Open 289 - Hard Boiled - Game over.

[iamausername]

My read on Yoshi has not changed on the basis of him saying "no, the scummy things I did aren't scummy", no.

[iamausername]

I also notice that you're still not answering the question of what

you

think of DarthYoshi.

[Krazy]

My opinion of DarthYoshi is rather in flux. In regard to your entire case on him, I don't think him explaining his thought process behind maintaining or dropping a vote is all that suspicious, no. There are some things he has said that have irked me, but right now he is not my top candidate, or even in my top 3.

You however are an altogether different story. Your attempts at deflection, your piggy-backing on V, and your active lurking have raised you considerably on my list. Your decision to not actually communicate your rejection of Yoshi's defense makes it seem like you don't actually want to make or pursue a case on him, but rather want a case to be made against him by other players so that you can then present yourself as a distanced judge. Which you are not.

Since you seem to want to ask point blank opinions of other players, what is your opinion of CS? You seem to be skeptical of V voting him instead of Yoshi but did not actually explain why.

[Umbrage]

@ iamausername: Brevity is good, yes. But quotes are your friend. Quote the things DarthYoshi said that make him scummy.

[DarthYoshi]

Iamusername is letting Vordark do all the heavy lifting for him in actually trying to paint me as scummy (and apparently, I'm not the only one to notice). As such, I'll be replying almost entirely to Vordark here. All quotes are from him unless otherwise noted.

I already responded and pointed out the contradiction I see. You even quote my response below. It is disingenuous to claim that I have not.

Yeah, and then you, in so many words, repeated your original line to my response.

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.

Your first bit is obviously committing the fallacy of the excluded middle.

I am unfamiliar with this fallacy. Please explain.

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 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.

That defense only works if we believe your motive is scum hunting. I am unconvinced at this point.

Nah-uh!

FTFY.

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.

My pointing out your behavior now does not preclude my pointing out the behavior of others if I see the need once I have ISO'd them. It is interesting that you are asking this question as a defense when I've made it clear that you are my first ISO of the day, not my only.

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.

Again, this statement only works if we assume you have a town motive. An equally viable explanation for the events is that you are attempting to keep the Krazy train running as a distraction.

I think I've already addressed this.

I believe that is self-evident.

Not to me.

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?

@Umbrage: If/when I flip, you'll see how much of a junk science hunting for scumbuddies so early on D1 really is. Your bussing suspicion is off.

@Quaraoth: It sounds like you're backtracking from your pro-town read on me. Is that because of Vordark's case, or are there other reasons?

[Umbrage]

If/when I flip, you'll see how much of a junk science hunting for scumbuddies so early on D1 really is. Your bussing suspicion is off.

@ DarthYoshi: If you're referring to the connections I noted between CS and Snake Eyes, I have a town read on CS. I suppose that the two could be buddies, but Snake Eyes could simply be buddying CS for towncred, or to try and launch a wagon on me. The only thing about CS I find scummy is his connection with Snake Eyes, otherwise I find him town.

In short, Snake Eyes being scum does not make CS scum.

I'm going to try and ISO Vordark when I get some spare time. There's been something off about his play.

[DarthYoshi]

I was referring to your bussing suspicion of me + Vordark. Sorry for being unclear.

[Vordark]

Iamusername is letting Vordark do all the heavy lifting for him in actually trying to paint me as scummy (and apparently, I'm not the only one to notice). As such, I'll be replying almost entirely to Vordark here. All quotes are from him unless otherwise noted.

I already responded and pointed out the contradiction I see. You even quote my response below. It is disingenuous to claim that I have not.

Yeah, and then you, in so many words, repeated your original line to my response.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

My pointing out your behavior now does not preclude my pointing out the behavior of others if I see the need once I have ISO'd them. It is interesting that you are asking this question as a defense when I've made it clear that you are my first ISO of the day, not my only.

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.

Again, this statement only works if we assume you have a town motive. An equally viable explanation for the events is that you are attempting to keep the Krazy train running as a distraction.

I think I've already addressed this.

Yes you have, with a personal attack.

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?

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.

You are not arguing my case like a townie would. Town would not have to misquote, misrepresent and ignore questions or statements in favor of personal attacks in order to make a defense. 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.

[DarthYoshi]

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.

[DarthYoshi]

EBWOP: Eesh, epic quote fail on my part. Those quotes start with my words, then Vordark's reply, which is what I am replying to in the above post. Sorry, everyone.

[DarthYoshi]

Er, the quotes start with Vordark, my reply in the middle, then Vordark's most recent post. Derp.

[Xtoxm]

Definitely not liking this Umbrage wagon, this is surely scum fueled. What i've seen of Vordark looks town, I like iam's succinctness and he's looking pro-town, so i'm thinking there is scum in {CS, SE, Ythan}. Will go with Ythan as my current top suspect, but I really need to read properly what I have only skimmed when I get a chance. I'll try and do this tomorrow.

Also, guys, some of these walls are really getting out of hand.

[Vordark]

Today's ISO of Snake Eyes...

OK, so my vote on ConSpiracy is about as serious as you can get for page 1 reads. Xtoxm stands out as odd to me, he didn't random vote, he didn't really say hello or anything, he just answered the questions. I'm not saying it's scum or town, it just looks odd.

Why is ConSpiracy asking you specifically a question a somewhat serious scumtell? What about it is more scummy than a person who is arguably not doing much to get the game out of RVS, and why point it out if it's not scummy?

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Umbrage

This is the first post that has content, and it's also part of the ongoing statements by DarthYoshi and Umbrage that SE is defending CS. In this post, SE asks Umbrage a direct question, that being "Why is ConSpiracy asking you specifically a question a somewhat serious scumtell?" That is not a defense, it is asking Umbrage a question as a reaction to Umbrage saying he was "serious" on his vote. In the quote from Umbrage, he also mentions Xtoxm as being "odd to [him]", states he just answered the questions (implying a lack of contribution) then he gives us a null tell with a pinch of suspicion. SE's second sentence asks why Umbrage feels what CS did was more scummy than Xtoxm.

It's a really simple post to break down and doesn't constitute a "defense" of CS any more than asking anyone their reasoning on another player constitutes a defense.

A wee bit later...

Secondly, I already said why it struck me as kind of scummy, it was really out of the blue, I have no idea why he would ask me that unless he knew that I wouldn't give a straight answer and he wanted to make me look bad. That was my reasoning. Unless you happen to know that he had a better reason, why dispute my logic there?

I really do doubt ConSpiracy's motives in asking me that question, but my vote on him was mainly to see how you reacted to a serious vote early in RVS. Just my little way of getting to know you.

I don't understand why you would immediately assume ConSpiracy had some ulterior motives, as asking questions in early game can only help move the game forward. In the quotes above you show such remarkable self-consciousness that I'm starting to think my vote is in the right place.

This is more evidence of the "defense". Again, I'm not seeing it. Umbrage says he doubt's CS's motives and SE is asking him why. If person A says "I think person B is scummy" and person C asks them why, is person C defending B? No.

Agreed, which is why I struggled to understand why you pointed out xtoxm's actions in particular. Well, agreed apart from him trying to skip it. Trying to skip it would mean actively trying to get something going in the game.

I pointed it out to see what the rest of you thought. What do you think of him, exactly? You said he was "a person who is arguably not doing much to get the game out of RVS", which you obviously regard as a scumtell. But instead of going after him, you go after me, why?

I don't think anything of him. You're the one who brought him up. As for why I said he was a person who is arguably not doing much to get the game out of RVS, I said it to see if you would suddenly find it scummy after I said it, or back off of conspiracy. I don't obviously regard it as a scumtell, and I never said I did.

Well, my questioning ConSpiracy's motives could only help move the game forward, so what's the problem?

Haha, is this a serious post? Do I need to explain to you the difference between a guy who is asking questions to get reads off of people, and a guy who thinks that when he's asked a question, he's being set up to look bad?

You mean the quotes that explain that I did what I did to get us out of RVS. You've said that it's bad to prolong RVS, and yet you say I'm scummy. Interesting.

I genuinely think it's scummy that you're paranoid of ulterior motives when someone asks you a fairly innocuous question, yes. If you're truly acting like this out of desire to end the RVS, good job I guess, because we're officially out of RVS now.

@everyone: Stuff is happening. Any thoughts?

This is post #42 in the thread. The only thing I'll note here is that Umbrage is trying to get SE's reasoning for his comment about Xtoxm (which was actually SE asking why Umbrage brought him up). Is this Umbrage defending Xtoxm?

@Snake Eyes--why are you defending Conspiracy so hard?

Not so much defending Conspiracy as I am attacking Umbrage. Here's my thought process on Umbrage in a nutshell:
His #26 set off my scumdar, saying that he had a serious vote on Conspiracy, and then pointing out something unrelated in another player that wasn't even a scumtell. I wanted him to set the record straight on xtoxm, since him pointing xtoxm out as odd was so out of the blue. There's definitely an unnatural player relation there, and should Umbrage flip scum, I'd start looking for his scumbuddies in xtoxm. I also wanted to pressure him on Conspiracy to see if he still found him scummy after some pressure and also to get him to clarify why he found Conspiracy scummy.

However, it's his reaction to my attack that really makes me think he's scum. He's attacking his attacker, which isn't a scumtell, but neither is it a fantastically townie response. There's the whole paranoia about Conspiracy trying to make him look bad with a question. He finds me scummy for trying to move out of RVS, while he admits himself he does it and even uses that to defend himself.

So yeah. Umbrage wagon is a good wagon.

I like all of post #50, but the above part deserves special attention. This is the first time we get DarthYoshi calling out SE for his "defense" of CS. Note that I have quoted everything CS-related that SE had written up to that point. There is nothing there that can be called a "defense". There is no "strongly implying a town motive", yet the quote from DY is "why are you defending Conspiracy so hard?"

Now, in this

same

post, SE does write "I'm leaning slightly town on Conspiracy", but obviously this statement comes after DY's accusation of "defense". Of course, even if it came before it still wouldn't be a "defense" as I've already explained.

Sill, SE offers his thought process and presents an explanation for his remarks. DY's reply to this is:

Snake Eyes defends Conspiracy:

I don't understand why you would immediately assume ConSpiracy had some ulterior motives, as asking questions in early game can only help move the game forward.

Snake Eyes sez:

Not so much defending Conspiracy.

Um, right.

No actual response to what SE wrote. DY copies only the first sentence of a much larger thought, combines it with a quote he isolates and tags "Snake Eyes defense Conspiracy", then offers up nothing but "Um, right".

So now, with the "defense" crap behind us, let's move on to post #57...

If you think a bandwagon is the best way to get out of RVS, then why not vote ConSpiracy with me? Even if you think he's town, it doesn't matter. It's just a wagon, and it gets us out of RVS. Unless you think that your page 2 reads are going to hold for the rest of the game, I see no reason why you wouldn't want to bandwagon him. It'd be a hell of a lot easier than wagoning me. But you weren't interested in a wagon to leave RVS, you wanted a wagon that would grow, and maybe turn into a lynch. And that is scummy.

It's less scummy to join a bandwagon on someone I don't have a scumread on, than it is to pressure you after you've made a questionable post, and then push a wagon on you when I do have a scumread on you? Also, it's hard to wagon you, yet I want a wagon that would grow to a lynch? How does this make any sense?

This is another SE quote that has been isolated and misrepresented. As in...

It's less scummy to join a bandwagon

on someone I don't have a scumread on

, than it is to pressure you after you've made a questionable post, and then push a wagon on you when I do have a scumread on you?

^ the technical psychological term for the bolded is A SCUM SLIP.

His posts in #134 and #191 are just more fielding the accusations of defense and whatnot because of the argument by repetition tactic being thrown at him. His last post in #241 (his ninth total) is just a "Hey I've been sick and am catching up" post, so nothing really there.

Nine posts isn't usually a lot to go on, but I like his responses to what's being thrown at him, he's stayed on point and has not deviated from his well-explained thoughts. That gives me a town read.

[Vordark]

@DarthYoshi: I'm not seeing much in your post that I feel the need to respond to. Also, please use the quoting features of the board correctly. Making it

harder

to see the context of your remarks isn't helpful.

I'll make a note here though:

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.

This is yet more criticism based solely on what I've posted and who I've chosen to post about. I will continue to post when I see the need and when I have time. There's no information there, other than I sometimes sleep and do things outside of this thread. Your continuing to assert there

is

information to be found there is yet more scummery.

[Vordark]

ConSpiracy's ISO is only eight posts long, the last of which looks a pre-flake. Hopefully he's able to catch up and lend us his thoughts now that the thread seems to have settled down a bit. To be sure, CS is a big null read to me. BW's on page one or two are common to roll out of RVS, so could be town or could be scum trying to look town. The people jumping on it, though, that's interesting to me.

Going out into the big room for a number of hours, just in case some of you start to get nervous.

[ConSpiracy]

Reading the post above, I know I am lurking.
I usually am the one being active, but these posts most of you produce are very hard to go through and if there are 2 pages a day coming it is hard to keep my concentration.
Tomorrow I have a day off and I will read everything carefully. I will make a catch up post to show my thoughts.
After then I will try not to fall behind. If after two weeks I again fell behind I will consider being replaced.

[Umbrage]

This is more evidence of the "defense". Again, I'm not seeing it. Umbrage says he doubt's CS's motives and SE is asking him why. If person A says "I think person B is scummy" and person C asks them why, is person C defending B? No.

Except that I explained why I considered CS' question to be scummy. Snake Eyes STILL hasn't given me a solid reason as to why he thought CS was town. If he said "Your argument is flawed, ergo you are scum, die!" then that would've been a valid attack. But "CS is town, ergo you are scum, die!" is a chainsaw defence.

This is another SE quote that has been isolated and misrepresented.

Mind explaining HOW it has been misrepresented? I didn't take anything out of context. I didn't change any wording. Point still stands until it is PROPERLY disproven.

[implosion]

Vote count 1.5:

Xtoxm - 1 (DarthYoshi)
Krazy - 0
Umbrage - 3 (ConSpiracy, Snake Eyes, Ythan)
Ythan - 0
ConSpiracy - 1 (Krazy)
TheBigLebowski - 0
Snake Eyes - 0
Vordark - 1 (TheBigLebowski)
Quaroath - 0
Abelcain - 0
iamausername - 1 (Quaroath)
DarthYoshi - 2 (iamausername, Vordark)
No lynch - 0
Not voting: Xtoxm, Abelcain, Umbrage.

With 12 alive, 7 votes are required to lynch.

Prods: none.

Still searching for a replacement for TheBigLebowski.

Deadline is 8:30 EST on March 23.

[Vordark]

This is more evidence of the "defense". Again, I'm not seeing it. Umbrage says he doubt's CS's motives and SE is asking him why. If person A says "I think person B is scummy" and person C asks them why, is person C defending B? No.

Except that I explained why I considered CS' question to be scummy. Snake Eyes STILL hasn't given me a solid reason as to why he thought CS was town. If he said "Your argument is flawed, ergo you are scum, die!" then that would've been a valid attack. But "CS is town, ergo you are scum, die!" is a chainsaw defence.

This is another SE quote that has been isolated and misrepresented.

Mind explaining HOW it has been misrepresented? I didn't take anything out of context. I didn't change any wording. Point still stands until it is PROPERLY disproven.

Except that SE never said that CS was town. He said "I'm leaning slightly town on Conspiracy", which is a completely different statement. He also said this after you and DY had already started accusing him of defending CS, so trying to use it as part of your case at this point is absurd.

As to your second bit, you did not include include your original statement in the quote, you bolded one phrase and pointed at it calling it a scumslip. I'll also note that "not having a scumread on someone" is not the same thing as calling them town. As examples of taking a statement out of context and misrepresenting it, that's damned near perfect.

[Abelcain]

Alright, first alphabetically (aside from myself) in this game is CS, so I'll start there.

He's only got nine posts in his ISO, and he really doesn't say a whole lot. I know Umbrage made a gigantic deal out of his question being scummy, but other than that there hasn't really been a whole lot from his camp. I feel like he's really neutral via lurking, but I guess if he gives us a post like he promised tomorrow I'll have to revise my thoughts on him. There isn't really a whole lot in his posts to pick apart that Umbrage hasn't already gone over.



Next up is Darth, whose posting record promises more to work with than CS.

Snake Eyes defends Conspiracy:

I don't understand why you would immediately assume ConSpiracy had some ulterior motives, as asking questions in early game can only help move the game forward.

Snake Eyes sez:

Not so much defending Conspiracy.

Um, right.

I know someone mentioned this earlier, but just saying that Snake was defending ConSpiracy with that post doesn't make it true. This gives me a slight scumread, but it's only a very slight one. To me, it reads more like confirmation bias; Darth has already taken the position that Snake was defending CS, so anything that circumstantially confirms that position is definitively confirming that position to him. Again, only very slightly scummy, I'd be lying if I said I'd never done anything like that myself.

The first part is DY's case that SE is defending CS. Two quotes and an "Um, right". Again, not a defense.

You say it isn’t without explaining why. I say it is without explaining why (although I feel like a sentence that attempts to attribute town motive to a person kinda constitutes defending them…odd, I know). Looks like we’re tied.

Part 2 of the above quote. Again, I don't see Snake saying that CS had a town motive. All I see is him saying that his motive wasn't necessarily scummy. The possibility that the question wasn't scummy isn't the same thing as guaranteeing the question wasn't scummy.

Yeah, there totally is not any scum motivation in insinuating relationships between players. Totally not a way to tee up future (mis)lynches.

You mean the way you and Umbrage have been insinuating (or outright declaring) a relationship between Snake and CS?

I personally think that hypothesizing about relationships so early in the game needs to be taken with a few grains of salt.

Associative tells only become tells usually when flips have occurred.

Meta me, and you’ll see I hold to this belief as town.

His #26 set off my scumdar, saying that he had a serious vote on Conspiracy, and then pointing out something unrelated in another player that wasn't even a scumtell. I wanted him to set the record straight on xtoxm, since him pointing xtoxm out as odd was so out of the blue. There's definitely an unnatural player relation there, and

should Umbrage flip scum, I'd start looking for his scumbuddies in xtoxm.

I also wanted to pressure him on Conspiracy to see if he still found him scummy after some pressure and also to get him to clarify why he found Conspiracy scummy.

Emphasis mine.

I never implied the existence of a scumpair.

Neither did Snake. He said there was an unnatural player relation, not that they were definitely a scumpair. Stop drawing an arbitrary line between what Snake said about Umbrage/xtoxm and what you're saying about Snake/CS. You're implying that there's an unnatural relation between Snake and CS too.

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.

I think it's fantastic that you explain your side of the case in a patient, thoughtful way while making Vordark sound like he's unreasonable in his side of the argument. Normally this wouldn't bother me, but given the amount of TL;DR that's been thrown around in this topic I'm actually somewhat worried that people are going to take this seriously and not bother reading your posts.

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.

So... are you

admitting

that you're scum using a manipulation and not a fallacy? Vordark said

you

were committing the fallacy by saying that people had to believe that the question was scummy or not scummy, and that Snake must think it wasn't scummy because there was a

possibility

, not a

certainty

, that it was town. You're right that teeing up mislynches via connection has nothing to do with the fallacy, but Vordark never said that either. Way to misrepresent what he said though by trying to attribute the fallacy to Snake, though.

Hunting for scumpairs before there have been any flips is junk science.

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.

So is it completely junk? Or is it just less effective? Because you're definitely not showing the same conviction that you were earlier.

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.

That doesn't mean that you can't note associative tells. What's the difference if someone writes down the connection they see in their personal notes or if he posts it in the thread? If anything, I think it's better to post it in the thread, because that way it's been left behind if you happen to get NK'd night one.



Well, that's two ISOs down. I'm leaning Darthscum, but I really want to go through all my ISOs before I commit to that. I might see something in Vordark's ISO that paints everything Darth's saying in a whole new light.

[Umbrage]

Except that SE never said that CS was town. He said "I'm leaning slightly town on Conspiracy", which is a completely different statement. He also said this after you and DY had already started accusing him of defending CS, so trying to use it as part of your case at this point is absurd.

As to your second bit, you did not include include your original statement in the quote, you bolded one phrase and pointed at it calling it a scumslip. I'll also note that "not having a scumread on someone" is not the same thing as calling them town. As examples of taking a statement out of context and misrepresenting it, that's damned near perfect.

1. He was sure enough that CS was town to attack me for attacking him.

2. By that point he had to admit he had a townread on CS, note that he didn't say why he had a townread.

3. Those were the exact words he wrote. I didn't change a thing besides the bold. And yes, it's a scumslip. Unless you show me why it is not a scumslip, it's a scumslip.

4. You're mistaken. The slip doesn't prove he found CS town, it proves he found me scum. He said he wouldn't switch wagons to someone he didn't have a scumread on, which means that he was currently wagoning someone he did have a scumread on, which was me. So his whole "I was just trying to start a wagon to get us out of RVS" is bogus. Try reading next time. I made all that perfectly clear when I quoted him. Instead of accusing me of misrepresentation, try MAKING SURE YOU HAVE THE FACTS RIGHT. Jesus, this is Mafia 101 people.

Go find some real scumtells. This is a colossal waste of time and energy that I could spend looking for scum. If you rehash the same old arguments, I will simply quote this post in response, are we clear?

[Ythan]

Instead of spamming paragraphs in Latin maybe you could make a case against him instead of begging and pleading with us to make your case for you.

Saying "hey guys this guy is scum because I say so" is not a contribution, sorry.

You are either incredibly dense or completely mischaracterizing other players.

[Ythan]

Definitely not liking this Umbrage wagon, this is surely scum fueled. What i've seen of Vordark looks town, I like iam's succinctness and he's looking pro-town, so i'm thinking there is scum in {CS, SE, Ythan}. Will go with Ythan as my current top suspect, but I really need to read properly what I have only skimmed when I get a chance. I'll try and do this tomorrow.

Also, guys, some of these walls are really getting out of hand.

There is no content in this post. Why don't you like the wagon? What about me do you find scummy? What about anything is anything.

[DarthYoshi]

Abelcain:

You mean the way you and Umbrage have been insinuating (or outright declaring) a relationship between Snake and CS?

"Have been insinuating" makes it sound like I'm still doing so. As I said to Vordark, I gave up that line of inquiry many pages ago.

Abelcain:

Neither did Snake. He said there was an unnatural player relation, not that they were definitely a scumpair. Stop drawing an arbitrary line between what Snake said about Umbrage/xtoxm and what you're saying about Snake/CS. You're implying that there's an unnatural relation between Snake and CS too.

Again with the present tense. But now re-reading those quotes right next to each other, I'm inclined to concede this one to you.

Abelcain:

I think it's fantastic that you explain your side of the case in a patient, thoughtful way while making Vordark sound like he's unreasonable in his side of the argument. Normally this wouldn't bother me, but given the amount of TL;DR that's been thrown around in this topic I'm actually somewhat worried that people are going to take this seriously and not bother reading your posts.

This is a highly subjective interpretation of my summary. Vordark has shown no hesitation about calling me out on what he sees as misreps, and he can do so again here if he feels so inclined.

Abelcain:

So... are you admitting that you're scum using a manipulation and not a fallacy? Vordark said you were committing the fallacy by saying that people had to believe that the question was scummy or not scummy, and that Snake must think it wasn't scummy because there was a possibility, not a certainty, that it was town. You're right that teeing up mislynches via connection has nothing to do with the fallacy, but Vordark never said that either. Way to misrepresent what he said though by trying to attribute the fallacy to Snake, though.

Okay, wow. Cool your jets. Vordark's original bit was: "Your first bit is obviously committing the fallacy of the excluded middle." I misinterpreted that as him saying I mistakenly saw that fallacy in SE's post. Given that I didn't even know what that fallacy was when he cited it, me understanding how it is applied isn't going to be 100% at the get-go. Sorry.

I also never said that people had to believe the question was scummy or not scummy.

Abelcain:

So is it completely junk? Or is it just less effective? Because you're definitely not showing the same conviction that you were earlier.

Junk science is less effective than actual science. Junk science still has the possibility, however remote, of being right. And trying to guess scumteams before there have been flips has the possibility, however remote, of being right.

Abelcain:

That doesn't mean that you can't note associative tells. What's the difference if someone writes down the connection they see in their personal notes or if he posts it in the thread? If anything, I think it's better to post it in the thread, because that way it's been left behind if you happen to get NK'd night one.

Awesome. That doesn't contradict what I've been saying all along--that there can be scum motivation in talking about associative tells. Which is what I was worried about at first, arguably through confirmation bias. Which you yourself say you've done likewise in other games.

[Quaroath]

I'm catching up now: Post by no later than 830 AM PST tomorrow (It is late for me atm). Will

unvote

since iamusername is talking