True, it doesn't automatically make the assumption wrong. But it also doesn't automatically make the assumption right.Thor665 wrote:I'll agree that my case is based on an assumption. That doesn't make the assumption wrong, however.
Pointing out how an action could have scum motivation doesn't automatically mean the action is scum-motivated. And I'm not talking about the assumption one makes when presenting a scum case -- my concern is with a case that is based around the unproven assumption that I'm scum, and using that assumption to paint my subsequent actions as scummy. Sure, you could assume I'm scum and assign scum motivation to most of my actions. I could do the same for every player in this game if I wanted to. That doesn't mean the assumptions are right, or the actions scum-motivated.Thor665 wrote:I pointed out how I felt your question had potential scum methods to it yesterday, that is a belief free of the assumption of you being or not being scum. Yes, I am assuming you are scum when presenting a scum case on you - I don't see how one can do otherwise.
Fair enough - how do you draw the distinction between how I am doing it and how you have done so when presenting your cases on charter and Cyberbob? I do not believe you can and thus I am not sure why you have such issue with my case on you and such confidence in your cases on them. Both your and my cases explain scum motivation for their actions and come from the basic assumption that the target of our case is scum.SaintKerrigan wrote:Pointing out how an action could have scum motivation doesn't automatically mean the action is scum-motivated. And I'm not talking about the assumption one makes when presenting a scum case -- my concern is with a case that is based around the unproven assumption that I'm scum, and using that assumption to paint my subsequent actions as scummy. Sure, you could assume I'm scum and assign scum motivation to most of my actions. I could do the same for every player in this game if I wanted to. That doesn't mean the assumptions are right, or the actions scum-motivated.
Could you explain this part of your case on charter better? It seems silly.SaintKerrigan wrote:This opportunistic shift is certainly strong enough to negate my belief that you wouldn't tunnel on your scumbuddy. After all, if you can change your opinion on me like this, bussing a scumbuddy is hardly something you'd shy away from.
This is a valid point SK has raised and I'd like to hear your reasoning for this shift.SaintKerrigan wrote:You also called Cyberbob "ultra scummy" for not answering my rebuttal. Yesterday you have him scummier than me, and today you've pardoned him because he can't be my partner?
Because from my perspective, at least, you are starting with the assumption that I'm scum, and from there assigning scum motivation to my actions as support for that assumption. What I'm doing is taking the actions of Charter and Cyberbob, and from that I'm drawing the conclusion that they're scum. In other words, you're starting with the result and trying to make the actions fit that result, while I'm starting with the actions themselves, and using them to come to the result.Thor665 wrote:Fair enough - how do you draw the distinction between how I am doing it and how you have done so when presenting your cases on charter and Cyberbob? I do not believe you can and thus I am not sure why you have such issue with my case on you and such confidence in your cases on them. Both your and my cases explain scum motivation for their actions and come from the basic assumption that the target of our case is scum.
The quote in question is explaining why my previous reason for thinking Charter to be likely town is no longer valid. I hadn't thought scum Charter would tunnel on a scumbuddy like that, but after the opportunistic shift he had on me, then the idea of him bussing Fate becomes more plausible in my mind.Thor665 wrote:Could you explain this part of your case on charter better? It seems silly.
Explain. I don't see a real relation between the two.SK wrote:I hadn't thought scum Charter would tunnel on a scumbuddy like that, but after the opportunistic shift he had on me, then the idea of him bussing Fate becomes more plausible in my mind.
Not really. It all seems a bit overblown. And I still need to do some ISOs.SK wrote:SPS, any comments on the goings on?
Because from my perspective, at least, you are starting with the assumption that I'm scum, and from there assigning scum motivation to my actions as support for that assumption. What I'm doing is taking the actions of Saint Kerrigan, and from that I'm drawing the conclusion that you're scum. In other words, you're starting with the result and trying to make the actions fit that result, while I'm starting with the actions themselves, and using them to come to the result.SaintKerrigan wrote:If you feel this is not what you are actually doing, feel free to explain why.
Why? Because he's opportunistic? I still don't see the connection and it feels like a grabbing of straws to beef up a case.SaintKerrigan wrote:The quote in question is explaining why my previous reason for thinking Charter to be likely town is no longer valid. I hadn't thought scum Charter would tunnel on a scumbuddy like that, but after the opportunistic shift he had on me, then the idea of him bussing Fate becomes more plausible in my mind.
I agree it's a shift, I'm still debating if it's a scummy one. I'm actually surprised that after the last Day phase that suddenly I'm lower on everyone's scumdars then you are and I have commented about how I found that an odd movement (at least in Cyberbob's case). Lots of people made comments yesterday that my actions in our debate looked like the scummier actions, and then 'whango' - Kerrigan is a higher suspect. Denmark is past its expiration date in some manner or other here, I'm just not sure I'm smart enough to figure out how.SaintKerrigan wrote:Incidentally, do you disagree with my accusing Charter for his opportunistic shift? Why or why not? (Anyone is free to answer this question.)
Kerrigan is full of win on this point, we need more spade posts.SaintKerrigan wrote:SPS, any comments on the goings on?
Thor665 wrote:What I'm doing is taking the actions of Saint Kerrigan, and from that I'm drawing the conclusion that you're scum.
This is how I'm viewing your case on me. Please explain how you described it in the first quote applies to what you said in the second quote.Thor665 wrote:My case on you, Kerrigan, is fairly much the basis of everyone else's case on you,and that is that you were scum(the assumption),falseclaimed to earn town cred/safety, and that your odd 'track claim' on me was in fact rolefishing to cover the fact you couldn't accurately claim what the track was and then you claimed roleblock when I didn't pony up the info you wanted.(Followed by assigning scum motivation to my actions.) I'll also happily admit that your continued roleblock with Michel left alive and Copper NKed just rings as all sorts of odd play to me (so if scum were hoping to discombobulate town - mission successful on me).
The difference I perceive in our approaches is what makes the difference.Thor665 wrote:Simply because I'm comfortable admitting the assumptions within my cases doesn't make them any more or less valid then your own.
See response to SPS.Thor665 wrote:Why? Because he's opportunistic? I still don't see the connection and it feels like a grabbing of straws to beef up a case.
It was sarcasm.SaintKerrigan wrote:This is how I'm viewing your case on me. Please explain how you described it in the first quote applies to what you said in the second quote.
Fine - and I believe that the difference is all in your own head and have been saying as much.The difference I perceive in our approaches is what makes the difference.
Why did you need the second example in order to decide he was capable of scum opportunism? What about the first situation and/or your meta on him ruled it out?@ SPS: I didn't think Charter was the type to tunnel early and hard on his scumbuddies. I also didn't think he'd go from having a fairly townish opinion of me to calling me scum based on bad reasoning while pardoning his other suspects because they can't be my buddies. Both are aspects of scum opportunism, so if he's capable of doing one, why wouldn't he be capable of doing the other?
My meta on Charter is that he tends to tunnel, so the first example didn't look like bussing when I first saw it. The second example clearly showed scum opportunism, and in light of that I reevaluated my view of the first example.Thor665 wrote:Why did you need the second example in order to decide he was capable of scum opportunism? What about the first situation and/or your meta on him ruled it out?
That support from other people was only shown after both Cyberbob and Charter had explicitly declared that they were suspicious of you, though. The order is incorrect for that explanation.SaintKerrigan wrote:@ Michel: I disagree that Charter and Cyberbob can't be scum together. Charter says that I'm so scummy that he's ruling his previous suspects "probably town" as a result of it, and despite being this sure that I'm scum, he doesn't vote for me. This fits right along with the idea that scum want to keep their options open.
Also, there is some support from other people for the idea of my lynch, if we go by their suspect lists (SPS has me at #1, and if Thor's list is in order of suspicion I'm at #2). It isn't unfeasible in my mind for scum to try and present new "evidence" to try and coax those suspicions into votes.
As I said yesterday, Cyberbob's case had very little merit. And if I look at the way suspicion is developing against him today, I would not be surprised to see that scum is pushing for a mislynch there. From the POV of SK, who knows himself to be town, Charter's switch would definately be very suspicious.Thor wrote:I see a lot of logic in your Copper NK logic. There's probably also some logic to the concept that Copper wouldn't have been a mislynch they could get so one might as well get rid of him. How do you feel about SK's obvious lashing out at anyone who questions her?
On Cyberbob?MichelSableheart wrote:As I said yesterday, Cyberbob's case had very little merit. And if I look at the way suspicion is developing against him today, I would not be surprised to see that scum is pushing for a mislynch there.
I have, I'm even pretty sure I was the first one to do so (well...besides Fate, who I think did so at the end of Day 2).Cyberbob wrote:thor have you considered the possibility that sk is lying about his role
And 2 PRs vs. 3 vanilla goons doesn't feel balanced? I don't see why you're lumping SK and Michel together here. Their claims are very different.Thor wrote:and I clear you and SK for the PR claim (since 3 PRs vs. 3 scum w. roleblocker does feel balanced)
I don't see him saying this if he were scum with Kerrigan and Fate considering the lack of objective basis for it; there was a little spat between Kerrigan and Fate, but that wasn't inconsistent with Kerrigan-Fate as they were both serious lynch targets.charter wrote:Kerrigan doesn't look like a likely buddy with Fate.
Exhibit B (anti-Cyberbobscum):charter wrote:I want to reread Kerrigan's stances on Fate and look for some scumbuddy connections.
I tend to think Cyberbob wouldn't say this about his scumbuddy.Cyberbob wrote:This kind of falsely moderate phrasing is exactly the kind of OMGUS one usually sees from scum trying not to overdo it.Fate wrote: I suddenly wouldn't mind a Cyber lynch either.
How do you see their claims as so different?Steam-Powered Shovel wrote:And 2 PRs vs. 3 vanilla goons doesn't feel balanced? I don't see why you're lumping SK and Michel together here. Their claims are very different.Thor wrote:and I clear you and SK for the PR claim (since 3 PRs vs. 3 scum w. roleblocker does feel balanced)
By the way this is written up you seem to suspect Kerrigan and myself more (each of our names show up twice) why then is our pairing the third most likely scumpair in your opinion? Is it just that you suspect us both individually so you might as well have a scum pairing? Earlier you had stated you were ruling out that particular pairing - why is it back?I've finished ISOing people and I'm currently leaning towards a Thor-charter scum team with SK-Cyberbob and Thor-SK as close second and third respectively.
I am inclined to clear Socrates. It's not just Fate's push at the beginning of day 2, but also CSL unexplained vote halfway through day 1, near the original deadline.Thor wrote:Up till now I've been more or less clearing Socrates in my mind because of Fate's push on him at the beginning of Day 2. What are your thoughts on that and on Socrates?
I ask, because if I clear Socrates for that, and I clear you and SK for the PR claim (since 3 PRs vs. 3 scum w. roleblocker does feel balanced) then that leaves obv. scumpair of charter/Cyberbob which seems unlikely since I agree with you that the dual distancing towards Fate seems unlikely. Therefore either my Socrates clearing reason isn't valid, or you or Kerrigan are lying about being town PR. Thoughts?
It may be worth noting that I consider Gunsmith + my role vs 3 vanilla goons unlikely.SPS wrote:And 2 PRs vs. 3 vanilla goons doesn't feel balanced?
Tracker is a substantially stronger role than anything I can think up for Michel. (As Michel essentially confirms in his last post.)Thor wrote:How do you see their claims as so different?
Individually SK and you are indeed my biggest suspects as I mentioned earlier. I never said I was ruling out Thor-SK, I said I didn't like it. I also don't like Cyberbobscum or charterscum that much, so clearly I'm wrong about something.Thor wrote:By the way this is written up you seem to suspect Kerrigan and myself more (each of our names show up twice) why then is our pairing the third most likely scumpair in your opinion? Is it just that you suspect us both individually so you might as well have a scum pairing? Earlier you had stated you were ruling out that particular pairing - why is it back?
Hmm. Okay.MichelSableheart wrote:It may be worth noting that I consider Gunsmith + my role vs 3 vanilla goons unlikely.SPS wrote:And 2 PRs vs. 3 vanilla goons doesn't feel balanced?