Summary for tl:dr folks: Vordark believes that I am defending myself primarily through misrepresentation and personal attacks. I do not believe that to be the case, and that we have different definitions of what it means to defend someone or to tunnel, while his timeline on my Krazy scumhunting isn't fully accurate. I also clarify that my philosophy regarding associative tells for determining scumpairs while scumhunting as bad play before flips. I do not believe associative tells are unreliable per se, though this seems to be what Vordark suspects I think.
Voldark:
DarthYoshi wrote:
I have already explained this too. Interesting.
Dude, I can't explain it any other way--ascribing town motive to someone who is being accused is, in fact, defending them, because noting town motive (at a minimum implicitly) says you don't think they're scummy. That's simply true, let this one go.
You are using a definition of the word "defense" that covers every single person who ever says anything that approaches "I'm leaning town on so-and-so". That's not a particularly useful definition.
Why isn't it useful? Defenses can be both subtle and, well, less subtle.
Voldark:
DarthYoshi wrote:
Your first bit is obviously committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.
I am unfamiliar with this fallacy. Please explain.
There's an article on the wiki and I'm sure the Googles can help you.
Teeing up mislynches has nothing to do with the fallacy of the excluded middle. It is scum misrepping a connection with a player in order to get that player mislynched. It's manipulation, not a fallacy.
Also your comment that looking at relationships so early in the game "needs to be taken with a few grains of salt" is backing off your earlier, much stronger statement that it is "junk science". Discussing associative tells before a flip is useful, if for no other reason than making it easier to pick out after a flip.
Not really. The idiom is "take it with a grain of salt" in order to express skepticism. By saying a few grains of salt, I am indicating substantial amounts of skepticism. One may view junk science with substantial amounts of skepticism. This is a red herring at best.
I note your lack of a comment concerning the second sentence you quote.
And I note your lack of a comment regarding the first sentence. I'm not saying its impossible, I'm saying that I don't think its effective compared to other scumhunting tactics
until there have been flips
. If you need help reminding yourself of associations, make a comment in notes that you keep? Once flips occur, associative tells become far more valuable, and can actually act as scumtells on their own. This is what I have been saying all along.
I would also like to point out that your noting SE's "defense" of CS is no different. You are trying to put a focus on the relationship there every time you call it a "defense", and every time you press SE on the point. Why is it scum hunting when you do it, junk science when others do it?
I never implied the existence of a scumpair.
This would be a strawman. You are arguing against something I am not stating. You are attempting to establish a relationship between SE and CS every time you repeat the "defense" remarks. By your own reasoning, SE "defending" CS tells us nothing, so why continue to make the statement? If it does tell us something, why call it junk science?
Like I said above, my point all along is that searching for associative tells to determine scumpairs is ineffective play on D1. So, yeah, I'm going to be skeptical of "If so-and-so flips X, this-and-that will too" statements. For the purposes of scumhunting, searching for associative tells usually involves looking for a scumpair by definition. So, yeah, talking about the existence of a scumpair is not a strawman, it actually goes to the heart of the issue.
Also, I don't "continue" to make that statement, you keep bringing it up. I've moved on. Although I feel like at this point that CS has flaked on the game.
That defense only works if we believe your motive is scum hunting. I am unconvinced at this point. Nah-uh!
FTFY.
Ah, the good old appeal to emotion and personal attack. No actual remarks as to why you must be scum hunting or an attempt to show by a pattern of your actions that you are. Just this.
What about this is a personal attack (or even an AtE)? Calling it so doesn't make it so. I'm not calling you any names, I'm not cussing you out, I'm not getting upset (if anything, the tone in your post indicates that you are). I made a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that you are basically saying "Nah uh, I don't believe you" in so many words. What exactly am I supposed to say to that without being redundant?
I am not accusing you of tunneling. I am questioning whether your engaging of Krazy is an attempt to keep the distraction going. I believe I made that clear. It is interesting that you are trying to re-frame it as an accusation of tunneling.
You accused me of "engaging" Krazy far more than is "reasonable." Last time I checked, that would constitute "tunneling." What I don't understand is how it is pro-town to characterize pressing an at-the-time anti-town player as a "distraction." As Krazy's play picked up, my focus began to shift.
Tunneling is to focus on one player to the exclusion of others. You mentioned others. You also tried to keep Krazy posting by egging him on. Trying to characterize my statements as an accusation of tunneling is attempting to change the debate. Your statement "As Krazy's play picked up, my focus began to shift" is no more viable than "When I got called on my fueling the Krazy train, my focus began to shift". The timing fits just as well.
I think we just have different definitions of tunneling. It isn't an attempt to change the debate, wanting to know whether you accused me of tunneling is legitimate given what you wrote.
You're also misrepresenting the timing. Krazy let the matter go in #190. If I wanted to keep "egging him on," I could have when I posted in #193-94 when I thought the wrong votecount was posted. You didn't call me out until the following page.
I'm calling shenanigans here. You did two ISOs, and the other was of one of the least active players in the game. So, if you're using "you aren't the only one I ISOed" as a defense, then yeah, I think my question is a legitimate one. Besides, you're posting frequently enough in real time that I assume you caught all the other players pointing out Krazy's ironic tunneling accusation--why didn't you just call it out then? At this point, your case on me is really contrived and mostly grasping for straws.
I did four ISOs, not two. So there's one problem. "Why didn't you just call it out then?" is more redirection. There are many people in this game. We're at page 11. There are many walls of back and forth discussion. I will get to all of it eventually, that I haven't done so yet or haven't ISO'd someone's pet suspect is not information. That you are trying to push it as such continues to be interesting.
I guess I don't see ISOing a player with one post as really an ISO. In any case, all your ISOs were of nearly inactive players, so yeah, I still think my quesetion is legit. Other players are replying to material in real time--not all are posting ISOs like you--so it isn't redirection, especially when what you're calling me out for is something that a ton of other players have done, and surely you must have seen it, as not all of it came in walls either.
DarthYoshi wrote:
I believe that is self-evident.
Not to me.
Interesting. You chose not to include the second sentence there. That's the first part of a two sentence paragraph, the entirety of which is:
I believe that is self-evident. Can you explain your reasoning in that post more fully?
Can you answer my question now? Can you also tell us why you chose to deliberately avoid addressing that question to begin with?
I don't mean to get all grade-schoolish about this, I really don't--but I kinda asked you first when I asked how those sentiments were mutually exclusive. Saying that it was self evident was not an answer. So, it's ironic that you're complaining about me avoiding addressing your follow up question. In any case, I seriously don't get why they have to be mutually exclusive. I can feel uneasy about someone's moving-out-of-RVS vote, but in retrospect, see that the game was more fast paced than what I was used to. When I felt uneasy, I didn't know people would be posting so frequently--which is why I asked that exact question in my RQS post.
DarthYoshi wrote:
Scum worry more about appearances than town, and are much more likely to feel the need to explain the "little things" than town is.
Votes aren't "little things." This is a catch-22--it looks bad if one doesn't explain their vote (see also: Iamusername), but it looks bad if one does explain their vote too?
Another attempt to misrepresent what I said, and I've already explained the point twice. This is also bordering on argument through repetition.
I don't actually think you are adequately explaining how what I'm saying is a misrep, but maybe that's just me.
BTW, even if you think my FTFY was a personal attack (which I don't), that was the ONLY one I made. Saying I am "resorting to personal attacks" to defend myself is itself a misrep.
Finally,
I also note you don't quote in context, that is you do not include the original statements that mine are in reference to. It's a isolation tactic that makes it easier to misrepresent statements.
Meta me, you'll see I do that in all my games. I am prone to posting walls, and I try to make them be less wall-ish. However, since it is considered sub-optimal play by you, I am not doing so here.
On hiatus from any new mafia commitments.
Jesus loves you. But that doesn't mean you're town.
James 2:13