Mini 1042 - Skillville - GAME OVER!

[Alduskkel]

I don't claim that I should be specially treated with regards to the shotty wagon. However, I don't think the people who said he was town/null should be specially treated either! Please stop misrepresenting what I've said.

[DemonHybrid]

I don't claim that I should be specially treated with regards to the shotty wagon. However, I don't think the people who said he was town/null should be specially treated either! Please stop misrepresenting what I've said.

So everyone was at fault, basically.

I'm admitting that I was, too.

Listen, it's just pure personal opinion that those who saw him as town and only town are not natural. There was SOMETHING wrong with his play, and everyone knows it. You'd have to be a fucking robot not to suspect him. I don't see how I'm overblowing much. But I do see the fact that I'm partly at fault for lynching a really scummy VT.

[Skill006]

Scott Brosius has requested replacement.

Back to the queue.

[Zachrulez]

Skill, use this thread to advertise your need for replacements. (I went and checked and don't see your name in the thread.)

Once you post a request in there, you should get some people willing to replace in... though it might take a few days.

I'll throw the game in my sig and see if that helps too.

[Skill006]

Skill, use this thread to advertise your need for replacements. (I went and checked and don't see your name in the thread.)

Once you post a request in there, you should get some people willing to replace in... though it might take a few days.

I'll throw the game in my sig and see if that helps too.

Ah, thanks. That should help

Ahem, Nobody Special replaces Maemuki. Please welcome him!

[Nobody Special]

Hi. No computer access until late, late tomorrow, so I won't have any real thoughts until probably Saturday or Sunday.

Oh, and HI!!

[Untrod Tripod]

oh herro NS

thanks for replacing

[vollkan]

That's EXACTLY why it's weird; he's calling shotty town in one word in one sentence.....and that's it. I subjectively find that sketchy, so I suspect it. Same thing with Soc. The LAST post of both of them before shotty's modkill was of them calling him town.

You can't say that my case has flaws because it's what I believe and IS valid. Your case is subjective on your side, yet I've never said it has flaws, you're just tunneling the crap out of someone who has their own view, and in that case, the same view Zach and UT had. Why me? You're literally saying I have bad logic for the SAME THING you are saying, just on the other side of things. [/quote]

You're completely missing the point.

I've given reasons why it wasn't suspicious (ie. single throwaya statement which is an obvious product of frustration in the circumstances). Your 'logic' is nothing more than "Meh, feels sketchy...scum might want to do it"

You realize that what you believe could be scum/town motivation and what I believe could be scum/town motivation are opinions, right? And that's the point of me mentioning that there's a whole Mafia Discussion forum on whether which are valid and which aren't? Which is my point? And I've noticed you completely avoided it.

Yes, they are opinions. However, in THIS GAME, you can only suspect somebody if you have clear non-subjective reasons for why the scum motivation is more likely. It's not a theory debate.

Opinions, which are entirely subjective, CANNOT be flaws. It is a flaw if I contradict myself or have no reasoning for a certain action, etc, none of which is what I did. I just had a differentiating opinion.

That's crap.

Person X votes Person Y for lurking on the basis that "Scum have a motivation to lurk"
Person Z points out that Person Y always lurks no matter what his alignment
Person X says "I don't care; it seems sketchy and scum have a motivation to do it"

Person X's opinion is wrong/invalid/stupid in the circumstances because he is ignoring evidence.

Your're entitled to your own opinion; you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Facts include: That shotty was an obvious VI; that the push on him was extremely frustrating for opponents of the wagon, etc.

You can have an 'opinion' that ignores those facts,

but it will be invlaid

His claim regarding his meta with Scott and the scum motivation for that kind of fabrication of how conveniently forgetting his scum games with him would make Scott pushing his lynch look were grounds enough for a lynch in my own eyes. (I still can't believe a player would make a meta claim like this and 1. Forget that he was scum in games with the players and 2. Not check said Meta before he made a hard claim regarding said meta.) Arguing this with hindsight, but I saw this as a scum motivated lie at the time and didn't believe his explanation.

*sigh*
This was crap at the time as well. As I said:

It proves that Shotty has played like this as scum...it doesn't prove that he only plays like this as scum. I don't buy the "he lied" argument; I couldn't tell you even 25% of the people I have played with in, say, my three most recently finished games.

It's exactly the same sort of poor logic that DH is using.

Because you can think of A reason for scum to do it (ie. lying), you single out that reason and forget to give due weight to town motivations.

The other point would be the point in discussion where Shotty seemed to want to keep the possibility of scum mason open for Maemuki, even though it was clearly established that such a scenario would have to be impossible. (She's either mason or scum with Scott.) Again, can't believe that he wouldn't go back through the game to find and realize that establishment. Again arguing with hindsight, but I saw him making an idiotic, but scum motivated argument against the impossibility of Mae being a scum mason.

"idiotic, but scum motiated"

How does "idiotic but scum motivated" look any different from "idiotic but town motivated"? It just looked idiotic - which is what it was and which is what a number of us were saying that it was at the time.

Shotty's vote on me on d1 looked like a Chainsaw defense

There is no such thing as a "chainsaw defence"

All that said I also feel that vollkan is downplaying how much Reckamonic said DMSIS was town. Sure, one word in one post seems small, but it represents an entire read on one player.

I would have thought people would have learned this after the Shotty flip, but you need to look at the context.

For those of us who opposed the lynch, it was an immensely frustrating textbook example of "How Not to Deal with a VI". In the circumstances, I can completely understand calling him town. I don't agree with it, but I think that it's ridiculous that the people who pushed such an obviously stupid wagon can then turn around and criticise other people for having a slightly excessive defence

There was SOMETHING wrong with his play, and everyone knows it.

Yes, he was an idiot

You'd have to be a fucking robot not to suspect him

Right.

Because a robot would choose to consider somebody's behaviour in context and in light of known evidence as to their psychology, rather than inflexibly apply a set of predetermined rules about what is or is not scummy regardless of the context.

[DemonHybrid]

"Meh, feels sketchy...scum might want to do it"

And? That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Yes, they are opinions. However, in THIS GAME, you can only suspect somebody if you have clear non-subjective reasons for why the scum motivation is more likely. It's not a theory debate.

It is a theory debate when you argue with what someone finds scummy or not. I find different things scummy than you. So did UT and Zach, yet I'm the one you're arguing against cause I'm the one with the balls to call you out when you were shaky on a lynch. That's all in the past now, but you're arguing theory just for the sake of arguing theory now.

Person X's opinion is wrong/invalid/stupid in the circumstances because he is ignoring evidence.

Wrong. That's why meta's a fucking red herring and why no one likes it. It leads to a shitload of misinformation. Really, 3 year and 3 months here at this site before me and you still don't know this...it's stunning.

Pretty much through with the game theory arguing.

Because a robot would choose to consider somebody's behaviour in context and in light of known evidence as to their psychology, rather than inflexibly apply a set of predetermined rules about what is or is not scummy regardless of the context.

I suggest you look at Reck's "Shotty is town" argument again and try to scrounge up all the context you can. Doubt you'll find much.

Reck said nothing about motivations until after his lynch. He said "He's a VI. So he's town. End of story." Context is ALL about alignment motivations in this case, not whether or not Shotty was a VI (cause...derp, that's evident). Open your eyes.

[DemonHybrid]

EBWOP: "Wrong. That's why meta's a fucking red herring"

There are reasons why meta's a red herring...

[Reckamonic]

Will try to get up a brief response before the hydra goes

V/LA from now through Monday

.
Also, as a warning, the hydra will be spending a fun-filled weekend in Montreal together

10/14-10/19

so expect low activity then, too.

[Zachrulez]

His claim regarding his meta with Scott and the scum motivation for that kind of fabrication of how conveniently forgetting his scum games with him would make Scott pushing his lynch look were grounds enough for a lynch in my own eyes. (I still can't believe a player would make a meta claim like this and 1. Forget that he was scum in games with the players and 2. Not check said Meta before he made a hard claim regarding said meta.) Arguing this with hindsight, but I saw this as a scum motivated lie at the time and didn't believe his explanation.

*sigh*
This was crap at the time as well. As I said:

It proves that Shotty has played like this as scum...it doesn't prove that he only plays like this as scum. I don't buy the "he lied" argument; I couldn't tell you even 25% of the people I have played with in, say, my three most recently finished games.

It's exactly the same sort of poor logic that DH is using.

Because you can think of A reason for scum to do it (ie. lying), you single out that reason and forget to give due weight to town motivations.

What town motivation is there to make a hard meta claim that makes another player look bad without backing it up? (Or at least checking that the claim is true?)

I think it's rather unfair to say that possibility should be discarded because. "shotty is an idiot." Or that him being an idiot is more likely than the scum motivation there as it's a play that makes sense from that scum perspective. (And Shotty is a player that typically doesn't make sense.)

The other point would be the point in discussion where Shotty seemed to want to keep the possibility of scum mason open for Maemuki, even though it was clearly established that such a scenario would have to be impossible. (She's either mason or scum with Scott.) Again, can't believe that he wouldn't go back through the game to find and realize that establishment. Again arguing with hindsight, but I saw him making an idiotic, but scum motivated argument against the impossibility of Mae being a scum mason.

"idiotic, but scum motiated"

How does "idiotic but scum motivated" look any different from "idiotic but town motivated"? It just looked idiotic - which is what it was and which is what a number of us were saying that it was at the time.

You going to seriously tell me that it's impossible to see Shotty as scum in that situation trying to argue for Maemuki being a scum mason after the discussion that established that she couldn't have been? (demonstrating that he didn't even pay attention to that discussion?)

I think you can make a justifiable argument that Shotty was scum there trying to unclear a player. (As having players cleared is bad for scum.)

None of that makes possible town motivations impossible, I just felt that the scum motivations were more likely with the way the game was unfolding.

Shotty's vote on me on d1 looked like a Chainsaw defense

There is no such thing as a "chainsaw defence"

I suppose that wiki article that mentions it is just for show then?...

[DemonHybrid]

But hey, you know what would be cool? If we stopped talking game theory and started talking scum reads.

Mine is Reckamonic. Any more restating the same thing and I'll take it as a chainsaw.

And I don't care what anyones' views on "chainsaw"ing is.



Soc is also a good lynch too, but I want his replacement to start speaking. That is, if he ever gets replaced.

[Zachrulez]

I'm not particularly interested in Reckamonic. Why do you think he's scum?

[DemonHybrid]

I meant that towards vollkan.

Check the last two pages, or more widely from shotty's death on. Too tired to re-state the case.

[Zachrulez]

Calling people scum for having correct reads is just bad play. Obviously the people who thought DMSIS were better players in this case, and it certainly doesn't mean that they must have had some inside information.

(snip)

I'm noticing a distinct lack of analysis of players who

were

pushing for DMSIS's mislynch by DH and UT. Selective targeting, much?

Well obviously everyone who said he was town is a better player. Also the people who were pushing the wagon should be investigated. But not me. I'm innocent



You were pushing for it too. Also, the fact that he flipped town doesn't mean he wasn't playing like absolute scum. This looks like a subtle attempt to distance yourself from the wagon while inching towards the DH one. Just IMO, Shotty was playing SO BADLY and SO ANTI TOWN that calling him obvtown seems like a kind of clairvoyance. Or inside knowledge.

No, he's not distancing from the wagon, he's pointing out the fact that the targeting of yourself and DH toward players who were opposed to Shotty's lynch is selective and wrong. They're no more likely to be scum than the people who were on the wagon. Given the situation you can argue a pretty close to equal likleyhood that scum could have very easily picked one side or the other, benefiting from blending into the group of people who wanted Shotty dead, or attempting to gain town cred by saying the lynch was wrong.

I think post 736 conveys the thought he's trying to express a lot better.

We should take a good look at the wagon and try to figure out everyone's view of shotty. People finding him too town should be looked at (since they know he's town).

Alright, what the hell DemonHybrid? We should take an extra careful look at the people who were right about DMSIS? Bullshit.

If anything we should look at the people who were pushing a mislynch -- including me.

That's not to say we shouldn't look at those people at all, but singling them out is just wrong.
---
Well, with DMSIS flipping town it's time to head back to the drawing board. I'm curious as to whether or not Socrates will need replacing, or if he'll come back. And if he does, what will he say?

Statement in quote bolded for emphasis.

Now I will quote the manner in which you represented post 772.

Well obviously everyone who said he was town is a better player. Also the people who were pushing the wagon should be investigated. But not me. I'm innocent.

Not only does he not say that in 772, post 736 says the opposite. You either didn't read that post or you don't recall it, the latter I find unlikely because 736 was only a page before your post in response to 772.

[Alduskkel]

The content.

And yes, that would be a shame, but that's clear and legitimate AtE when a good case was presented against her. Lets lynch her and get it over with and not dick around with a replacement.

Soc is also a good lynch too, but I want his replacement to start speaking. That is, if he ever gets replaced.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two different stances. On the one hand, you don't want to wait for a replacement for a player you think is scum. On the other hand, you do.

Why the change?

[vollkan]

It is a theory debate when you argue with what someone finds scummy or not. I find different things scummy than you. So did UT and Zach, yet I'm the one you're arguing against cause I'm the one with the balls to call you out when you were shaky on a lynch. That's all in the past now, but you're arguing theory just for the sake of arguing theory now.

*sigh* It's not a "theory debate" when a number of players consistently explained why Shotty wasn't a good lynch and not a single decent counter-argument was mounted. The debate that we are having is going nowhere; suffice to say that I think that the failure of people to give any weight to the risk that his actions were prompted by VI-ness and not scumminess, especially in the face of having that directly pointed out to them by the likes of Reck and myself, is scummy

Wrong. That's why meta's a fucking red herring and why no one likes it. It leads to a shitload of misinformation. Really, 3 year and 3 months here at this site before me and you still don't know this...it's stunning.

I don't want an argument, just answer yes or not to this hypothetical:

Next month you are in a game with Shotty and he plays pretty much exactly like his here. Would you vote him?

What town motivation is there to make a hard meta claim that makes another player look bad without backing it up? (Or at least checking that the claim is true?)

I think it's rather unfair to say that possibility should be discarded because. "shotty is an idiot." Or that him being an idiot is more likely than the scum motivation there as it's a play that makes sense from that scum perspective. (And Shotty is a player that typically doesn't make sense.)

There doesn't need to be a town motivation for something to be "not scummy". It just has to be the case that there is no good reason for thinking a scum motivation any more likely than a null explanation (ie. Shotty is an idiot who can't be expected to make sense)

The fact that you say it is "unfair" makes me suspect that what you are really getting it is a policy consideration - that if we let people get away with being stupid, that encourages stupidity. Is that correct?

You going to seriously tell me that it's impossible to see Shotty as scum in that situation trying to argue for Maemuki being a scum mason after the discussion that established that she couldn't have been? (demonstrating that he didn't even pay attention to that discussion?)

I think you can make a justifiable argument that Shotty was scum there trying to unclear a player. (As having players cleared is bad for scum.)

None of that makes possible town motivations impossible, I just felt that the scum motivations were more likely with the way the game was unfolding.

The question is not whether it was possible to see him as scum, but whether that was the most

likely

explanation (I think it's possible that you're scum; should I vote you?). The wagonners showed complete disregard for the fact that him being a VI made the wagon dodgy.

I suppose that wiki article that mentions it is just for show then?...

I don't want a debate on this, but (largely for my own entertainment) let me explain how "chainsawing" became a (made-up) scumtell:
1) One player (Tarhalindur) came up with his own set of scumtells, that apparently worked for him.
2) Tarhalindur made a wiki page listing his tells in an article called "Tarhalindur Standard Tells"
3) Every single newbie who came to the site searched "scumtells" into the wiki and found said article above
4) Every single newbie started playing as thought it was an accepted scumtelll rather than just a single player's views
5) Every single subsequent newbie (and some players who should know better) started seeing chainsaw being thrown around and it became a meme

The whole thing is just a gigantic exercise in groupthink.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two different stances. On the one hand, you don't want to wait for a replacement for a player you think is scum. On the other hand, you do.

Why the change?

Good find.

[DemonHybrid]

The content.

And yes, that would be a shame, but that's clear and legitimate AtE when a good case was presented against her. Lets lynch her and get it over with and not dick around with a replacement.

Soc is also a good lynch too, but I want his replacement to start speaking. That is, if he ever gets replaced.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two different stances. On the one hand, you don't want to wait for a replacement for a player you think is scum. On the other hand, you do.

Why the change?

Maemuki was a "Wow, I really feel like this person is 99% scum" read. The only reason why she's alive is SB's forced mason claim of her.

Soc is a "Eh, he's kinda scummy but I feel like Reck is above him read. Regardless, if his lynch comes up, I'm all for it" read.

You can see the difference.

[DemonHybrid]

*sigh* It's not a "theory debate" when a number of players consistently explained why Shotty wasn't a good lynch and not a single decent counter-argument was mounted. The debate that we are having is going nowhere;

suffice to say that I think that the failure of people to give any weight to the risk that his actions were prompted by VI-ness and not scumminess, especially in the face of having that directly pointed out to them by the likes of Reck and myself, is scummy

1. You can't say that not ONE decent argument was made for his lynch.
2. Uh.....isn't that what I'm blaming Reck and Soc for? In fact, that's my exact argument. Just flip the alignments and there you go.

I don't want an argument, just answer yes or not to this hypothetical:

Next month you are in a game with Shotty and he plays pretty much exactly like his here. Would you vote him?

Depends on the game context.

[DemonHybrid]

Game's at a standstill.

@Mod: Impose the deadline?

[Zachrulez]

What town motivation is there to make a hard meta claim that makes another player look bad without backing it up? (Or at least checking that the claim is true?)

I think it's rather unfair to say that possibility should be discarded because. "shotty is an idiot." Or that him being an idiot is more likely than the scum motivation there as it's a play that makes sense from that scum perspective. (And Shotty is a player that typically doesn't make sense.)

There doesn't need to be a town motivation for something to be "not scummy". It just has to be the case that there is no good reason for thinking a scum motivation any more likely than a null explanation (ie. Shotty is an idiot who can't be expected to make sense)

That's crap. How exactly is the nulltell you listed equally likely? How can you argue that an action doesn't make sense when it does from a scum perspective? Your argument here doesn't make any sense to me.

The fact that you say it is "unfair" makes me suspect that what you are really getting it is a policy consideration - that if we let people get away with being stupid, that encourages stupidity. Is that correct?

Certainly made it easier for me to be comfortable with his lynch. My concern is actually less about encouraging stupidity as it is/was the increasing risk he would present to the town the deeper into the game he got. (Regardless of his actual alignment.)

You going to seriously tell me that it's impossible to see Shotty as scum in that situation trying to argue for Maemuki being a scum mason after the discussion that established that she couldn't have been? (demonstrating that he didn't even pay attention to that discussion?)

I think you can make a justifiable argument that Shotty was scum there trying to unclear a player. (As having players cleared is bad for scum.)

None of that makes possible town motivations impossible, I just felt that the scum motivations were more likely with the way the game was unfolding.

The question is not whether it was possible to see him as scum, but whether that was the most

likely

explanation (I think it's possible that you're scum; should I vote you?). The wagonners showed complete disregard for the fact that him being a VI made the wagon dodgy.

I have to disagree with this because you're making a hard and generic statement about "the wagoners." I can't speak for everyone on the wagon, but I can say that I didn't show a complete disregard for the fact that he was a VI. Case in point Shotty's day 1 actions were full of stupidity, but it was the stupidity of a VI that didn't make sense from any perspective. Some (not all.) of his day 2 play made sense from a scum perspective. You can't accuse everyone on the wagon of showing complete disregard to him being a VI when they come up with a plausible reason for voting him.

I suppose that wiki article that mentions it is just for show then?...

I don't want a debate on this, but (largely for my own entertainment) let me explain how "chainsawing" became a (made-up) scumtell:
1) One player (Tarhalindur) came up with his own set of scumtells, that apparently worked for him.
2) Tarhalindur made a wiki page listing his tells in an article called "Tarhalindur Standard Tells"
3) Every single newbie who came to the site searched "scumtells" into the wiki and found said article above
4) Every single newbie started playing as thought it was an accepted scumtelll rather than just a single player's views
5) Every single subsequent newbie (and some players who should know better) started seeing chainsaw being thrown around and it became a meme

The whole thing is just a gigantic exercise in groupthink.

The only response I'm going to give to this is that I haven't seen newbies reference this scum tell much in my own experience. The rest of it isn't even worth the debate at this point because it doesn't actually accomplish anything in the context of this game.

[Zachrulez]

Also for curiosity sake... Vollkan, where was Shotty in your points system relative to everyone else at the time of his mod kill?

[Nobody Special]

Guys. Hey, guys? 32 pages is a LOT. Just sayin.

Promise to have concrete thoughts tomorrow. (I'm up to about pg 15. Roughly.)

[Skill006]

Game's at a standstill.

@Mod: Impose the deadline?

I see that the game won't progress much without a deadline, so I guess its time to set one without replacements :/

Deadline will be Friday, October 15th, 10:00 pm CST.

I will do my best to try to find replacements before then.