I don't like that Mute is lynching Lateralus
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
I'll have a post up tomorrow.
Mastin wrote:Well, then, was I doing the same for you, Neruz? I had you in the EXACT SAME POST as an ISO read. PEOPLE ARE ADDRESSING THE JAY ISO WHILE IGNORING THE NERUZ ISO.
The Jay ISO seemed like it was going somewhere, this isn't really all that impressive or memorable of useless.Mastin wrote:Starts the game voting for the IC. I am not particularly fond of this, quite honestly.
Something in this post seems off to me. I can't put my finger on it, but this post rubs me the wrong way.
However, I have a town read on Neruz, for posts like this.
If one dislikes something, they want to get rid of it as soon as possible. So analyzing the RVS makes sense because it's a way to end it quicker.Kayi wrote:Analyzes the RVS (a little too much for my taste) even though he said he doesn't like the RVS. He immediately responds to my 'favorite alignment to play' question on the next post.
Neruz wrote:Heyy, look at that, i'm back.
Neruz wrote:Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
Neruz wrote:Aaagh.
You seriously need to control yourself dude, i can handle long posts, but i cannot handle huge blocks of text.
Neruz wrote:You're doing it again you know. That response to the epicmafia thing could easily be about 1/4 as long and still communicate the same information.
Neruz wrote:I'm also going to add that i don't really support a Mastin lynch at this point. While i amseverelytempted to support it just to ensure i never have to look at another one of those wall posts, intellectually i'm pretty sure that isn't a scum tell >.>
Neruz wrote:'Burden of Proficiency' is a somewhat mafia-specific form of the Argument from Authority. The thing is though that it's not actually a proper AfA.
What makes an AfA a logical fallacy is when the authoritive person comments about a subject that they have no authority for. If Albert Einstein made an authoritive statement about, say art, then assuming he is correct because he is Albert Einstein is an AfA. But if Mr. Einstein makes an authoritive statement about physics, then assuming he is correct isnotan AfA.
Thus, whether or not the Burden of Proficiency is an AfA is on very shaky ground, as you could legitimately argue that experienced players -are- authoritive about catching scum, especially if there is prior evidence to indicate that the player in question does show a pattern of catching scum often as town. (For those of you in the know, Bayes' theorm technically applies here.)
Neruz wrote:@Mastin: It's not so much the walling itself which i find unreadable as it is your particular style. I have no problem whatsoever with large posts if those posts are large because they contain a lot of content and are edited nicely so that paragraphs are seperate and different subjects are clear and concise.
From what i can tell, this is not the case in your posts; you seem to either reiterate the same point in different language multiple times or bring up multiple points in the same sentance with no rhyme or reason, this, combined with the fact that you don't blank lines between paragraphs, makes reading your posts extremely difficult.
Neruz wrote:In a related note, your response to me, simply by adding empty lines between paragraphs, is about three times more readable than your prior posts.
Neruz wrote:This is actually kind of important, because i'm getting the impression that you're committing an Argument Ad Nauseam, and i can't tell if it's deliberate or not.Mastin wrote:As for me bringing up points multiple times, this has been explained already; I'm really bad with words, and yet, I want to get my message across as clearly as I can. The two end up making me fairly repetitive.
Neruz wrote:Paragraph seperation varies pretty significantly from person to person, but i've found putting an empty line between major but related paragraphs, and 2 or more empty lines between major but unrelated paragraphsreallyhelps reading comprehension.
It does allow people to skim more easily, since they can check each paragraph faster, but the alternitive is worse.
Neruz wrote:Atm i'm about even on Trendall and Mastin. On the one hand i have serious concerns that Mastin may be trying to obfuscate poor arguments deliberately, on the other hand the speed at which Trendall picked up what looked like a possible Mastin wagon worries me.
Both are pretty light though, certainly i don't feel either is enough to justify a vote.
Neruz wrote:That's not so bad. Like i said before, large posts are alright, it's just large posts + poor formatting which cripples legibility.
Neruz wrote:I would put an empty line between each quote though, makes it easier to read again.
Neruz wrote:"Hitler Built Autobahns. Hitler was evil. Therefore building Autobahns is evil." Is a subset of the Correlation Implies Causation fallacy, which basically goes as follows:
A did B.
A is bad.
Therefore doing B is bad.
Another example is:
A did X as scum in the last game.
A is doing X in this game.
Therefore A is scum.
The reason it is a fallacy is it does not look at the reasons behind the action, only the action itself. A may well have done X as scum, but that does not mean that X is a scumtell. To use a silly-extreme example; Scum post in threads in which they are scum. Therefore posting in threads is a scumtell.
The Correlation Implies Causation fallacy is one of the most common and insidious logical fallacies in the world because on the surface in a reasonable real-life situation away from clear and concise examples it canseemto be correct, even obviously so.
Neruz wrote:Plus,everyoneis often accused of buddying when it turns out to just be 2 town who agree (or sometimes 1 town who agrees with 1 scum). It happens all the time, in fact i can't think of a game where hasn't happened.
Admittedly, this is largely because people frequently confuse "agreeing with someone else" for "buddying" (they are very different people, look them up.)
Good points? What did you have in mind, exactly?Kayi wrote:It would be really bad in my eyes if Mute and him hadn't brought out several good points against Nacho.
In this point, he basically calls me scum because I attacked him opposed to everyone else. He attacks me for not attacking Yenros, even though Yenros was on a V/LA at that time, and I already prodded him before. He also seems to expects me to be responsible for prodding lurkers. The only problem with this is that I'm not; I'm not going to waste my time twisting people's arms to post. If you're not posting, however, I'm not going to be shy in looking for scum intent behind your lurking. The content I have provided since my entrance in this game should be obvious; first, I pushed a no lynch, which is what I believed was the best course of action today, and then I pushed someone who I thought was scum, Mastin. This, like you've already mentioned, has triggered a decently-sized case/wagon to form on Mastin. If that isn't content, then what is?Neruz wrote:Furthermore, i find it a little concerning that you're apparantly willing to jump on me for fence sitting a bit and willingly admitting that i'm not hugely interested in the game right now, but havn't paid any attention at all to the rather large quantity of lurkers this game possesses. Jay has at least chimed in once during that period with some content, but Yenros posted nothing at all during that same period and as far as i can tell Mute hasn't posted anything of worth for an entire week. (Yes i know he claimed Doctor, but that doesn't give him a pass to just cease participation in the game) and in what is perhaps the perfect example of blatant hipocrasy, where's your content Nacho?
Or, is this the good point? He's criticizing me for not providing more examples than just one. Surprising, since I thought Mastin's ISO was so daunting and so terrible, I figured that everyone would understand if I didn't back my point up with 20 examples. The last sentence is a doozy, but let me give you a hand. If you aren't self-voting and you're random-voting the doctor, it means you aren't the doctor.Neruz wrote: One example. That's it? Blanket statement 'you use terrible arguments' and then one example? And that last sentance doesn't even make any sense inside or outside of context.
Erm, it was a valid mindset to attack Mastin to see whether the Jay thing actually WASN'T a Jay case, or he was just trying to squirm out of his weak case.Neruz wrote:Next post, you bring up the Jay thing again, or should i say still? Since you were basically having a little fight with Mastin over whether or not he had made a case on Jay.
This is a good example of what I mentioned earlier about him expecting me to get the lurker's to contribute. And I don't know what you admitting you've lost interest has to do with anything at all. If I say I've lost interest in the game, does that give me a free pass to active lurk my ass off?Neruz wrote:Rather than poking the lurkers to try and get them to post more (and thus contribute to town discussion), you pull up a case on me, based on two days of discussion after i had already admitted i was losing interest in the game.
Now he brings up meta. The last game we played together, I lurked until LyLo as town, made a case on both scum, and defended myself adequately enough to give us the win. This meta should suggest that I don't really find lurking scummy, since I did it. It should also suggest that I'm probably not going to be the one who makes lurkers contribute, since I'm sometimes a lurker myself. In other words, his "meta" point doesn't actually make sense and is weak padding to his case. The "definitely contrary to any form of town logic" is crap rhetoric.Neruz wrote:This seems to be contrary to my prior experience with you, and is definitely contrary to any form of town logic.
The Mastin wagon was moving of its own momentum; I didn't need to push it along anymore. So why not push someone else while the Mastin wagon develops?Kayi wrote:As soon as the player he was voting for got what it seemed a decent case/wagon on him, two/three days before the deadline he suddenly decides that he's not the scummiest person out there and changes his vote.
Read #429 - #432 again. You're falling prey to Neruz's misrepping tricks.Kayi wrote:He seems willing to vote anyone whose playstyle annoys him.
Yes, and I think now that I've expanded more on my case, you see why.Kayi wrote:Nacho, do you really think Neruz is more likely to be scum than Mastin? If so, why?
It refers to an ongoing game I'm not at liberty to discuss.Kayi wrote:Seemingly unrelated but not at all... please do explain to me the quote on your signature. Since it alludes your play, I think it would allow me to get a better read on you.
I disagree that Trendall is fencesitting. And am I reading this wrong, or are you seriously trying to call me scum because I didn't call YOU out on fluff?Mastin wrote:For reference, this is not doing Nacho any favors; he seems to ignore these things in me and Trendall (though that might just be that he didn't mention them there--will need to refer back to his previous posts). 'Sides, I have a town read on Neruz.
Right. So you agree with him without reading the posts he's talking about?Mastin wrote:I'll look at Nacho's response, and it looks like a read of Nacho will be needed before I form a more solid conclusion, but right now, I'm agreeing, and think Nacho looks more like scum.
I didn't believe you because you were backpedaling from your Jay suspicion and onto a Trendall suspicion. Neruz was simply criticizing the strength of my vote on him.Mastin wrote:If so, blatant hypocrisy, anyone? (Though, again, I haven't read Nacho; it's obvious I need to.)
By calling it OMGUS, I'm not saying that his case on me was "oh my god you suck", but rather that his case on me was inspired on the fact I was voting him.Jay wrote:I don't necessarily think Mastin's case was OMGUS, because it was based on more than just you voting for him. The part that Mastin cited as making him feel more comfortable about whether it was OMGUS or not, talks about other reasons, as well.
What do you suggest?Jay wrote:Providing one example and writing a huge wall of text are not that different, because they are both unsatisfying. You are always left wanting something, whether it be more examples or less words. Maybe there's something in the middle that'd work better?
No. What making fake connections between townies does is set up for the mislynch; before the first mislynch, you say that one of the two is probably scum. Mislynch the first one. That sets you up to make a case against the other one the next day without people criticizing your position as much the next day. Thus, two mislynches. You wouldn't say that there's probably scum in a group if you were going to drop it the second one flips town.Neruz wrote:I remain open to be convinced otherwise, but until you turned up the only people i had any sort of reasonable scumread on were Trendall and Mastin, 'one of them is probably scum' seems like a fairly logical conclusion.
And how, exactly, do you get two mislynches just from that? Obviously if i conclude that there is likely to be scum within a group i am going to analyse the group very carefully, work out which one is scum and attempt to lynch that one. You seem to be implying that if that person flips town the correct response is to go "Oh that means the other person must be scum!" But without having conflicting accounts that is not even remotely the logical choice. If you conclude that there is probably scum within a group, pick out the person within said group you believe to be scum, lynch them and find they flip town, the correct conclusion is that you were probably wrong about there being scum in the group.
My experience shows different. We're stuck in gridlock, moving on.Neruz wrote:Not really, it's been my experience that ISO's are so common on MS that active lurking is far more dangerous than normal lurking. I've repeatedly seen people get off lightly on normal lurking, but active lurking always draws attention. The fact that you think that my discussing things like logical fallacies and posting styles instead of directly scumhunting is a scumtell however proves that you either weren't paying attention to me in our last game or are deliberately trying to make me look scummy.
Where did I do this? Last I remember, I said something exactly like this:Neruz wrote:I also find it interesting that you're implying that i've been active lurking the entire game, instead of for less than two days. You're basing quite a lot on very little there Nacho.
Obviously I'm talking about REAL LIFE days, since the game hasn't lasted more that a couple game days. So, where are you finding your little implications?Nachomamma8 wrote:My original vote on Neruz was due to his active lurkingfor the past couple of daysbefore I attacked him.
It felt like you were trying to blame Mastin for your inactivity since you had been complaining so much about him lately.Neruz wrote:I'm sorry. What? Mastin's long posts put me off the game, this is true, but how in the hell is that Mastin's fault?! I provided a reason for my lack of content, i did not deflect blame on to Mastin. It's my fault that Mastin's posting style puts me off, i'm not incapable of reading his posts, i just don't want to. Mastin cannot be blamed for the fact that i dislike his posting style.
Did you think ignoring was a viable option?Neruz wrote:The first of which was lynching him. And it doesn't actually matter that you offered other alternitives, you said that lynching someone was a viable reaction to disliking someone's posting style. I don't give a wooden nickle if you provided other options as well, one of those options was "I dislike how X posts, i should lynch him because of that." which is quite possibly one of the most anti-town reasons to lynch someone i can think of. I cannot see any reason town would ever want to lynch someone for that under any circumstances.
Perhaps you should venture outside the wiki every once in a while. OMGUS doesn't have to be "you're voting for me, so I'm voting for you"; it can also be "you're voting me, so here's my case on you".Neruz wrote:This would seem to indicate that you don't actually know what OMGUS is. If you genuinely think my vote on you is OMGUS, then you seriously need to go read the wiki. Since you're a reasonably experienced player i find it highly unlikely that you actually believe this, so nice try. I'm hesitant to label this as a misrep, because in context it feels a whole lot more like a blatant lie.
Instead of asking me to explain my response to your case against me, you just ignored it? So are you really so confident about me being scum that you don't even give a shit about my defense?Neruz wrote: If you're talking about #436, i didn't respond to it because i wasn't sure what points your post was directed at. Since rather than quote my points and respond to them you instead chose to just go "Point 1", i had difficulty trying to understand what exactly you were responding to, as i did not number my points. In addition, after i did a quick reread of my post i couldn't see how it actually applied to the points i'd brung up, so i decided to pass it over.
It's not my job to prod all the inactive people. It's EVERYONE'S job.Neruz wrote:No, i expect you to be responsible in scumhunting.
No one needed another example. No one asked for another example. They FOUND the other examples. And I scumhunt by prodding first and making cases second, which means I don't come out with a bunch of examples at first. You know this. Remember, when I made small general points for why you were scum and asked you a few questions, then dropped the case completely?Neruz wrote:What? I think you're taking that line out of context. (You really seem to like doing that), this line was referencing the fact that you still hadn't brought up more than on example of 'Mastin's terrible arguments' which you apparantly based your vote on. You referred to multiple terrible arguments, but only ever referenced one argument, repeatedly.
It's called using hyperbole to demonstrate a point. Don't act like it's new to you.Neruz wrote:Oh yes, lowered participation for two days is definitely active lurking my ass off. I mean, my god, that's just so much active lurking, i should be voting myself because i active lurked so much.[/sarcasm]
Again, you blow the fact that i didn't contribute much over two days way out of proportion and imply i active lurked far longer than i actually did. If i'd been active lurking all day this argument might hold water.
But. I did make an effort to convince some of the lurkers to participate; the only one I DIDN'T focus on was mute. I don't remember you prodding any lurkers; did you?Neruz wrote:The contrary to any form of town logic is most definitely not rhetoric however. Town are looking to find scum, you find scum by looking for scum tells, you cannot find scum tells if a player is lurking.
This is the optimal town procedure, yes, but this isn't what ends up happening. I'll find an example later.Neruz wrote:I remain open to be convinced otherwise, but until you turned up the only people i had any sort of reasonable scumread on were Trendall and Mastin, 'one of them is probably scum' seems like a fairly logical conclusion.
And how, exactly, do you get two mislynches just from that? Obviously if i conclude that there is likely to be scum within a group i am going to analyse the group very carefully, work out which one is scum and attempt to lynch that one. You seem to be implying that if that person flips town the correct response is to go "Oh that means the other person must be scum!" But without having conflicting accounts that is not even remotely the logical choice. If you conclude that there is probably scum within a group, pick out the person within said group you believe to be scum, lynch them and find they flip town, the correct conclusion is that you were probably wrong about there being scum in the group.
No, but just because I'm one of the few people who was actually working on his job doesn't mean that I should be expected to do all of it, comprende?Neruz wrote:Which means it's still your job. Just because everyone has the same job doesn't lessen the fact that you have it too.
Town wants to do that because they can never be very confident whether they've truly netted scum or not, and acting more confident then you really are is a great way to apply a good amount of pressure.Neruz wrote:Uh, i'm not acting ilke hyperbole is new to me, i'm acting like it's a scum tell, because it is. Hyperbole is used to create a stronger impression than would normally be gotten from simply referencing the facts, now tell me Nacho, in a Mafia game, who would want to create a stronger impression than normal towards something. Which side would want to exxagurate in order to manipulate people into seeing something as better or worse than it really is? Hmm...
Three significant ones. The rest wasn't really worth reading.Neruz wrote:What, really? In all that postage Mastin only had 3 points?
There's not much else that I can do. It's a move that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense on Mastin's end, but I don't really see a reason for him not to hammer me if he was scum. Mastin's been playing mafia long enough where I'm sure he knew that he would catch heat for doing something like that, and I doubt he would stick his neck that far out to save a townie if he was scum.Trendall wrote:I hate hate hate these 'I'm not going to make a counter argument but I am going to link you to something random and expect you to draw your own counter argument from it' things. What are you saying here, you didn't get hammered once when you were town, so you're town in this game? The problem I have with Mastin not hammering you isn't simply the fact that he didn't hammer. It's the fact that he didn't hammer when he said you were tied with me as his top suspect, didn't hammer despite the fact that he was very anti-no-lynch, and didn't hammer despite the fact that he thinks townspeople should be reckless and risk-taking. These are huge discrepancies in Mastin's behaviour that put both you and him into the spotlight.
Where did you get that from...?Neruz wrote:Now i'm pretty sure that's not what you're trying to say, because that would be really, really dumb, so care to clarify?
The DLG one.Jay wrote:Point 1: Which vote was this on?
Jay wrote:Point 2: It was not just Neruz, the other players who agreed to No Lynch included Trendall and Lateralus. You make it seem like the only reason I voted to No Lynch is because Neruz had decided to, but before that other players had talked about how it was the best option for a town win. That was why I voted for it. This was before Mute claimed.
Jay wrote:@Neruz: Thanks for explaining it (the no lynch) so clearly, I think I understand it a lot better now. So it's like, we'll have to no lynch at some point, and doing it earlier is the best bet for a town win? In that case:
VOTE: No Lynch
...Hey, whatever happened to Mute? They didn't respond to the prod?
What does it matter whether it was MyLo or LyLo?Jay wrote:Point 3: We were at MyLo, not LyLo. If he had succesfully started a bandwagon on me, the game would've ended with a scum win, if my suspicions proved to be correct.
Mute wrote:The only reason I say this is a way for the mafia to discredit my claim via a NK. Say they decide to no-kill on N2, and I say "oh hey another successful block," that'd make them look bad. They could kill me and be on with their merry way, and the game'd go on as planned. They could kill someone and hope I don't predict their kill. This could either result in "oh hey Mute just made a wrong call," or someone could come along and say "well he didn't block the kill, maybe he false-claimed and the real doctor's too busy laughing at this fool to want to oust himself." Sure it comes down to luck, picking the right targets to save, but if I were scum it's something I'd consider as a gambit.