bgg wrote:
The people that I would be referring to are not unidentified. You can find out who they are whenever you feel like it. The fact that you do not do so makes me think that you want me to say their names, so that you can make a big thing about how those people have nothing scummy about them, and make a case on me for it.
Nope. The reason is that making an attack against a group gives plausible deniability in relation to any specific member.
Let me explain with the following;
Mr Scum: "I think all the people who did
X
are scummy"
Mr Town: "The people who did
X
are A, B, C, D, E and F. You suspect all of them?"
Mr Scum: "I'm not identifying specific individuals"
<time elapses>
Mr Scum: "I don't think C is scummy."
Mr Town: "But C did
X
"
Mr Scum: "Did I ever say that I suspected C?"
Mr Town: *facepalm*
bgg wrote:
Furthermore, I did not "change my tune" or whatever you like to call it.
If I were to say "I suspect the people who made the 3rd and 6th posts." that would imply that I knew who they were and may think that they are scum for whatever reason.
If I were to say "I suspect whoever made the 3rd and 6th posts." then it would imply that my suspiscions relied not on the people, and whatever else that they might have done, or even what is on those posts, but on the fact that I believed the act of posting third and sixth is scummy.
Before anybody makes a big thing about it, I do not believe that the act of posting third and sixth is scummy.
This is seriously the most hair-splitting semantic defence I have ever encountered.
There is absolutely no difference in substance between saying "I suspect the people who did X" and "I suspect whoever did X". In either case, you are indicating suspicion. The only difference between the two is, as I indicated in the analogy above, that the latter gives you a form of plausible deniability.
(FTR, the reason it gives plausible deniability is right there in bgg's post - it doesn't rely "on the people, and whatever else that they might have done". In other words, he quarantines the reason for suspicion from the subjects of the suspicion.)
SC wrote:
He hasn't actually done anything pro town, so much as he has played almost exactly the way I used to when I was first starting to play mafia, false scum-tells and all, I haven't seen anything majorly wrong come from him, just a lot of small things, so I am disinclined to comdemn him just yet. I think he, at worst, reads null to me, but I am more inclined to read 'misguided town' in his actions. Things like 'are you vig' aren't something even the worst of scum would outright ask, after all.
How do you think his play would differ if he was scum?
SC wrote:
As to the second point, what conclusions do you draw from him changing his mind?
Well, I don't think he did "change his mind" in the sense of forming a different opinion. The point is that he clearly made an attack on whoever wanted the day to end quickly. Then, when called out on this, he has resorted to this weird semantic defence about how he wasn't attacking anybody in particular but, rather, was attacking their conduct - like it makes a difference.
So, with that in mind, the scumminess in this is not a contradiction but, rather, the fact that he is refusing to actually commit both to defending his position and identifying his suspects and, instead, is just playing word games.
bgg1996 wrote:You think I did something scummy, but that doesn't mean you suspect me. Is that right
This is it.
I'll start going over the thread.
Going from #1-13, I see that Andrew definitely needs to contribute more.
Was that so hard?
(I know this makes the points I made above kind of moot, but I want them left in since I think they clarify the issues)
SC wrote:
That aside, I've made the only case in Bggs defence that I think there is. I don't find him scummy because I have seen less-then-adept town including myself play exactly this way, but I haven't seen scum behave quite so textbook scummy. It's much, much more likely in my mind that's he's just a townie who made a mistake and can't do anything to remedy it without looking worse. "Woops, made a mistake, sorry" at this point would look just as bad against him as anything else.
SC wrote:
A quick look over things and Yura's current post continues a rather disturbing trend of contributing nothing, and riding nearly every single bandwagon, or potential bandwagon so far this game. She has rarely missed even one. This is terrible practice, and not at all in the town's favor, possibly bordering on a definitive scumtell. The constant wagoning would combine with the lack of original evidence to keep Yura in my top spot in spite of andrew climbing quickly closer.
Whilst I give a QFT to the second quote above, I want to juxtapose the two, because I don't think your position is inconsistent.
Both bgg and Yura are playing badly. I also think they are both scummy. You', however, only think that Yura is scummy (in fact, you indicate that she is your #1 suspect). This is interesting because your defence of bgg (which boils down to "too scummy to be scum") should apply equally, if not more so, in the case of Yura.
I recognise that there is a difference between the two, in that bgg at least has a thread of reasoning to follow, even if I think it's ridiculous. Nonetheless, I'm interested to know what the difference between them is in your view.
SC wrote:
Most of them. I wish I still had my first game of mafia handy. Admittedly it was a first, and I know this isn't Bgg's first, but I got myself speed-lynched day 3 as a townie behaving the exact same way he is now. I simply don't see a mafia making this MANY mistakes, I should say. Slip once or twice, yeah, but even under pressure I consider it more likely a desperate townie fumbling for survival then I do a scum fumbling for his disguise.
Apologies if you already answer this in response to my "How would his play differ?" question, but I'd like to know how you think "fumbling townie" differs from "desperate scum"? Reason is, I am concerned that this might be a case of you sympathetically projecting your own history onto bgg.
Andrew wrote: erm bro. i come on once or twice a day. then do my stuff, sleep etc. (and this is the weekends)
is 'one day' lurking? notice that its my sleeping time when the 2 pages roll in
Andrew wrote: again, you are pointing to my lack of posts to suggest that i am lurking and to discredit my case. do you even know what lurking is? its not 'posting low amounts', its 'cant post a lot'. then, the only confusion about magnetic was the fact that he said 'weak doctor protect fails if attaack by more than 1 person', to me: that was what THE NORMAL DOC does anyway. and also at the end where he listed everyone as likely town.
Andrew, lurking is more about content then it is about number of posts.
Take the above two posts as a classic example: despite everything that has happened since your previous post, the only thing you see fit to do is to argue that you aren't lurking.
Andrew wrote:
????
on which paricular things
The fact you need to ask this is proof that you are lurking.
Time to issue my tried-and-tested ultimatum:
Read up, or replace out
Please give us, in your next post, two sentences minimum on each player telling us your opinion of them.
If you can't or won't, for any reason, do that, then leave.
bgg wrote:
I think that even if it is normal for him to be lurking, if he refuses to post his opinions, and such, then he deserves to be lynched. The chance that he is scum is as good as anything, but we won't lose much if he isn't.
We aren't lynching lurkers.
SC wrote:
That logic is almost reasonable. Lynching town is never a good idea on the principle that they aren't going to contribute much even if they are town. On the other hand, his refusal to point out his opinions can be a good indication that he ISN'T town.
No.
When people lurk, it is far more often a product of real life and/or boredness and/or laziness then it is a calculated move to avoid giving content.
CKD wrote:
The case is a bad case and it was obvious that you went into it with the mind set that I was going to scum at the end of it..
I agree that the case is bad.
But as I pointed out earlier, ISOs have an inherent tendency to produce a tunnelling effect.
That said, I think you are right to point out that it's unclear why he chose to ISO you in the first place (I see he has posted below, so I don't yet know if he's responded to that issue)
CKD wrote: did I sign up for a newbie game and not know it?
*waves*
[quote="SC"
Reading through CKD's rebuttal, I'm struck with the sense that he is going into this doing what he accuses Regfan of. Both of them are on my list, so I'm not really certain which of the two I should believe, but I do find many of CKD's counterpoints to Reg's initial ISO stab to be reaching. More on this when Reg answers though, I suppose.
[/quote]
Which points of CKD's do you think are 'reaching' and why?
Reg wrote:
Out of nowhere? I was refuting the logic you used throughout the entire second half of yesterday. You attemtping to say 'This comes out of fucking NOWHERE' is merely an attempt to gain symapthy if anything.
In which posts yeseterday did you attack CKD?
Reg wrote:
The !!!!!!!!!!!'s are an attempt to put emphasis on soemthing rather then explaining it this all smells of AtE.
This is just reaching:
Reg+5
AtE is where emotion is used in lieu of argument. He used the !!!!!s in a response to Yura's god-awful vote for him. Given that, it was perfectly legitimate and natural to use the !!!!s.
bgg wrote:
And seriously, the whole town is going to fall underground if you all don't stop tunneling.
Public Service Announcement
Repeatedly attacking a single player is not 'tunnelling'. It's scumhunting. It ONLY becomes tunnelling if the attacks go beyond the point of reasonable argument and instead become an exercise in latching onto the scummiest possible interpretations of a person's actions.
