Mini 1625: Redemption (Game Over)

[droog]

so an awa recap:

before this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'

after this conversation:
- i scumspect you for 'flubber is antitown = flubber is scum'
- i scumspect you for pretending you only ever said 'flubbel is antitown'
- i scumspect you for suggesting you responded to a point you actually didnt

[Naomi-Tan]

Thinking of looking over everyone and giving gut readings on everyone, as we are getting late into D1, See you in about 6-7 hours of post readings.

[Naomi-Tan]

Please learn the terms you're using to soapbox your 'omg so controversial & edgy' opinions, before you embarrass yourself further.

You really are a douchebag. I just think you should know this. I don't care what your sexual preference or anything else pertaining to the real life you is or isn't, but I can say that online, you are a total tool. I say this hoping that all the douchebags and tools of the world don't get offended by me adding you to their group.

As far as being controversial or edgy, neither thought ever crossed my mind. I stated my opinion, which is that being politically correct is blatantly stupid in all regards. If someone is mentally slow (for instance), why is it morally wrong to say "retarded?" The word "retard" was an integral part of the English language long before it ever became some sort of insult. The same goes for the word "gay," which in reality means nothing whatsoever about sexual preference. If anything, being gay (joyful, happy, cheerful) should be a good thing. Some random person took offense to this word though somewhere down the line, and all of a sudden it is "morally reprehensible" to use it. The same goes for "fag," which we've all heard is a bundle of sticks. Again, somewhere down the line, some overly sensitive individual was literally called a "bundle of sticks" and took such offense that the word itself became a slur. The real problem there lies in the first person who took such great offense to the word, rather than the idiots who attacked someone based on their sexuality.

Let us not forget that being PC is essentially just an over-compensation for stereotypes. That's understandable to a point, but really, it is a logical fallacy. Just because someone takes offense to something doesn't mean it isn't also true. Airports scan for arab/muslim individuals far closer than some white, 90-year old grandmother, but being PC would say that anyone has an equal chance to be a terrorist, and targeting arabs is racial profiling. The issue is that while it is true that anyone can be a potential terrorist, it is far more likely that someone from a middle-eastern nation would be far more likely to be involved in an Islamic terrorist organization than the white, 90 year old grandmother from the suburbs. If in the future, there is a large upswing of white, 90 year old grandmother terrorist groups, I'm positive that they will be targeted at airports as well.

All that being said, my point is that words are words no matter what. The INTENT of the word is what really matters, rather than what the exact word is. You hear people call each other the N word multiple times, even though the word's root is based on slavery and oppression of African Americans, but in the modern age, people mostly use it as a term of endearment. Should you be offended by this? Yes/No? Politically correctness says you should, regardless of the usage of the word. I find this stupid.

So yeah, call me 'controversial and edgy' for having an opinion if you want, but I simply call it an opinion. You bashing that opinion for no reason, assuming to know my mindset (I'm not sure why you'd ever think you would know what I'm thinking, but you aren't very good with the whole intuition thing), and assuming I would be embarrassed for stating my opinion means frankly that you are a self-centered asshole with no understanding of other people's motives, thought processes, or personalities.

That being said as well, you claim Flames is scummy due to you not being able to figure out his thought process. I think you probably have trouble doing this with everyone, so it's no surprise to me if you assume anyone that thinks on different wave-lengths are scummy. You and Droog agree on everything, so naturally you assume you both are town, but that's another fallacy which I think is based on your personality. A lack of intuition in the game of mafia means you either go the ultra-logical statistical route (sort of like what Naomi tried), or you simply remain bad at the game due to being naturally deficient at reading people.

Well this reply is very late (as I took a 2 day unannounced break when I found myself unmotivated to talk after no one took my huge data collecting seriously) I find on the issue of PC, I don't think people should be getting so offended so easily, the off hand 'gay' statement is something 14 year old boys tend to toss around in a play ground, Taking 'offence' to it when used as a casual descriptive adjective (Not directly using it as a insult based on personal sexual prefence) It is perfectly acceptable as when someone toss's the word Nerd/Geek/Otaku around at me in personal interactions. If you let everything get to you, you will have a bad time. Best to just go with the flow and be like whatever, like water over sand.... this went in a weird metaphorical direction, moving on and continuing the ISO

TL:DR Keep Calm, And Hunt Scum

[Naomi-Tan]

Mod:

Did you prod Naomi?

Nope I narrowly avoided the prod

[Naomi-Tan]

Naiomi,

How do crazies vote, posting, and content differ from the average.

Also it appears that you picked out crazy

did a bunch of fake graphs,

then fit the data and the argument to your pre-existing suspicions.

Have you benchmarked this system in other games say by taking 10 games, do this type of analysis and predicting scum based on it. How much better than luck is this type of pseudo analysis.

I would suggest in general to drop the spreadsheets and focus on content.

Just going back to this one; the graphs are not fake, you can confirm ALL the data your self, its below the graphs in plain view, Please don't misrepresent my graphs, they take alot of time to build partially when examining someones attacks, self defend, null, informative and defence posts, that took the best part of 4 hours.

[Naomi-Tan]

Sorry I been out for so long, Got a little distracted with life, but now is a good time to give a readout on everyone I think.

Whomping Willow - After a rocky and trolly start, they started coming in with good content, only done a couple of big content posts but over all been good at responding to people. He has shown aggression towards a few people, but not inproportionately. Currently I trust willow as a slight town read (maybe about 15% in the town side) content seems about average so... yeah all good here. Wish I had a stronger read though..

Originalchris - At the start of the game, it was pretty obvious he wasn't reading our medium length posts well enough to understand them, and wasn't going back to double check his theories, and that flipp out moment, is very painful to read back over, he pretty much attacked all my town reads at the time. However, this gave me a STRONG town feeling about him, thoughing Cation to the wind and trying to attack the most active 3 players at the time was brave and bold, It showed to me as a move that only a townie would make as scum don't really have any need to attack strong town players as a lynch on a bad town is easier and less suspicious to execute. In 242 I did feel it was slightly scummy on review as it says he trusts no one, but I guess paranoid townies are a thing. So, Good Town read on them (about 61%) As including everything above, they also defended me, and as I have said many times before and will continue to do so, like a annoying funny little meme; I Know I'm Town. (why yes this is just to urk Pianist)

crazypianist1116 - Attacked; Me, Willow, Droog, Munkir (sort of) O Chris, and Flub (though flub deserved it) So far he has attacked around half the player base, but comes off super confident when doing so, also all his pushes look either opportunistic or anti-lurky. Much like after the first time, still think he is scum. (-50%)

istott - Eeeh... looks townish... just boarding really... not really sure about them... got a few points... but not really getting where they are... 3% town?

Munkir - 90% sure he is town, all the tells are there and after a rocky start, I believe he has come out unto himself lately and is making a great contribution to town. keep it up.

droog - While he started off good and I enjoyed my conversation, as its gone on my feelings have dropped. It was all good until he shadowed me with doubt, and I can't understand why, he said it was because I explained my thought process but how does it make me scummy...whatever, But as I contuined reading my feelings got more and more doubtful to the point that now im leaning scummy side of things (maybe a -17%) sure he is ssaying alot... but im not really getting the feeling of any active looking... just reacting to situations as they arise with no time taken for his own investigating, i'm just not really seeing any original stuff bar his attack on me which I'm biest on of course, not that I think it had a well constructed anything...

GGG - Don't like him still, Like Droog, not much oringal content, he asks alot of questions but this IMO is only questions that make others look scummy when they try to answer, then again after our ealier fight and his reaction to my last post, I could be letting my emotions get the better of me in part, but either way my feels on GGG is; -34% ish Scummy

AWA - AWA had a slow start but when he has posted (which is only occasionally), I find he always address's a point or gives a large wall of thoughts on players, which seems like he is doing stuff, got a good feeling about awa, +15% Townish

kuror0 - I Don't like kuror0, lack of activity really, 6 posts across the game... 1 of which attacking me for 'fence sitting' which I don't really get, how is staying out of arguments between two people you think is town/ Arguments that are not useful for town (Ironic... I just posted a pointless response to one said argument.. I should follow my own advice..) bad for town.? in fact most every post he made has been saying something about me... personally dislike the guy now :I -40% scummy

Riddleton - replaced out, but didn't really say much when he was in... Null.

Flames682 - He has an abrasive attitude, but looking over his content, can't see anything good... nor bad really... gonna put him down as Nullish...

Flubbernugget - ~@$~"£ God... Urgh... This guy hurts... Okay, if this guy is scum, he is the worst scum I've read, if he is town, he is the worst town I've read... Worse part is, I can't even tell what alignment he is, its like a stream of shitty 1-3 line posts reacting to shit like the only thing that I can pickup from the dude with any kinda of Certainity was his post saying IIoA meaning he ignored the sheet directly below the charts detailing each post the guy made and my summary/thoughts on them... URGH... this guy is just... whatevenamireadingidon'tknow!

[droog]

Finally, at the end of post; post 136 you went and voted for chris, but you only mentioned him once as a mid sorta comment, rather than at the end like a bold statement, could you perhaps expand on that point as I personally feel that he isn't really doing anything and looking like he is contributing without saying much, but your RVS statement doesn't speak to me much. so I'd like more.

however
something about this seems more like
scum explaining their town thought processes
than town having town thought processes

this was 400 posts ago now
any thoughts about things ive done more recently?

[AWA]

I'm not going to continue responding to droog until he actually provides some kind of case instead of just saying that you don't like what I'm saying. Flubber and droog remain my top two choices; all of their cases are haphazardly thrown together, and when challenged their only responses are "Well you disagree with me so you must be scum".

[AWA]

@AWA

A few things

What post exactly did you state that "creating a controversy over something completely unrelated does nothing to actually help the town"?

I also took note of posts 567 and 585 as it raised a flag with me and while I disagree that this proves he is scum as he could just be town trying to play a straight forward game style.

In 558 and 603 I outline my thoughts regarding controversy.

567 and 585 do nothing except to put unnecessary pressure on players to point fingers while worded in such a way as to seemingly preclude the possibility that a person might not have any strong scum reads. If the player

doesn't

have a strong scum read, then their honest response could easily be spun to be dodging the question, and therefore scummy.

[AWA]

And AWA has to be being deliberately dense at this point, he would be my firm 2nd choice for a lynch.

Elaborate? What do you mean by dense? Can you construct an argument or are you just point fingers because you don't like my writing style?

[AWA]

Cp/oc??/awa scumteam.

Elaborate?

[AWA]

I really don't like AWAs voting because he sees flubs as anti town and he keeps pushing it as a good tactic so he has gone from null to lean scum, this could just be misguided town though so I need more from him. Not a day 1 lynch for me.

Can you explain to me why voting for an anti-town player is worse than not voting, which is my only other option at the moment, since I don't have any definitive scum reads? To me, the order of danger to the town goes: Scum > Anti-town > Neutral > Town. If I can't be sure of someone being scum, then anti-town becomes my highest choice for removing danger to the town.

[AWA]

How exactly does this "reek of scum"? I'm not happy with the "gay as slur nonsense", because as I stated,

creating a controversy over something completely unrelated does nothing to actually help the town

, and in fact is a detriment because it causes chaos and distraction. Which I said in the very post you quoted. Can you show me exactly how Flubber ISN'T making a ruckus?

Because his insistence upon creating confusion, handwaving posts that don't necessarily conform to his own ideas, and posts such as 567 and 585 which directly demand specific players to state who they think are scum without providing any kind of context or rationalization don't help the town.

The only possible reason that a player would make these kinds of moves are if they are scum or some other kind of anti-town role. Either way I am in favor of a lynch.

1) we all create controversy.
flubber /started/ it but we each chose to continue it
you're not anti-town reading everyone else for it

2) this is a completely different argument
i do not scum read you for thinking flubber is handwaving
or calling 567 and 585 scummy
i scum read you for proposing an 'anti town = scum' lynch

you are conflating a reasonable argument i did not critique
with an unreasonable argument i did critique

I lied, I'm going to respond to this.

1.) While several other people responded, no one except for Flubber (and yourself, ironically) responded in a way that would propagate the discussion. Flubber continued to use the language in a future post after it was already demonstrated to elicit controversy, and you posted an almost vehement defense of using that sort of language. Regardless of my opinions on using that kind of language in general, when applied to this kind of situation where such a controversy is negative toward an atmosphere of cooperation toward finding scum the fact that Flubber and yourself continued to post inflammatory remarks told me that you were not interested in scumhunting as a priority.

2.) I never said anti-town is scum, look at my ISO. That you insist on pushing this point is suspicious, especially since you have outright called me scummy several times for no reason other than this. Projecting?

I never said that you were critiquing my argument of Flubber handwaving, I always knew you were someone attacking my (nonexistent) anti-town = scum construction.

I will be interested to see how you spin this into me being scum.

[Whomping Willow]

And AWA has to be being deliberately dense at this point, he would be my firm 2nd choice for a lynch.

Elaborate? What do you mean by dense? Can you construct an argument or are you just point fingers because you don't like my writing style?

Whenever you get challenged on your Flubber position you misrepresent what they've said, droog summed things up pretty well (Hi Oc)

PEdit: Both Oc and myself and made posts that propogated that discussion, in fact, Oc came back after promising content he still hasn't posted, in order to post 2 huge walls about it. Any opinions on our posts about the topic?

[AWA]

I believe I address this above, (and in fact in several posts since you originally posted this), but again I fail to see how

my opinion that Flubber is antitown

leads to me being scum. Please show me your train of thought here.

you moved the goalpost again

You use this term, but you don't know what it means. Asking you to provide your logic is not "moving the goalposts".

i am not calling you scum for 'flubber is antitown'
i am calling you scum for 'flubber is antitown and therefore scum'
which i already explained:

This reeks of scum
Scum would be pretty happy with this "gay is a slur" nonsense
It gives them a chance to be genuine
Which scum will take for all it's worth

Again, first of all I never said that anti-town = scum, that was a connection that you made when you accused me. Regarding 564, I literally addressed that exact post in 648. Can't help but notice that you conveniently ignore that post in 670.

in short
you were the only player to try to take advantage of the situation
not by suggesting a pl for trashy behavior
but by suggesting it actually effected your reads

Are you implying here that a distraction doesn't affect reads? Are you suggesting that I should have suggested a PL for the trashy behavior, as many other people did? Being an asshole in and of itself doesn't warrant a policy lynch to me, because it doesn't say anything about the person other than that they are an asshole. However, if being an asshole will cause people to have a skewed perspective when trying to analyze posts or if it will cause people to be in an unbalanced emotional state when they are trying to be rational, then I am for a policy lynch because causing an unsound mental state in other players is something that can only help the scum.

[AWA]

And AWA has to be being deliberately dense at this point, he would be my firm 2nd choice for a lynch.

Elaborate? What do you mean by dense? Can you construct an argument or are you just point fingers because you don't like my writing style?

Whenever you get challenged on your Flubber position you misrepresent what they've said, droog summed things up pretty well (Hi Oc)

PEdit: Both Oc and myself and made posts that propogated that discussion, in fact, Oc came back after promising content he still hasn't posted, in order to post 2 huge walls about it. Any opinions on our posts about the topic?

Can you provide an example of where I've made a misrepresentation? Don't just make a claim and then not back it up with evidence.

Regarding yourself and OC making inflammatory posts: I don't see anything in your ISO that could be construed as propagating that discussion except perhaps 581, and even that has a mostly level tone and doesn't provoke a response. OC's only post that could be construed as propagating that discussion would be 590, and even that is only inflammatory toward you (that is to say, toward an individual, not toward the group as a whole. Meanwhile, droog has 292, 542, and 556, jumping on BOTH instances of Flubber using "gay" in an inflammatory manner.

[droog]

Away that is shite

Two facts belie you

1) I do not scum read you for calling flubber anti town
I scum read you for calling flubber scummy for being anti town

2) I ignored your defense in 648

because it came after your request for an elaboration in 641

[droog]

In fact
In 648
You say you'd already responded to my points
I showed you hadn't responded to my points
And now you say yes you did -- in 648

VOTE: awa[/b]

That's for moving your goalposts to push a lynch on me again

[droog]

VOTE: awa

[AWA]

Away that is shite

Two facts belie you

1) I do not scum read you for calling flubber anti town
I scum read you for calling flubber scummy for being anti town

2) I ignored your defense in 648

because it came after your request for an elaboration in 641

Yet more proof that you don't actually read my posts. I'm not holding your hand and walking you through my posts when I very clearly state exactly why you are wrong. Literally every single thing you just said has been addressed in my recent posts.

[AWA]

I refuse to let you dictate the flow of my posts. You accuse me of moving the goalposts, yet you yourself are never satisfied by my responses, all of which have been backed up by quotes and evidence, while you do nothing except restate the same words over and over. It's like talking to a broken record. You're not going to drag me into an endless loop of explaining the same things over and over just to satisfy you because you are apparently incapable of critical thinking or basic reading comprehension. I'm done with you until you actually post some meaningful content. Don't think I don't take note of your pressure vote, either; you won't succeed at baiting me.

[Naomi-Tan]

Finally, at the end of post; post 136 you went and voted for chris, but you only mentioned him once as a mid sorta comment, rather than at the end like a bold statement, could you perhaps expand on that point as I personally feel that he isn't really doing anything and looking like he is contributing without saying much, but your RVS statement doesn't speak to me much. so I'd like more.

however
something about this seems more like
scum explaining their town thought processes
than town having town thought processes

this was 400 posts ago now
any thoughts about things ive done more recently?

Not really... everything you done since seems very reactionary rather than active really, Accept for that dumb fight over the whole political correctness merlarky and this stuff just now, which... well.. I feel Awa is more town and makes a better effort... You are kinda a wildcard IMO

[droog]

Droog, would you mind compiling a post that clearly and concisely states your reasons for not liking me?

id thought id done so
would you like me to add to this

Except I've already addressed those

[droog]

Except I've already addressed those points.

im not sure where
564 is where i lay them out
588 i repeat without explaining
you post next in 603-4, 610, 612, and 641

603 is only in response to 588
and most of 603 is about willow, not flubber
604 is mod prod
610 points back to 603
612 suggests anti-town = scum, exactly what i dont like
in 641 you ask me to reexplain

so if the part of 603 where you call me scummy for calling you scummy
is addressing an argument
then yes i agree

[droog]

Regarding 564, I literally addressed that exact post in 648. Can't help but notice that you conveniently ignore that post in 670.