'm certainly not going to do one amid a bunch of other massive posts. More of that is not what the game needed. I had stated reasoning to suspect you before, you didn't answer those questions, then I didn't like your post. I picked out the two things I saw as most scummy that Xyre hadn't addressed because we don't need three players filling the game up with words. There was plenty there to justify my vote.
I know it was sarcastic. Let me see if I can explain this... I know it was sarcastic, but it was detailed enough that I feel like a townie wouldn't have gone to that depth to make a joke. Detailed is maybe not the right word... odd maybe? I don't think a townie would have even thought about that stuff, so I see it as your actual thought process masked as sarcasm.
I just don't get this. Again you're pushing against a target only once it suits you, but this is even worse since you'd been calling him town up to this point. If you thought it was scummy and intented to come back to it, you would have said so instead of insisting Caex was town despite the bad stuff you pointed out. It just doesn't fit a town's mindset to excuse that if he's actually a suspect.
Okay. That makes sense at least.
Okay, that was a reasonable explanation. Could still be explained by scum jumping to the more popular wagon, but at least you've shown that there can be a town motivation too.
What does this mean, Zionite? You're voting for him, so you think Caex is scum, yes? So what's genuine about his sentence there?
Hey Che Guevara!
Hey DRey!
*throws it in the oven*
Too many to count; several hundred IRC games and dozens of forum games. Check my (outdated) signature for on site games and stats.
I disagree with this. You're not actually answering my argument; I didn't ask for a massive post, I asked for better reasons. You could have even posted a different, better reason for justifying the vote. The one you picked is weak.
So the post was odd because it considers things you don't think a townie would consider, and the sarcasm is a ruse?
This explain how my statement was either desperate or a confession. It looks like you needed a unique reason to vote me, thought the smiles were a nice touch, and made up a reason (or several). The fact that you don't really know how to explain is a hint that it's a bad argument.
I'm playing my reads close to the chest at the moment until Caex responds to me, so I don't feel like answering this. Later maybe.
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
My first post was a joke, but not a total one. I really dislike D1 because I shine most at middle to endgame, by analyzing wagons and VCs(particularly of dead scum). I've passed the time where I was deluded to believe I could catch the whole scum team D1, this has never happened before and probably never will, I also don't try to do the "X is scum/town so Y is certainly scum/town", this is pointless without flips.
My vote on Zion was serious but a bit after I pressured him, he started towntelling like a madman, and I'm now confident with my read of town about him. Xyre started leaning town but after some feigned attacks (Xyre's is not that stupid as town) he's strongly in my leaning scum pile, that fact that he's not really scumhunting, as Wessel noticed (another town read) just made the vote easy. Caex is another one I have as scum, first because of his sig as Kpaca noticed(yes, that's a real point, sue me) second for the same reason of Xyre's, Caex is a smart guy, both as town or scum, when he starts crapping on me ("hey Xyre is acting like he's town self, this means he's scum, vote Xyre") things really get ugly. I think Caex is just doing a mistake I've done myself before as noob scum, he's trying to earn some town credit for busing a mate early ("see, I caught Xyre early") for no reason. Considering he was caught quite handily for his scumgame in Ataghan I can see he trying another approach as scum here.
I don't think I have other reads. I'm warming up for Star though, the guy oozes newbieness but not in a scummy way, looks like he really is trying his hardest imho.
town
Zion
Wessel
leaning town
Star
leaning scum
Xyre
Caex
Now that my kpaca impersonation is over, feel free to question me again if there's any question you still have for me, I would also love input from Zinda and CC.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
No, his last post was on 04-05-2013 at 12:43 AM. He will be due for a prod if he does not post within 24 hours.
But you wouldn't suspect, say, Iso for making a post that would be out-of-character for the average player. When you make that exception, you're applying meta. So it follows that a "read trumps meta" rule cannot be absolute, right?
Why shouldn't a weak player's tendencies also matter in his case?
If his jump on my wagon was the scummiest post of the game, do you think he's scum?
Meta question: do you find you usually follow barns like this (as town or as scum, I don't much care)?
I don't care about the weak tells thing itself (because it could go either way). I care about the phrase "the town game", which is really uncomfortable - much like the third person thing. Hence, "another".
I didn't acknowledge any such point. I still think DRey's likely scum, and I don't trust you enough to put you in the town column, either. And even then, I could see a case where scum DRey thinks coaching a townie is "helpful" = townish, so yes, I'll keep it noted.
Based on the original list, do you think I was prejudiced?
So CC's vote wasn't a "possible town vote"? (Ignoring the continued semantic issue of what constitutes a reasonable margin at which to claim.)
You're missing the metaphorical forest for the tree. What I meant by "reverse ad populum" is this: how is "not enough people support you thinking I'm scum" something a townie would say? A townie KNOWS they're town - why not just prove my case wrong on its own merits?
And I don't think you addressed the last two paragraphs, so I'll copy them over:
You do realize, however, the reason Day 2 wagon analysis is better than Day 1 wagon analysis is because you know 100% the alignment of the target, whereas here we have to take you on your word. I can't believe you'd on the one be self-conscious enough to say all these weird argumentative and syntactical things I've noted, and on the other feel your towniness to be so self-apparent as to unironically do wagon analysis for yourself while you're still alive. It baffles me.
The very fact that we're still having this conversation should suggest to you the error in the latter thinking, at least.
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
Since I doubt you somehow don't know the meaning of the word "feigned", you're picking words out of thin air that sound scary.
Prove it. Prove my hours-long chase on Zionite was fake.
Ah, yes, those famous strongly leaning scum.
Now who subconsciously hedges their bets like this? You get one guess.
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
I resent that you're calling my play active lurking, as I've commented on everything so far in the game that I've had an opinion about.
Up until the quoted post, the tenacity in which Zionite was going after Xyre and defending himself was reading to me as a townie getting attacked and wanting to make sure there wasn't a mislynch, but some points in his argument in #124 that weren't sitting well with me.
At the time, his seemingly incorrect application of common game terms (Strawman, grasping at straws, circular logic, begging the question) as pointed out by Xyre made me feel like Zionite's basic argument was flawed, and if he continued down that path I feel that he would start to look scummier to me for pursuing a flawed argument after it had been debunked.
Zionite's response in #168 elaborated on these points, and in my opinion re-affirmed my town read on him.
In my opinion, they both were reaching a bit, but neither seemed like they were attacking each other from a scum mindset.
I believe that was mostly stemming from the language he used in #106 and his jump on Xyre's bandwagon in #140. I did go back through and re-read through all of his posts, though, and his first 4 posts seem town to me. In those posts he asked solid questions, voted to gauge a reaction, and then unvoted when we got to 5/7 votes way too early. To me it was a really weird shift and rubbed me the wrong way.
Adding onto that to take into account more recent posts:
I didn't like his post #164 because he seemed to ignore the fact that the game was active and there were questions pointed his way.
In #188 he gave some more content, but the English there is rough for me to read. It's worded oddly, and his logic is off. He says that Xyre "feigned attacks" which doesn't mesh with the actual events. Either he doesn't know what a feint is, or he's accusing Xyre of masterminding an entire hundreds-of-lines-of-text attack on a player to distract or mislead the town. He calls Xyre scum and simultaneously says that he isn't usually that "stupid as town." Which one is it, he's being stupid? Or creating a tactical diversion designed to distract or mislead? Or did he mean something else that I'm not getting?
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
A)It's my avatar not sig, B)kpaca is just looking for another reaction from me, C)I changed it to its current picture the day I signed up for this game, so it's not a real point.
Lrn2read. I wasn't attacking Xyre because he was using meta. I was attacking Xyre because the meta he was using was weak. As I've said like ten times before: Xyre using meta arguments is null. I'm going off the strength of the meta argument, not its presence.
???
I don't think you're remembering Ataghan properly.
{Magic: The RPG}
I'd like to point out that I did give a reason for why I didn't think your answers were convincing: I said it looked like you scrambling to cover your ass when you were called on your early DRey posts. It's easy to say "I did it on purpose to get a reaction". Whether you did or didn't actually mean to do it originally, it's not something that can actually be proved, therefore it's mostly null to me.
Sometimes it's obvious, like when kpaca does it, but it's murkier when you say it after a post like yours.
I'm assuming you really want me to respond to this post the most, so I'll do just that.
But wait... If a townie's post can purposefully be fake to bait reactions, something you're apparently claiming is a legitimate strategy, why should DRey "know better" than to do it?
I mean, you're claiming you knew it was a post designed to get a reaction from you, right? Why then slap his wrist and say "you should know better than this"? Am I just misunderstanding what you're saying? Because from where I'm sitting, it seems like my original read of "Covering his ass from a bad post" is the most likely explanation.
{Magic: The RPG}
I think kpaca is a better example. When I'm pushing cases, defensive meta is fine, offensive meta is not. So the fact that kpaca rarely says anything longer than a sentence is a reason to expect it rather than attack for it. Same goes for Iso. I expect him to be inconsistent and post frequently, so I don't attack those features. Offensive meta only works if you have a similar duplicate of their behavior from another complete game, and can be used to argue someone's alignment. But it gets messy because you have to assume people have read it or know what you're talking about, and you're speaking from a position of authority as "the guy who read the game" so no one can tell you you're wrong without researching it, so I avoid it.
I guess so. My intention was to have the case heard by someone if I was going to spend time to make it, so having that confirmation was good. I'd say I'd do that in any game if the pieces for a case were there.
Which list? Prejudiced or not, it was an over-reaching statement. I get it now you don't respect claim ranges, but I do. So I called you out on it.
It was a contradiction of mindset argument. I was arguing that it wasn't a random vote, you argued that it was a random vote, then put me in claim range. I thought, "but if CC's vote is random, I wouldn't be in claim range if CC was more active." I didn't consider "Xyre doesn't give a **** about claim ranges".
I thought I did prove you wrong.
What I'm saying is that I've lost games by being arrogant and thinking by ad nauseum I'll prove people wrong. So I'm trying to be a little more aware of other players viewpoints. If the case isn't there, than me restating it over and over isn't going to change minds but it might piss everyone off (it has).
If I'm usually wrong when I'm arrogant, then it can happen to anyone. And it's happened to you too. You don't really care or consider what others have to say because you're right and damn the alternatives, even if they might be correct.
I'm going to argue with the information I have. My towniness is a valuable asset to logically approaching cases. I'm not going to handicap myself simply because other players have to take my word for it; they are already in that position as soon as I open my mouth. My towniness isn't apparent now but it could be later so I'd like to have something useful to add.
Come on Xyre, shifting the burden of proof? You're better than that.
That seems like a really easy way to ignore attacks against you while still leveraging for your own motives. If you're not reading the back-and-forth between me and Xyre, what the hell are you doing?
That's not a reason, that's an opinionated observation. You're right that it's null and that's exactly why it's not a point at all. Your reason was bad by your own conclusion.
DRey's gambit was too obvious and could have been executed better, which I did.
My vote on you is serious, not a test for reactions. Also a large portion of said vote is indeed based off a theory I crafted due to your avatar.
Okay, that's what you do, but that doesn't say anything about how you respond to my meta points. If anything, it suggests a natural willingness to consider them, notwithstanding information limitations. And I think I've pretty well explained the parallels between this game and Seasons - asking me to explain the entire game to you so you can feel fully informed is ridiculous.
So again: what's wrong with my use of meta, particularly with respect to DRey? (Besides "that's not what I'd do.")
And would you please answer my other two questions?
As a side note, since you're so intent on learning about proper argumentation, the above is a classic example of a confirmation bias. (Or you're following a scum buddy, a possibility I'm not willing to discount.)
I haven't done any rereads of your old games yet, but I might try tracking down some examples.
The list of possible explanations, which I prefaced with a caveat as to my own uncertainty. How did that list exhibit prejudice?
That doesn't answer my question. Did you or did you not consider CC's vote a possible townie vote (or, to be more clear, did you consider CC's vote a scum vote) at the time?
EDITOR's NOTE: I cut out a lot because it basically boiled down to Zionite asking me to take a lot on faith, and while I don't, I recognize that there's nothing more to be gained from a conversation that boils down to "trust me, this is how I think".
I don't know what's in that argumentation book you bought, but you should demand a refund, because once again you're wrong.
Burden of proof falls on the person making a positive conjecture to prove it. He says it's a fake attack, it's his job to prove it, not mine to prove he's wrong.
Anyway: why does my post in response to DRey matter to you?
It's of little interest (except the vote on CropCircles which I've discussed at length).
I'll go look over the Zionite/Caex interactions now, and probably also put together a summary on DRey.
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 why do you support defensive meta and scorn offensive meta, exactly?
I'll do a reread on Zionite's games in a little while, but first I'm just going to do an entire reread on Caex.
#9: Hey Caex, explain this post. Was this random?
#53: This post is weird for two reasons - one, as I noted to Caex, aggressiveness and meta reads are my modus operandi and he knows that; and two, the phrasing of this post seems to suggest the aggressiveness, not the quality, was what caught his eye. His reaction to the kpaca part specifically is not indicative of anything, but this post's structure bothered and still bothers me.
#64: "Playing around it" seems at-odds with "playing terribly", which seems to have been the implication of the kpaca bit - particularly when that's the only element in this entire matter that seems to be evidence against me (as "you know your meta so you could be scum" is never evidence of anything).
#80: Tentative support for DRey's case on Zionite. Not sure how Stardust came into this.
Hey, Caex! What's your current opinion of Stardust? Cite specific examples, please. (If you think he's town now, please tell me what posts specifically made you think otherwise pre-80. Don't just say "I got bad vibes" - show me which posts exactly gave you bad vibes, and explain why those posts gave you those vibes.)
#83 and 84: Zionite's not the only one who believes claiming at L-2 is compulsory, it would seem.
The "if you want specifics" part feels tacked on, like he realized barning DRey and saying he saw bad "stuff" would look threadbare. I'm not reading any conviction.
#95: "He's the biggest wagon for a reason" is really strange. While I don't know if I agree with Stardust's specific point that Caex seems to be "setting [him]self up", per se, I agree it's weird Caex cites the wagon's size as evidence of its validity on the one hand and then demures on the matter of voting due to the presence of random votes on the other. The "pardon me if I'm interested in voting for scummy players" also feels forced.
And, without citing any evidence previously about Stardust's scumminess (or even citing cases where Caex's "gut" played into it), he jumps on him? What the hell?
The one thing that gives me pause is Caex's last line before the vote, which reads like somebody reading too much into a new player's overcompensation, but then again, Caex's tone is weird to me. If it's scummy, just say it's scummy, don't say it "isn't making me feel any better about you" - that feels like the kind of thing you say when you need to acknowledge something while dismissing it. (In this case, ignoring something that would definitely point to a player being new and thus deserving of a different standard for evaluation.)
#120: Twisting Zionite's words - Zionite is distinguishing the "argumentum ad populum" piece from the true reason Caex cited in suspecting Z. Caex's response is an overreaction. (Though that's not necessarily indicative, as I can attest. More evidence needed.)
#122: Caex's point on Stardust's disclaimer here doesn't match the tone he took in his voting post. If that was the reason you voted him, I'd expect a stronger view of the statement than "it doesn't do you any favors".
#123: Elaborates on the "stuff" he cited in voting Zionite by repeating the argument he already cited to vote Zionite. This is weird, as "stuff" usually implies more than one thing.
#155: The comparison to kpaca ain't doing him any favors, especially because it's obvious he wasn't actually looking for reactions from Stardust (or if he was, his plan was doomed from the get-go, because any reactions he did get would likely be attributable to the fact that he had no evidence). This feels less like Caex justifying his play than Caex looking for something to justify his play, if that makes sense.
#171: "You'll be sorry" doesn't fill me with confidence.
Now we get some more concrete sense that Caex was trolling for reactions from Stardust, which gives me pause if only because it's possible Caex cannot possibly give Stardust the benefit of the doubt and thinks he's caught him through sheer force of will. Though the last time I gave Caex the benefit of the doubt, I paid for it dearly. Hrmph.
#195: It's weird Caex isn't bothered that DRey's barning a kpaca joke as real evidence.
Hey, Caex! What's your opinion on me? Still think I'm scum? Again, be specific.
#196: Hypocritical - Caex has on at least one occasion this game disclaimed his scummy behavior as based on getting a reaction, and has tried comparing his use of such supposed plays to kpaca's to get off the hook. Accusing Zionite of doing the same really looks bad.
Hey, Caex! What's your opinion of Zionite. (Be specific.)
While I wait for the responses:
Vote Caex Kothar
I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with the conventional wisdom (and Zionite) - there's plenty there that stands out, especially in how Caex relates to other players and justifies his posts.
By my count, that's four votes total (CC, WoLG, Zionite, and me)
Mod: We need a prod on Che.
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
Caex Kothar (4): CropCircles, kpaca, Zionite, Xyre
Zionite (2): Che Guevera, Stardust
Xyre (2): Wessel, DRey
WellOfLostGnomes (1): zindabad
Stardust (1): Caex Kothar
Not Voting (2): Deaths_Vampire, WellOfLostGnomes
With 12 alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.
Day One will end no later than 11:59PM, Saturday, April 27th.
It's the weekend, so I'm liable to be a little more lenient. That said, if Che doesn't post by midnight, I'll send out a round of prods to him, CropCircles, and anyone else who needs prodding.
Along those lines, I would appreciate an increase in overall activity.
Players using the avatars or sigs to convey information is strictly forbidden along the lines of more obvious rules violations such as privately communicating with players outside of the game thread without the host's knowledge and consent. I see nothing wrong with Caex's avatar usage.
Don't explain it just for me, but for everyone who hasn't read your meta argument's game. If you don't want to, fine. But don't expect me to naturally draw the comparisons without context.
So aside from the fact that I don't really know what you're arguing with your meta on DRey, except to say it makes him scum, I feel your case could be better with posts from the current game.
A weak player's tendencies could be applicable, but I don't know how you define "weak". I could argue Iso's frantic posting style is weak, and he'd disagree. It depends on the argument.
He's probably congealed into 2nd or 3rd on a list of Caex, Stardust, and DRey. From a total actions taken standpoint, there's some good town tells in there. But in interactions it looks worse.
I think the list didn't have prejudice, but your previous posts directed toward me were quite venomous that the list came off as prejudiced. This was when I was at 4 votes. It's a loaded question already with the parenthetical inclusion.
Reading it made me think that it didn't matter what my answer was, you'd use that to justify jumping on the wagon. If you hadn't used the loaded words and completely removed the parenthetical, then I wouldn't read it like a wagon jumping prep post. So the list was prejudiced, because you had already made up your mind on how you were going to approach this regardless of my explanation.
A random vote is not a valid vote when determining when someone should claim, whether it's scum or town doing the vote. CC's vote I wasn't sure was random or not, which is why I wanted more information.
What I'm saying is that it's your job to prove your case is good. Not his job to prove you wrong. It has nothing to do with a fake attack.
Does this change your position, kpaca? I think suspecting someone because of their avatar is kinda like saying you think they're scummy because you don't like their face.
@DRey: What is your response to the points raised against you by myself and other players?
-[thread=14456]The [Untitled] Avatar and Sig shop![/thread] Avatar from:[thread=25376] [Epic Graphics][/thread]
Awards:
Elegant Mafia: The Joker, Mafia MVP
I gave context way back when, though. I'll reiterate it for your (plural) benefit when I assemble something more definitive on DRey.
If you'd played with DRey before, you'd know what I'm talking about. The point is for players like him with weak/eccentric posting styles, the tendencies matter, as they're distinguishable from regular inexperience.
What's your take on Stardust? I'd like some specific points from you on that matter, much as I'd like them from Caex.
Again, you're not answering the question. I don't care about the validity of the vote, I care about this particular phrase you used of interest to me: "possible townie vote". Was CC's vote a "possible townie vote" or not? It's a simple question.
I don't know what you're talking about. He claimed my case is fake. By the very fact that I made reasoned points and backed them up with evidence, the presumption is that those points are valid unless he provides some evidence to back up their "fakeness". This is basic stuff. If he wants to say I'm fronting, he can prove 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
Why don't you defend the claims instead of saying its stupid and more people should vote stardust?
The whole "I don't care how person X thinks about me" isn't from a town mindset, because being town is about being part of a team.
Xyre feels scummier than Zionite from the back and forth walls of text (JESUS) but I'm not convinced either is scum. Unvote.
@Stardust: Hi! right back at ya
Wessel is strange. I feel that Wessel is actively lurking and prodding the fire of certain points that aren't really a proper hunt. Keeping a closer eye...
lol
Everyone talks about meta, meta is both boring and doesn't include facts from the game that matters... the one we are playing! I don't count meta arguments as good cases towards a wagon.
Post #195 by Caex Kothar comes off as angry caught scum. This along with previous points makes him my #1 scumspect right now.
The DRey "no one is claiming" feels like a gambit for townie points. I'll be keeping an eye there as well.
Vote Caex K
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Zionite, you said you'd answer this once Caex replied to you. He has and I'm still interested in the answer, if you'd be so kind.
Caex, I'm ready to vote for you anytime now, so a claim would be appreciated. If you claim vanilla, a list of reads with reasons would be helpful too. Thanks.
I'm Gloin and I'm the cop. I also have a passive ability that I'd really rather not claim if possible.
{Magic: The RPG}
Push for lynch
tries to reason with bad reasoning (unlyncable??) and then doesn't want to claim everything
You claim or get lynched thats how it works
@Caex why did you think being the cop would make you more resistant to lynching therefore you could play scummier? Are you saying you are an unlimited cop plus you have a beneficial passive?
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
@everyone if you are the real gloin feel free to counterclaim him asap.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.