[Game Over] Open 743 - The Crown of Misery

[Auro]

Leodanny (L-3)

: Thor665, Persivul, rb, Egix96

Malakitty (L-4)

: Lamees, Auro, Dunnstral

rb (L-4)

: Leodanny, Something_Smart, DarkLightA

Egix96 (L-6)

: Nako

DarkLightA (L-6)

: bristep123

Malakitty

your (strong) RB read

Maybe stronger* is the right word here, since it's a comparitive.

[Thor665]

Okay, so the inconsistency was one not yet committed?
What's the future potential inconsistency you saw?
Maybe I am thick - but asking you to describe what you saw feels like a fairly simple and reasonable question if asking about an inconsistency that doesn't exist is fine why aren't my questions fine?

Yes, it was not one yet committed.

Potentially

, if I judged that your reasons for voting Leo were too weak to not justify pushing RB, a slot that you said you find scummy, I would've then concluded that your (weak) vote was inconsistent with your (strong) RB read.
The question was (functionally equivalent to) "why Leo over RB". Now, I repeat -- I ask questions to figure out someone's thought process, and make observations about where their actions seem inconsistent with their thought processes, and in this case, said action was the Leo vote, and the thought process, RB scumread.
I never said your answer to "why Leo over RB" was inconsistent or bad, I accepted it.
If you think it's an empty question, I would disagree -- it has achieved some purpose in that I got a better peek into your thought process regarding RB/Leo, which is a good thing, and also FMPOV, made you clearer on your stance on that to town as well.
No doubt it's a reasonable question, but when I said "potential" two times, your treating it as though I had painted some existing inconsistency was what I'm referring to.

[Thor665]

Thor, you think RB's slot is iffy, don't you think that flip is better?

[Auro]

Please walk me through your issue here -- I'm feeling like I'm not articulating myself with the proper language, is that the issue? Is there something in my question you see as scum motivated? O.o
Do you think I'm lying about my philosophy behind "ask people questions and iron out potential inconsistencies"? Maybe if I rephrase that to "ask questions and obtain stances to evaluate them better"?

Pedit: Yes, that was the question I asked. I asked you how come you thought lynching RB wasn't better than Leo. That's functionally equal to "Why Leo over RB, if you think it's iffy".

[Thor665]

My issue is it's so empty it worries me.

Basically you had two pieces of info.
Thor is voting and says he scumspects Leo.
Thor says he scumspects rb
(we can add in, Thor says he scumspects Auro - which you didn't explore)

There was no info from me on one read being stronger or weaker than another besides maybe an inferred one from where my vote was placed (Leo) or who I was spending the most time talking about (Auro).
Literally some people other than me brought up the idea of voting Leo but didn't act on it.
I reacted to this to create a Leo wagon.

You, while moving your vote to Leo, asked me why I wasn't pushing rb as a better flip.

It just makes no sense. It's an empty question, there was no inconsistency - nor can I even imagine what answer I would have given to show an inconsistency beyond an insane one. It all seemed like noise doing nothing, which is one of my stated issues with your play this game. When asked to explain the inconsistency you act bewildered that I can't see a theory future inconsistency that doesn't exist, and seems unlikely to ever exist.

You then act bothered I'm exploring it - which is trying to avoid scumhunting or explaining your motivations all while mewling that your motivations are super clear.
I disagree with you. Your motivations look like empty mud. I wnt to understand them.
Can you justify this gak or no?

[Thor665]

Like, describe what the theory future inconsistency would have been?

Wouldn't I have had to answer, "LOL, yeah, I never said it before but I totally suspect rb more and agree he's a massively better flip VOTE: "

Like, anything less than that and you have nothing, yeah?

[Auro]

Except it's not gak. Let's take a walk down my thought process at the time.

1. Thor is voting and says he scumspects Leo.
2. Thor says he scumspects rb.
3. (Inferred) Thor says he scumspects Auro.
4. There's no info about the relative strength of (1) and (2), which I want to find out.
5. RB is at L-4 and Leo at L-5.
6. RB and Leo both look like viable pushes for Thor to make.
7. I can see why Thor isn't pushing for a *lynch* on me right now, looking at the wagons.
8. I want to hear Thor's stance on why he's going for Leo over RB.
9. If Thor's reasons for keeping his vote on Leo are weak: Lends him partial scum equity.
10. If Thor has a good justification for why Leo over RB: Great.
11. Also, the *obtained*, clear stance is easier to keep track of and to evaluate at a later point than an inferred one.

Wouldn't I have had to answer, "LOL, yeah, I never said it before but I totally suspect rb more and agree he's a massively better flip VOTE: "

Like, anything less than that and you have nothing, yeah?

Absolutely not. If your reasoning for the Leo vote was flimsy and not justified, I would most definitely have something.
Even otherwise -- now you wouldn't be able to say "Yeah I was suspecting both, Leo was stronger" when questioned about it at a later point, which is harder to form a read off of in retrospect. Now that your stance on (Leo > RB) is

defined

, it's more useful for me and the rest of town to make an evaluation. Hell, your justification for your Leo vote is still open to attacks.

"Inconsistency" need not necessarily imply a strict, formal logical inconsistency.

Strongish

read, but

weakish

push elsewhere =>

This is an inconsistency too

.
The

resolution

being that the reads are of equal strength, or the read on the push is stronger, or there are other reasons for the push.

Each

of these stances, when taken, can be picked apart.

[Auro]

which is one of my stated issues with your play this game

Go ahead and just case me, get others to see the great ThorLogic that I'm apparently flail-derping as I try to combat it.
You now have

two

instances of my "empty questions", both for which I've explained myself.
You're trying to convince ME that they're empty, and I disagree.
I'm not sure which other players read the exchanges, but I don't see anyone going "Lulz, wow Auro's play is so empty and useless, haha such a flail against Thor, he's MY top scumspect too!" -- Someone

please

parse through all that and explain to me from a non-Thor point of view. If my questioning is AS empty and useless as alleged, I'll introspect some and change my play. Cos right now I'm not seeing anything wrong.

[Something_Smart]

Anyway looks like something smart has got her fumbling over her own words. She first wanted to lynch leodanny, then got asked about leondanny and admits it would be a bad lynch and that leodanny is just lynch bait... wow (post 947)

Honestly I think that's perfectly consistent with her listing Leo as a possible suspect but not voting him despite him having the largest wagon.

Dunn feels like he's trying to instigate Mala on page 39

[Auro]

Something_Smart. What do you make of mine and Thor's earlier and recent exchanges?

[Thor665]

Go ahead and just case me, get others to see the great ThorLogic that I'm apparently flail-derping as I try to combat it.
You now have two instances of my "empty questions", both for which I've explained myself.
You're trying to convince ME that they're empty, and I disagree.

I am casing you by attacking you.
Don't complain about me "trying to convince you" after you ask me to explain my issue.
That's daft, empty, and silly.

My issue with your timeline is it ignores where my vote is and also ignores that you apparently were comfortable with my answer without me explaining my case on Leo - literally all I did was say 'no' to your question and you dropped it. You apparently don't see that as empty. I very much do.

[Auro]

ALSO. Thor. Stop expecting *every* question to be an amazing, brilliant question that surefire narrows down on scum.
A question can be put forth for something as simple as wanting to know someone's stance or get clearer on it.
Lamees' questions about what role someone would take if they were scum -- they are empty questions as well. Why's your attitude different there?

Pedit:
Sure then, yeah I'm inviting the rest of the players to chime in on your case.

literally all I did was say 'no' to your question and you dropped it

I don't think it's better, and there's more support for Leodanny.

He's currently voting the biggest wagon that isn't him.
Before the wagon on him he was on the biggest wagon.
His vote isn't doing nothing.

This^ is you

explaining

your case on Leo. You're saying if I asked you why Leo over RB, I shouldn't be satisfied by this answer?

[Auro]

Also, just because I'm comfortable with that answer *now* doesn't mean I won't pick up on it later.
I can perfectly choose to focus elsewhere, and come back to this at a later point and scrutinize it further.
Someone else might look at that stance and attack it. I did say your explanation was still open to attacks.

[Auro]

This^ is you explaining your case on Leo. You're saying if I asked you why Leo over RB, I shouldn't be satisfied by this answer?

Hell, Lamees and Leo both questioned you on this explanation IIRC -- there you go, your response to my question did instigate an attack from Lamees and Leo.
So there was some positive utility in my asking you that question and your explaining it.

[Lamees]

Anyway looks like something smart has got her fumbling over her own words. She first wanted to lynch leodanny, then got asked about leondanny and admits it would be a bad lynch and that leodanny is just lynch bait... wow (post 947)

Honestly I think that's perfectly consistent with her listing Leo as a possible suspect but not voting him despite him having the largest wagon.

Dunn feels like he's trying to instigate Mala on page 39

Fair enough. What do you make of her AtE. Do you agree that scum cannot be busy? Does linking schedules prove town alignment?

If she survives to end game and is scum, do you think she'll just pop in now and then to defend herself with more proof that she's busy and will this be enough to win as scum? Or would she actually need to try to push wagons on town players?

[Something_Smart]

Something_Smart. What do you make of mine and Thor's earlier and recent exchanges?

The potential inconsistency stuff or earlier things? Because your recent discussion seems like a small thing that you are making big for no reason.

Fair enough. What do you make of her AtE. Do you agree that scum cannot be busy? Does linking schedules prove town alignment?

If she survives to end game and is scum, do you think she'll just pop in now and then to defend herself with more proof that she's busy and will this be enough to win as scum? Or would she actually need to try to push wagons on town players?

I can't imagine that she actually said that scum can't be busy. That would be an absolutely moronic claim, and it sounds like the strawest of men. Linking schedules proves that she's genuinely frustrated about being scumread for activity, which means that her activity is not alignment indicative.

I can't really answer that last question. Busy or not, she does have a responsibility to play the game (or else replace out). It depends on how the game goes whether she might be able to skate by without doing enough. Regardless though, we should be reading her on what she has done and not assuming that she's ducking the thread if she doesn't post as much as you wish she would.

[Thor665]

This^ is you explaining your case on Leo. You're saying if I asked you why Leo over RB, I shouldn't be satisfied by this answer?

Hell, Lamees and Leo both questioned you on this explanation IIRC -- there you go, your response to my question did instigate an attack from Lamees and Leo.
So there was some positive utility in my asking you that question and your explaining it.

I agree that Leo and Lamees followed up on my answer to your question and seemed to actually be seeking info from my answer unlike you did, yes.

[Thor665]

Actually really only Lamees did - Leo did an empty defense on a straw man and I called him out on it.
As long as you're complaining about me not holding others to what I'm holding you to.

[Lamees]

Something_Smart. What do you make of mine and Thor's earlier and recent exchanges?

The potential inconsistency stuff or earlier things? Because your recent discussion seems like a small thing that you are making big for no reason.

Fair enough. What do you make of her AtE. Do you agree that scum cannot be busy? Does linking schedules prove town alignment?

If she survives to end game and is scum, do you think she'll just pop in now and then to defend herself with more proof that she's busy and will this be enough to win as scum? Or would she actually need to try to push wagons on town players?

I can't imagine that she actually said that scum can't be busy. That would be an absolutely moronic claim, and it sounds like the strawest of men. Linking schedules proves that she's genuinely frustrated about being scumread for activity, which means that her activity is not alignment indicative.

I can't really answer that last question. Busy or not, she does have a responsibility to play the game (or else replace out). It depends on how the game goes whether she might be able to skate by without doing enough. Regardless though, we should be reading her on what she has done and not assuming that she's ducking the thread if she doesn't post as much as you wish she would.

Not a strawman because I didnt call anyone out on activity. My case on malakitty had nothing to do with activity. She included activity as a defense with the line that she is town. That to me clearly is trying to say that because she is busy she is town. Her defense was "enjoy lynching town" with a post of schedule.

Since I already believed (and I assumed everyone did) that she was legit busy, why did she use it as a defense? It's an appeal to emotion.

[Something_Smart]

You said "Do you agree that scum cannot be busy?" That really sounds like you're suggesting that somebody said that scum cannot be busy.

And when she quoted her schedule she directly stated that she was responding to Auro's point #4, in which Auro directly suggests that he thinks her lack of activity is scum-motivated.

[Lamees]

You said "Do you agree that scum cannot be busy?" That really sounds like you're suggesting that somebody said that scum cannot be busy.

And when she quoted her schedule she directly stated that she was responding to Auro's point #4, in which Auro directly suggests that he thinks her lack of activity is scum-motivated.

If I'm pushing a case that has nothing to do with activity and someone links activity what am I supposed to do? I can either answer with "so what" since it really had no context. Or I can try to assume why exactly is this even in the defense? My assumption was that she was suggesting (not outright claiming) that because of her schedule (which isn't alignment indicative) being real, that she is town, and not scum.

And if you agree it isnt alignment indicative then it's just an appeal to emotion. Which is a scummy thing to do imo.

But ok if others were pointing out her activity was intentional lurking and scum driven then I guess it makes sense to link the schedule. I need to go reread because I dont recall anyone doing so.

[Something_Smart]

Auro did:

4. The lurking. I think she's getting into the game now, but posts like 778 rub me the wrong way when they're like, the only posts of the day. Her activity patterns do seem to be more when she's being attacked *shrug*

[Lamees]

That's a legit point from auro either way. Think I mentioned something like that too way back.

Malakitty needs to be flipped. Today if possible.

[Thor665]

@Lamees - how does that not apply to Leodanny?

[Thor665]

Eh, actually in looking back that's a pretty slant accusation on my part. Withdrawn.