Newbie 1757 - Game Over

[Accountant]

Here is a question for you. When you were first confronted about your inconsistency all the way in post 13, why didn't you immediately say "I apologize. I was mixing up my trains of thought and retroactively adding reasoning after seeing your post 11", rather than insisting that "there was no change of tune"?

You can think of the percentages as a reaction to you and vijarada reading so deeply into my posts.

Excusez-moi? The percentages were a direct response to me calling out XnadrojX for participating in RVS after it was over. What do they have to do with me and Vijarada analyzing your posts?

[Accountant]

nn30, why has your tone changed to extreme defensiveness/hostility when you were relatively calm before?

Compare the tone in these two posts:

You have indeed found an inconsistency.

I play, and write, quickly when I play mafia scum. As a result, my posts lean towards 'stream of consciousness' rather than 'carefully considered and reread to deduce possible implications.'

When I unvoted you in post 10 I was doing so because I didn't want scum to have the opportunity to hammer you. Just because this is what was on my mind at the time of that post doesn't mean that I can't point back to it and say 'well other scenarios exist which would also be disadvantageous to town.' Raising the possibility of a townie being the hammer is one such consideration.

The real question is whether or not inconsistencies are scummy. In and of themselves, I don't believe them to be.

If you're looking for inconsistencies, look for inconsistencies in reads. Say on one page I have someone listed as a town-lean and on another page six days later that same person is a scum-lean. If I've offered no reason as to why that read has changed, and that person hasn't done anything worth changing a read over lately, that's scummy. It implies I don't have a consistent read list and that I'm pretending to have one instead.

Finding inconsistency of stated logic from post to post is NAI. It implies that I'm human - a mistake both town and scum can and do make.

@ Accountant - Do you agree with these competing versions of inconsistency, and why?

versus

I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you already voted me for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

There was no cover up. Only my attempts at clarification. Stop trying to throw shade at me.

In the space of half an hour. What is the reasoning for this discrepancy?

[XnadrojX]

Wait what I'm still on copper? oops lemme fix that real quick

UNVOTE: Copper

and yes I count that as stalking

PEdit: There was a cover up. You clearly stated "scum" in 10 followed by "newbie town" in post 12. There's nothing to clarify

This definitely reads as scummy. Especially the part where you didn't put your vote on me...

VOTE: xnadrojx

Of all the scummy things I did this is the one that asks you to lynch me? Me moving off my RVS vote after forgetting about you is scummy? What in that post suggests I had intention to vote you?

[XnadrojX]

And going through nn30's post, he is repeatedly twisting words, and misrepresenting people. Lemme go quote a few of them

[Accountant]

What in that post suggests I had intention to vote you?

I disagree with a lot of the things nn30 said, but this is not one of them. You've been constantly attacking him and calling him out for various inconsistencies and "lies"(your own words). Why wouldn't you vote someone who was a liar? Do you, like me, think there is someone even scummier or even more deserving of the limelight out there? Why haven't you voted them?

[XnadrojX]

What is more concerning is your attempt to justify and cover it up.

Also, I'm interested as to why you felt the need to defend XnadrojX so badly that you even went to the trouble of calculating percentages and going through his past games. Why not let him speak for himself?

I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you

already voted me

for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

ok found it. Here Accountant clearly says that inconsistency wasn't the problem, while nn30 claims you scumread him for inconsistency. He even quoted that bit later, which showed he didn't simply overlook it.

@Accountant, I don't see why it's scummy to withhold a vote when I'm attacking someone. I don't see a problem with not voting him while I pressure him more for response, because a vote on him now would mean little to him while pressuring him more is more helpful

[nn30]

I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you already voted me for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

How am I being inconsistent?

Like this.

Spoiler:

First - you vote me, and ask a line line of questioning which is hinting that you see an inconsistency.

VOTE: nn30

My post 10 does not assume scum would have been the hammer.

In post 10, you claimed to be afraid of scum barrelling us into a turbi lynch. How do you expect scum to do this, if not by hammering?

Which you follow up on here.

So post 10 referred to scum hammers, post 11 enlightened you as to the unlikeliness of scum hammers, and in post 12 you revised your stance to account for newbie hammers as well? Is that correct?

Yes.

In post 12, you wrote this:

A

was

attempting to avoid the second situation[the second situation being a newbie hammer].

Emphasis and square brackets mine. This implies that you had thought about the possibility of a newbie hammer and were attempting to avoid it all the way back in post 10, whose contents you were justifying in 12.
How does this reconcile with your claimed explanation that post 10 was only about scum hammers and you only looked at town hammers after 11?

And then you say that being inconsistent isn't super duper scummy.

Oh, definitely. I've been inconsistent as town myself. It's a perfectly natural thing to try to save face by changing your explanation to make more sense - or more charitably to be careless and muddle up trains of thought. I don't agree with Vijarada that it's necessarily super duper scummy, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

You imply that you see an inconsistency in my reasoning, you vote for me, then your line of questioning is still poking at an inconsistency. Which is it? Scummy, or not? Cause you are acting one way and saying another.

I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you already voted me for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

No, before that - do you think that an inconsistent person cannot identify inconsistency in others?

Of course an inconsistent person can identify an inconsistency in others. I'm arguing that this type of inconsistency is NAI - pointing it out is a waste of our time. It isn't a worthwhile scum hunting tactic.

[XnadrojX]

What in that post suggests I had intention to vote you?

I disagree with a lot of the things nn30 said, but this is not one of them. You've been constantly attacking him and calling him out for various inconsistencies and "lies"(your own words). Why wouldn't you vote someone who was a liar? Do you, like me, think there is someone even scummier or even more deserving of the limelight out there? Why haven't you voted them?

And even so that was the post that he quoted was just me getting off my RVS vote. He specifically said that that post was scummy.

[nn30]

There was no cover up. Only my attempts at clarification. Stop trying to throw shade at me.

At clarification? You admitted yourself you were being inconsistent. You mean your attempts to make your inconsistency look

not

inconsistent? Because I consider that a cover up.

We're getting into bullshit semantics.

I've acknowledged the inconsistency. There is no cover up.

[nn30]

Excusez-moi? The percentages were a direct response to me calling out XnadrojX for participating in RVS after it was over. What do they have to do with me and Vijarada analyzing your posts?

Apparently they aren't clear enough for you, the percentages are a way of adding in such 'clarity.'

[nn30]

[quote="In post 50, Accountant"]Here is a question for you. When you were first confronted about your inconsistency all the way in post 13, why didn't you immediately say "I apologize. I was mixing up my trains of thought and retroactively adding reasoning after seeing your post 11", rather than insisting that "there was no change of tune"?

Dunno. Good point.

[fruitsman]

UNVOTE: Accountant

This vile conversing is beginning to ruin my fruit stand.

[nn30]

Of all the scummy things I did this is the one that asks you to lynch me? Me moving off my RVS vote after forgetting about you is scummy? What in that post suggests I had intention to vote you?

Of all the scummy things you did? So you're acknowledging that you've done scummy things - which ones?

Post 52 doesn't need to imply an intention to vote me. Your posts 26, 31, and 35 imply a scum read on me. Not voting your scum reads is scummy.

Moving your vote off of someone, when asked, is scummy. It implies that you want to be 'cooperative' with the town members.

[nn30]

VOTE: nn30

My post 10 does not assume scum would have been the hammer.

In post 10, you claimed to be afraid of scum barrelling us into a turbi lynch. How do you expect scum to do this, if not by hammering?

Vijarada, do you mind if I ask how much mafia experience you have? You're listed as a newbie on the player list, but you talk about new scum players as though they were a separate group from yourself.

So post 10 referred to scum hammers, post 11 enlightened you as to the unlikeliness of scum hammers, and in post 12 you revised your stance to account for newbie hammers as well? Is that correct?

Yes.

In post 12, you wrote this:

A

was

attempting to avoid the second situation[the second situation being a newbie hammer].

Emphasis and square brackets mine. This implies that you had thought about the possibility of a newbie hammer and were attempting to avoid it all the way back in post 10, whose contents you were justifying in 12.

How does this reconcile with your claimed explanation that post 10 was only about scum hammers and you only looked at town hammers after 11?

@Fruitsman - what are your thoughts on what has happened so far?

[fruitsman]

Well,

Allow my skills of distinct deductiveness enhance my thoughts and inspections of what thus has began this marvelous game of Mafia.

*COUGH*

Accountant was first placed under the scope because of their poor choice of username (started by NN)
I followed because why not? Accountants don't like pineapples.
XnadrojX is suspicious, and has been accusatory of sides.
Accountant has been more or less acting as a devil's advocate.
You, NN, have been acting too "on the nose" for a fruteria such as myself to feel comfortable...

So to quote a good movie, "Zero, confused."

[XnadrojX]

I wasn't requested to move off someone. I was questioned to why I was still on my RVS vote. We're out of RVS, he reminded me I had an RVS vote, I realised that I was still on my RVS vote, I moved off my RVS vote. Simple as that. Stop misrepresenting and twisting words. I do have a scumread on you, I'm applying more pressure to you to see if my scumread is justified, AKA whether your reaction comes to me as scummy or towny. And obviously I have done scummy things, that post is not one of them.

[Accountant]

XnadrojX is suspicious, and has been accusatory of sides.
Accountant has been more or less acting as a devil's advocate.
You, NN, have been acting too "on the nose" for a fruteria such as myself to feel comfortable...

Given this summing-up of your thoughts, wouldn't it make more sense to vote nn(who you have expressed discomfort towards) than me?

[Accountant]

You imply that you see an inconsistency in my reasoning, you vote for me, then your line of questioning is still poking at an inconsistency. Which is it? Scummy, or not? Cause you are acting one way and saying another.

I didn't vote you for being inconsistent. I voted you because it was the first non-RVS wagon in the game, had decently solid reasoning and I wanted to keep the pressure on you as I continued questioning you. Afterwards, when it became clear XnadrojX was a better vote, I switched.

This sums up my thoughts on inconsistent reasoning:

I do think that it is at least somewhat scummy and something to point out and take note of. Even if you are town, being clear on our trains of thought can only help us.

[Accountant]

XnadrojX is suspicious, and has been accusatory of sides.
Accountant has been more or less acting as a devil's advocate.
You, NN, have been acting too "on the nose" for a fruteria such as myself to feel comfortable...

Given this summing-up of your thoughts, wouldn't it make more sense to vote nn(who you have expressed discomfort towards) than me?

Disregard this post. I thought you were voting me in 61 for some reason.

[nn30]

1) I understand that you've already moved your vote, but you already voted me for being inconsistent. You're scum reading me for my inconsistency, but you're being inconsistent yourself! Do you see how stupid this is?

2) There was no cover up. Only my attempts at clarification. Stop trying to throw shade at me.

Numbers are mine.

1) I'm frustrated that we're spending time on inconsistencies which I view as NAI, so I take a tone with you.

2) The language used when - especially when persuasion is the goal - is very important. Take the following example:

The truth - the politician did nothing wrong. However they stand accused of doing something wrong and were being investigated for it.

News headline options:

"Politician meets privately with FBI investigator amidst controversy."

"FBI director instructs politician to come to FBI headquarters for meeting amidst controversy."

Both versions describe the same circumstance - a meeting between a politician and an FBI director. The first headline implies that the politician is doing something wrong while the second headline reads more neutrally. Depending on which version of the story ends up dominating will determine whether or not the politician, who did nothing wrong, needs to defend themselves (first headline) or not (second headline).

You calling what I've done a cover up implies wrong doing which implies scum. Since I'm town, I obviously don't want my actions to be seen in that light. I used an aggressive tone with you for this reason.

[Accountant]

I think nn30 and Vijarada are town now. Vijarada especially seems to me like a townie who is excited that he has caught someone with a smoking gun and wants to jump on them.


@nn30: You've attempted to justify a clear inconsistency in your actions. You admit this. Can you see why people would see this as an attempt to cover things up?

[nn30]

You imply that you see an inconsistency in my reasoning, you vote for me, then your line of questioning is still poking at an inconsistency. Which is it? Scummy, or not? Cause you are acting one way and saying another.

I didn't vote you for being inconsistent. I voted you because it was the first non-RVS wagon in the game, had decently solid reasoning and I wanted to keep the pressure on you as I continued questioning you. Afterwards, when it became clear XnadrojX was a better vote, I switched.

This sums up my thoughts on inconsistent reasoning:

I do think that it is at least somewhat scummy and something to point out and take note of. Even if you are town, being clear on our trains of thought can only help us.

Acknowledged and understood. I misinterpreted the post in which you voted me.

[nn30]

I think nn30 and Vijarada are town now. Vijarada especially seems to me like a townie who is excited that he has caught someone with a smoking gun and wants to jump on them.


@nn30: You've attempted to justify a clear inconsistency in your actions. You admit this. Can you see why people would see this as an attempt to cover things up?

Yeah sure.

[nn30]

@Fruitsman - do you have any reads so far?

@Xnad - other than me, what are your current reads?

[XnadrojX]

Also I just realised that although Accountant says they scumread me the most, they are just applying pressure solely to nn30. They are not pursuing me or pressuring me, which is what you typically do to a scumread. Why do you pressure just nn30 if I'm scum to you? You seem way more interested in nn30 than you are in actually getting me lynched. I would like to know your reasons.

PEdit: Since pretty much only Me, Accountant, Fruitsman, you, and Vijarada has spoke, my reads is just you and slightly Accountant for ^