Mini 607 - Cop Central [GAME OVER!]

[Farkshinsoup]

I find Fark scummy because of his initial objection to mass claim, along with his eventual claim that he investigated the dead guy. I'm also not convinced by his defense, which I find to contain little true substance.

I'd like to point out that because both of these arguments for my scumminess go to my motives, there is no way that I could ever make a convincing defense of them. There's also no way that you, or anyone else can know my motives, which is why it's such a weak argument for being scum.

Which is why you also point to the investigative benefit of lynching me. It keeps you from having to build an actual convincing argument against me.

Either you are working on a hunch, which is poor play, or you are lying scum. Which of those guys do you want to be?

What's interesting is that you accuse Skruffs of twisting people's words when that is what you have been doing continually in this game. I'm not saying that Skruffs isn't also doing it, but you are being quite the hypocrite.

They're both scummy, but Skruffs strikes me as the better player.

I don't agree with the first part, but I have to concede the second part.

Aimless, I'd like you to remember the fact that just because you are the most town player, does not make you automatically correct. For example, you are wrong about my scumminess, and I would direct you to the statement above, where I point out that RR is claiming to know my motives. Now, if you guys are prepared to lynch me to confirm my motives, so be it.

That having been said, I have not made up my mind about Skruffs yet, but I'm not sure he's scum. I'll keep watching.

[Aimless]

Either you are working on a hunch, which is poor play, or you are lying scum. Which of those guys do you want to be?

All

day one suspicions are hunches. Calling it poor play is disingenuous.

I just re-read through RR's posts in isolation, and his arguments have been generally logical and straightforward.

He's

not the one trying to twist words around, so far as I can see.

Of course, it's possible he's simply smart scum, and is trying to distance.

[Raging Rabbit]

There's also no way that you, or anyone else can know my motives, which is why it's such a weak argument for being scum.

No one knows anyone's motives for sure on day 1... I find yours the most dubious along with Skruffs' for reasons already explained. I'd like you to give me an exapmle of what you would consider a "strong" argument, one that isn't based on motives.

Either you are working on a hunch, which is poor play, or you are lying scum. Which of those guys do you want to be?

The first, please. Scumhunting is based on hunches, or educated guesses or however you want to call it. What else are we to do on day one, await devine intervention?

What's interesting is that you accuse Skruffs of twisting people's words when that is what you have been doing continually in this game.

I'm sorry you feel that way, and don't think I have been.

[queen_of_spades]

I agree that me and RR (if alive) should be the first to claim next day. I already know who am I going to investigate. Should I say who it is or keep it for myself?

[Raging Rabbit]

I don't mind claiming first tommorow if the town wants me to.

Queen - I think you should keep it to yourself, this is one piece of info we don't gain anything by revealing in advance.

[Farkshinsoup]

No one knows anyone's motives for sure on day 1... I find yours the most dubious along with Skruffs' for reasons already explained. I'd like you to give me an exapmle of what you would consider a "strong" argument, one that isn't based on motives.

Motives are a good starting point, of course, giving you a target to put pressure on. Based on how they react, and the quality of the arguments that they make, one can make an educated guess. For example, your early attempts to keep yourself from being investigated and your convenient investigation of me, along with your advocacy of my lynch are what drew my attention at first. But it's your crap logic and straw man arguments that have me thinking you are scum.

But to claim that someone is scummy based solely on your suspicion of their motives is flawed. You decided that I was scum before I even had a chance to defend myself. And when I did try, you proclaimed that unconvincing.

And I ask you again, how can anyone give a convincing defense of his own motives, short of being lynched?

[Raging Rabbit]

But to claim that someone is scummy based solely on your suspicion of their motives is flawed.

We apparantly have a different definition of "motives". I perceive "motive" suspicions as having doubts about whether a person's thinking is coming from a pro town point of view, for example your rejection to the mass claim caused me to doubt your motives. Since we vote people based of whether we think them anti town, I see nothing wrong with lynching based "only" on thinking a player isn't working for the town's best interest. What else is there? I don't see how your case on me is any different - my "crap logic and straw man argument" caused you to doubt my motives, right?

You decided that I was scum before I even had a chance to defend myself. And when I did try, you proclaimed that unconvincing.

I started thinking you were likely scum based on what I percieve to be scummy actions, I'm sorry for not giving you a week's notice. Also, I "proclaimed" you unconvincing because I didn't find your defense convincing. Are you saying that finding someone else scummy even after he defends himself is anti-town?

And I ask you again, how can anyone give a convincing defense of his own motives, short of being lynched?

By refuting the reasons other give for doubting them. That can't always be done to a full extent, though. Some attacks can't quite be refuted, for example people find me scummy for claiming a second investigation on you after you've had some suspicion, and while I know I that I was telling the truth and claimed investigation on my very first game post, there's no way for me to completely refute that. If you couldn't refute Aimless' case on you, I find it odd you decided to dedicate a post to sounding all mistreated instead.

Also,

...your early attempts to keep yourself from being investigated...

Huh?

[Farkshinsoup]

We apparantly have a different definition of "motives". I perceive "motive" suspicions as having doubts about whether a person's thinking is coming from a pro town point of view, for example your rejection to the mass claim caused me to doubt your motives. Since we vote people based of whether we think them anti town, I see nothing wrong with lynching based "only" on thinking a player isn't working for the town's best interest. What else is there? I don't see how your case on me is any different - my "crap logic and straw man argument" caused you to doubt my motives, right?

No, I doubted your motives first, then your crap logic and straw man arguments convinced me that your are likely scum. And I think that we do agree on the definition of motives, I just think there should be more than that before you proclaim someone scum.

I started thinking you were likely scum based on what I percieve to be scummy actions, I'm sorry for not giving you a week's notice. Also, I "proclaimed" you unconvincing because I didn't find your defense convincing. Are you saying that finding someone else scummy even after he defends himself is anti-town?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that. What I find scummy is that you have deemed my poor defense of my motives to be further proof of my scumminess, even though by definition, there is no way for me to adequately defend my motives, short of my death.

And I ask you again, how can anyone give a convincing defense of his own motives, short of being lynched?

By refuting the reasons other give for doubting them. That can't always be done to a full extent, though. Some attacks can't quite be refuted, for example people find me scummy for claiming a second investigation on you after you've had some suspicion, and while I know I that I was telling the truth and claimed investigation on my very first game post, there's no way for me to completely refute that. If you couldn't refute Aimless' case on you, I find it odd you decided to dedicate a post to sounding all mistreated instead.

Yes, here's another example of how you try to characterize me as some sort of manipulative martyr. You rarely seem to make any arguments, or refute any arguments against you, but you are very good at dismissing the players you are arguing with. The post of mine you are referencing is Post 119 on page 5. I invite everyone who is interested to read it for themselves and make up their own mind about whether I try to sound "mistreated"

Also,

...your early attempts to keep yourself from being investigated...

Huh?

I'm referring to this:

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this idea I just thought of:

We choose the second scummiest player (after the one who gets lynched), and everyone investigates him tonight (excepct for those who already did last night, obviously).Then tommorow, we lynch him.

Since you weren't investigated last night, this conveniently keeps you from being investigated again on N1. And you say "him", as if you already had someone in mind. Who were you thinking about at that point? (Not QoS, obviously)

[ZeekLTK]

Since you weren't investigated last night, this conveniently keeps you from being investigated again on N1. And you say "him", as if you already had someone in mind. Who were you thinking about at that point? (Not QoS, obviously)

We choose the second scummiest player (after the one who gets lynched), and everyone investigates him tonight (excepct for those who already did last night, obviously).Then tommorow, we lynch him.

I'm pretty sure "him" refers to "the second scummiest player". Most players on this site are male so I don't think there is any hidden meaning to using the word "him".

--

And I don't think he is trying to devise a plan that "prevents him from being investigated", I think he is devising a plan that allows ALL pro-town players to figure out our sanity...

Once we figure out sanities we can catch scum. I don't know why that is a hard concept for you and Skruffs to grasp... unless it's because you are scum and you've decided you will fight/argue to the bitter end to prevent us from doing it...

[ZeekLTK]

However, I disagree with who to investigate, because obviously we should investigate Aimless, as we already know his alignment - and the scum will probably kill him because of that.

If we investigate someone else then we have to lynch that person tomorrow for the investigation to be useful.

[Farkshinsoup]

Zeek, I am not arguing for or against any investigations anymore. That's been pretty much settled. I've said before that I think it's a distraction from finding scum.

But I do think that it's possible that both scum and town can see the logic in a certain way of investigating, for completely different, and valid reasons. Even if I don't agree with the plan, I'm not saying that everyone supporting this plan is scum.

What I'm saying is that if RR is scum, this is the plan that most helps him. And I would like to hear RR respond, which I'm sure he will do.

[Aimless]

I don't know why that is a hard concept for you and Skruffs to grasp... unless it's because you are scum and you've decided you will fight/argue to the bitter end to prevent us from doing it...

Arguing with scum is rather like feeding trolls. It does nothing productive. Neither Scruffs nor Fark have said anything to make me changing my assessment of them. Obviously, one of the two should be today's lynch.

However, our task now is to see if we can't find the third scum. At the moment, my suspicions lean toward Korlash. It feels like he's been flying a little too much under the radar for my taste, and his post about not liking plans, while understandable, also raises the hair on my neck a bit: it sounds like something I might conceivably say if I were scum in a game like this.

[Farkshinsoup]

Aimless, the whole basis of your argument against me is based on the fallacy that because I held and expressed a minority opinion, that made me scum. This is a poor reason to find someone scummy.

And unlike you, I think that engaging with the players you find the scummiest has a lot of value for the town. Since you think that I will turn up scum if you lynch me, don't you want me posting a lot? I sure want RR to keep talking. The more he says, the more chance that he will slip up. Or maybe he'll start making some valuable arguments and change my mind.

Or do you not want to debate with me because you're worried that I might be right, and you might have to admit that you had me figured wrong, and start all over again from scratch? This is exactly what the scum want, townies attacking townies.

[Korlash]

However, our task now is to see if we can't find the third scum. At the moment, my suspicions lean toward Korlash. It feels like he's been flying a little too much under the radar for my taste, and his post about not liking plans, while understandable, also raises the hair on my neck a bit: it sounds like something I might conceivably say if I were scum in a game like this.

i would robbly say it as scum too. I always do as scum and say as scumt he exact same thing I would say as town. only time me being scum ever factors into a game is when I make a case or attack a partner. Those are the only times I let me being scum influence my play.

Point is, while I agree I haven't been putting in as much effort as many of you I know I have been putting in more then some others. Even if not much. This game has so far been running on plans, and theories, and strategies, and... logic.. which if you haven't noticed I'm nto famous for around here :p So pardon me if I get lost here and there when your busy counting your fancy numbers and singing yoru fancy A B C's...

Also, how does something you would do and something i would do mean anything in any game? I'm not you, and therefore should not be held responcible for something you would or would not do... Although your right to suspect me for it, it hardly proves anything.

Now if there is something you wanted me to elaborate on, or something you wanted to ask me. Shoot. I'm all up for any post with my name in it. /flex

But you have all heard my stance on Skruffs, so if it truely becomes him or Fark for today, I would place my vote on Fark. Although I would much rather vote RR or Tekk though, I just don't see their lynhes happening.

[Aimless]

Also, how does something you would do and something i would do mean anything in any game? I'm not you, and therefore should not be held responcible for something you would or would not do... Although your right to suspect me for it, it hardly proves anything.

While I'm not new to the game, I am new to this site, which means that I don't know the meta for the players here. Thus, I can't base suspicions on what my interpretation of your behavior would be.

However, I can base suspicions on my interpretation of what your motives would be. So, what I mean when I say "this is the kind of argument I would conceivably make if I were scum" is that it's the kind of argument which one could arrive at if one were approaching the game from a scum perspective.

To further clarify:

You claimed to not really be one planning and game theory discussions and whatnot, and argue against them as an obstacle to scum hunting. Okay, that's fine; I'm tempted to believe you on that point. However, it is

also

an argument against the town going into those kinds of discussions - thus, it is an argument that one could arrive at from scum motivations. Additionally, by making the argument, you are giving yourself a cover for having mostly stayed silent so far this game - again, feasibly scummy. Lastly, it's one of those many statements that sounds good but doesn't really help the town.

So, it doesn't really matter that you aren't me; scum tend to have one set of motivations, town another. I find your argument to be compatible with scum motivations. This is not to say that it's incompatible with town motivations, or that I find your behavior totally scummy, but it is enough to make me suspicious of you.

[Aimless]

EBWOP: Gya; a missing word in the first line of the fourth paragraph makes it really awkward to read. Here's what it should say:

"You claimed to not really be one

for

planning and game theory discussions and whatnot, ..."

[Korlash]

So what I gain from all that is that while I am doing something that isn't exactly anti town, it is possble scum would do it so I'm suspicious. Not much I can do about that now can I?

I'd normally be all for going back and forth with you here. One of my best tactics in this game is to put myself int he spotlight and cross examine people. but with you I'm kinda in an unpressidented pickle because unless your counterclaimed, I have no reason to doubt you.

So I suppose if you have anythign you want me to address go for it. other then that, I can't really help your suspicions of me much.

[Aimless]

Replace "possible" for "plausible" in that first sentence, and you've summed up my argument exactly. Considering this is day one, I think it's a valid rationale for suspicion.

Anyway, your response hasn't really placated me, but there's not really anything else for me to say about it. Although, I would like to here your case for lynching RR or Tekk.

[ZeekLTK]

I know you're not asking me, but I still think it's better, in the long run, to lynch Tekk today:

a) The maximum number of players possible (3) get a confirmed result from their investigation from Night 0.

b) Everyone (who hasn't already) can investigate Aimless tonight and get a confirmed result (people who have can investigate scummy players like Fark/Skruffs) ... now, entering Day 2, everyone in the game will have at least 1 confirmed result, and 3 people will have 2.

c) We can then lynch a scummy player on Day 2 - and most likely we'll even have proof that someone is scum (due to investigation results).

d) Night 2 - useful cops (who have figured out their sanities due to results from Night 0 and Night 1) can investigate scummy players that are still alive and we can catch scum for sure (or clear scummy players as town to narrow down the pool of suspects).

[Korlash]

Well obviously i want Tekk lynched cause hes the one I investigated. On a personal note his death would bring me great joy! <3 >.>

As for RR, hes a lot to me like I am to you. All suspicions are simply based on low key stuff. The main thing that set me off was his early "set-ness" on Fark. i understand wanting the person you investigated lynched. But how quick and fast he begun to say things similar to "I'm sure Fark is scum" and how hard he pressed Fark's lynch that early screamed to me he had some sort of inside knowledge about something.

This isn't something i would stake a claim on, but as you say it's a good place to start day 1 suspicions. Add on to that the recent comments about how a lot of this arguing is hindering scum hunting, and the fact I attribute most of it to RR, and I find even more reason to suspect him.

Now you say the lynch is going to come down to Fark or Skruffs... why? why Skruffs over RR? What did he do worse then RR did?

[Korlash]

@ Zeek: By your own theory.. wouldn't fark then be better? we still get the max number of investigations, while at the same time we eilinate someone who is scummy to some people. In fact he falls into the "skruffs or Fark" for today's lynch Aim said earlier. So obviously he is a much better lynch then Tekk.

But as I want Tekk dead i will potin out Fark has been more active and so he has not only had a chance to be more scummy then Tekk, but he will most likely give us a lot more to look over in the future.

I only mention this because you have been pushing tekk's lynch a lot recently, even though Fark is by far the most obvious of the two. Your not investigating Tekk, and I doubt you care much about me. So the conclusion i come to is a possible Zeek/Clammy partnership.

any example of him pushing another lynch that would benefit another player and not himself? I've seen him push Skruffs but thats been right from the begining...

[Farkshinsoup]

Players I'd like to hear more from:

Clammy, dRool, QoS

You guys have been pretty quiet throughout Day 1. Who do you think the most scummy player is? Any other thoughts?

For the record, while I don't necessarily find it scummy to support a lynch on a player just to get investigative results, I do think that it's likely that scum will also support that idea, because it's a tidy way for them to lynch a townie without having to actually make a case against them. It'll be something to look back to on Day2, 3, etc.

Also, with the deadline, scum will likely not have to even put their vote anywhere, because even if I or tekk or RR or whoever have the simple majority of votes on them, they will be lynched. So again, I say that in this game, lurking is scum's best friend, because they want the clock to run out.

One way or the other, I'm hoping that everyone puts a vote out before we get to the deadline.

[Raging Rabbit]

No, I doubted your motives first, then your crap logic and straw man arguments convinced me that your are likely scum.

"Convinced me you're likely scum" = led you to doubt my motives further.

Our arugments aren't different in nature

. While you obviously think yours are stronger and I the opposite, we aren't basing them on anything but "motive suspicions". The is no magic ingredient that causes your theory to be inherently stronger than mine, as you seem to imply by using words like "convinced".

What I'm saying is that if RR is scum, this is the plan that most helps him.

You say my plan to have everyone investigate the same person is good for me if I was scum, since no one would investigate me night 2 (assuming I won't be chosen the second scummiest). I could argue that the amount of attention I drew to myself isn't worth not being investigated for one night, but there is no way for me to directly refute this. I agree, if I was scum this would've been a side benefit, so you can either belive that I had the town's best interest at heart for all the reasons I explained before (I still think that if it Aimless' would not have confirmed himself innocent, mass investigating the second scummiest player would've been our best course of action), or think that the only reason I did it was so I won't be investigated. I can't prove I'm not scum, neither can you and except Aimless neither can anybody. It's up to the town to decide whose actions were scummier.

And you say "him", as if you already had someone in mind. Who were you thinking about at that point? (Not QoS, obviously)

I'd just like to point out that this semantic argument is far fetched to the extreme.

you have deemed my poor defense of my motives to be further proof of my scumminess, even though by definition, there is no way for me to adequately defend my motives, short of my death.

If there isn't, just say you have no way to defend it (which is no shame at all, sometimes there isn't) instead of defending yourself using appeal to emotion.

...You rarely seem to make any arguments, or

refute any arguments against you

...

This stands in direct contradiction to the quote just above it.

1) You attack me for attacking your poor defense of arguments that can't be refuted (though again, you really should've said they can't be refuted originally instead of trying to defend yourself via appeal to emotion).
2) You attack my lack of defense against arguments

of the very same nature.

This two-sided logic further inclines me to think you are scum.

[Raging Rabbit]

However, I disagree with who to investigate, because obviously we should investigate Aimless, as we already know his alignment - and the scum will probably kill him because of that.

If we investigate someone else then we have to lynch that person tomorrow for the investigation to be useful.

You're right, I said numerous times that Aimless' plan is better than my original one. I suggested mass-targeting the second scummiest player before he claimed backup cop.

...because I held and expressed a minority opinion, that made me scum. This is a poor reason to find someone scummy.

That opinion was minority for a reason - it's bad for the town.

The main thing that set me off was his early "set-ness" on Fark. i understand wanting the person you investigated lynched. But how quick and fast he begun to say things similar to "I'm sure Fark is scum" and how hard he pressed Fark's lynch that early screamed to me he had some sort of inside knowledge about something.

I never said I'm sure Fark is scum. I'm not, I just find him the scummiest (possibly tied to Skruffs, it's hard to quantify these sorts of things) and know his lynch is good for figuring out sanities. Therefore, I think lynching Fark is our best course of action, and have been saying that for a while now. I have no inside knowledge of any kind.

[Farkshinsoup]

Our arugments aren't different in nature. While you obviously think yours are stronger and I the opposite, we aren't basing them on anything but "motive suspicions". The is no magic ingredient that causes your theory to be inherently stronger than mine, as you seem to imply by using words like "convinced".

Yes, they are different in nature. I used my suspicions over your motives as my starting point, but that is not my only argument for your scumminess. It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

It's up to the town to decide whose actions were scummier.

QFT

And you say "him", as if you already had someone in mind. Who were you thinking about at that point? (Not QoS, obviously)

I'd just like to point out that this semantic argument is far fetched to the extreme.

Uhm, it's not an argument. It's a question. A question you seem reluctant to answer. Let me re-phrase it. Were you thinking of anyone in particular, and if so, who?

you have deemed my poor defense of my motives to be further proof of my scumminess, even though by definition, there is no way for me to adequately defend my motives, short of my death.

If there isn't, just say you have no way to defend it (which is no shame at all, sometimes there isn't) instead of defending yourself using appeal to emotion.

That is exactly what I did here, when asked why I investigated Jenter:

I've never played with anyone here, so I just picked my N0 investigation randomly. To be honest, his name just stuck out to me. Obviously no way to convince you of that, but there it is.

You keep calling me out on arguments that I have not made ( my supposed "appeal to emotion"), and conveniently failing to acknowledge the things that I have posted (the above admission that I can't really defend my motives). It's a good way to portray someone as scum, but I'm not just going to roll over and let you get away with it.

...You rarely seem to make any arguments, or

refute any arguments against you

...

This stands in direct contradiction to the quote just above it.

1) You attack me for attacking your poor defense of arguments that can't be refuted (though again, you really should've said they can't be refuted originally instead of trying to defend yourself via appeal to emotion).
2) You attack my lack of defense against arguments

of the very same nature.

There is no contradiction. I am challenging your misrepresentation and poor arguments, not your motives. You have not even attempted to defend any part of your arguments, you just dismiss my challenges.

And again, I did say that I couldn't defend my motives, as I have shown with the above quote, so you're clearly trying to cloud the issue with yet another straw man. And as I pointed out, the arguments are not of the same nature.

...because I held and expressed a minority opinion, that made me scum. This is a poor reason to find someone scummy.

That opinion was minority for a reason - it's bad for the town.

As I stated in my original post responding to Aimless's arguments against me: That is an opinion, not a fact. Can you prove that my original idea was bad for town? Of course not. You yourself even admitted that you originally thought it might be a good idea.

A while ago, you stated this:

As for Fark's case on me, his two supposed contradictions look to me like clear attempts of clinging to trivialities. If anyone else takes it seriously, I'll be happy to defend myself.

I think, since Korlash has some doubts about you, that it's time for you to put forward this defense. Or were you just hoping that the clock would run out and you wouldn't have me challenging you anymore? Please try defending yourself against my ACTUAL arguments this time, I think that would be helpful.