Newbie 1757 - Game Over

[XnadrojX]

I acknowledged Town is moving out of RVS

I didn't say we're already

out

of RVS and I'm just going to fit in

my

RVS vote before we properly move out of RVS

EBWOP: Messed up the italics there.

[XnadrojX]

UNVOTE: Accountant

You guys are sheep lol.

Let's not leave room for scum to barrel us into a turbo lynch D1.

Here you mention "not leave room for

scum

to barrel us into a turbo lynch D1"

@Vijarada - whoever hammered would have barreled into suicide, yes.

Scum hammering like that - suicide.
Town newbie hammering like that - totally possible and still suicide.

A was attempting to avoid the second situation.

Here you say "was attempting to avoid the second situation", where second situation refers to "

Town newbie hammering like that

"


Inconsistency much?

[Accountant]

I acknowledged Town is moving out of RVS

I didn't say we're already

out

of RVS and I'm just going to fit in

my]/i] RVS vote before we properly move out of RVS

The point of RVS votes is that they can get the game going. If you acknowledge that the game is already going, isn't it better to try to leap into the discussion rather than squeeze in a pointless RVS post?

[nn30]

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.

[nn30]

UNVOTE: Accountant

You guys are sheep lol.

Let's not leave room for scum to barrel us into a turbo lynch D1.

Here you mention "not leave room for

scum

to barrel us into a turbo lynch D1"

@Vijarada - whoever hammered would have barreled into suicide, yes.

Scum hammering like that - suicide.
Town newbie hammering like that - totally possible and still suicide.

A was attempting to avoid the second situation.

Here you say "was attempting to avoid the second situation", where second situation refers to "

Town newbie hammering like that

"


Inconsistency much?

Inconsistency =/= scummy.

[Accountant]

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?

[XnadrojX]

UNVOTE: Accountant

You guys are sheep lol.

Let's not leave room for scum to barrel us into a turbo lynch D1.

Here you mention "not leave room for

scum

to barrel us into a turbo lynch D1"

@Vijarada - whoever hammered would have barreled into suicide, yes.

Scum hammering like that - suicide.
Town newbie hammering like that - totally possible and still suicide.

A was attempting to avoid the second situation.

Here you say "was attempting to avoid the second situation", where second situation refers to "

Town newbie hammering like that

"


Inconsistency much?

Inconsistency =/= scummy.

Inconsistency == scummy

[nn30]

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?

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?

P-edit: @Xnadrojx - I'll ask you the same question. Do you agree with these two versions of inconsistency. Why or why not?

[nn30]

@Accountant - go check out XnadrojX's newbie 1731. His first post, as town, is a statement that the game is still in RVS.

The statement is probably just indicative of his personality. I'd assign a 95% chance of it being NAI, a 4% chance of it suggesting that he's town and a 1% chance that he's aware of this 'meta' of his and he's using it advantageously as scum.

[Accountant]

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.

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.

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?

[XnadrojX]

Wait, are you actually

stalking

me? That's.... creepy

And even if that was a honest mistake, why did you say (lie) that you were refering to the Town scenario all along? Inconsistencies can come from mistakes, but lying is something you do intentionally (I can't think of any way to accidentally lie)

[Accountant]

XnadrojX, why do you keep saying things that others have already pointed out? In post 26 you pointed out that nn was being inconsistent, which had already been established; and in 35 you echoed what I said in 34 about being concerned about nn covering it up. Are you just trying to look productive without contributing anything?

[XnadrojX]

I was already typing my post and for some reason the Preview thingie that phpBB does didn't pop up when you posted for me.

Also I didn't notice that that specific bit of inconsistency was already pointed out

[XnadrojX]

I was already typing my post and for some reason the Preview thingie that phpBB does didn't pop up when you posted for me.

Also I didn't notice that that specific bit of inconsistency was already pointed out

lemme clarify the previous bit. It didn't look like that exact bit of inconsistency where he said that he was refering to town when he said scum was pointed out at the time I made my post

[Accountant]

I was already typing my post and for some reason the Preview thingie that phpBB does didn't pop up when you posted for me.

Also I didn't notice that that specific bit of inconsistency was already pointed out

What, twice in a row?

[XnadrojX]

The second one was the phpBB thing.

I just read through the page 1 and the "establishment" made on nn30 was implied while no one specifically mentioned the fact he twisted his words

[Vijarada]

Reading previous games=stalking lol.

Accountant, you think that nn30's posts are "not necessarily super-duper scummy" but slightly scummy, so you aren't voting him. Is your current vote, XnadrojX, super-scummy?

nn30, It isn't explanation or change that make you scummy, it's the jumpiness and response to pressure. I said "you're wrong", you said "oh i meant something different" straight after that pressure. And now you seem to be saying that you were indeed inconsistent after all? It's not the change of opinions I care about, its the fact that you retroactively rationalized something subjected to the slightest pressure, and when you were pressured on that you tried to say you were just changing your mind. My basic point is that you are changing all your thoughts and rationalizing your previous ones in response to slight pressure, which seems to indicate your primary care is how you are perceived, a trait of scum. Hopefully others see what I'm getting at here.

Xnadrojx, why is your vote still on copper?

[nn30]

VOTE: nn30

I don't agree with Vijarada that it's necessarily super duper scummy, which is why I'm not voting you yet.

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?

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

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

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?

You can think of the percentages as a reaction to you and vijarada reading so deeply into my posts. If you'd like to re-interpret them as subtle middle fingers, feel free!

[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

[Vijarada]

Really, I was asking about why you weren't voting for "lying" "scum""inconsistent" NN30 (your words).

[nn30]

Reading previous games isn't stalking - it's meta diving. Use with copious amounts of salt - meta is notoriously difficult to use correctly.

@Vijarada - I encourage you to re-evaluate your interpretation of post 12. I was not reacting to pressure and trying to explain myself (as you suggest I would do as scum). I acknowledged that you were correct, and offered another reason for unvoting Accountant to be valid.

Beyond that, I can see what you're getting at. In that light the scum read is justifiable.

That said you've basically scum read me for my play style. Should I... not... defend myself when you and Accountant vote for me? Is that what you'd prefer to see?

I'm going to play like this all game. I care how town views me. Whether or not I'm town read impacts how much credence my thought processes should get from the rest of town. I like to talk a lot, and I like to be listened to when I do.

If you're going to scum read me for my play style, leave your vote there and encourage the rest of the town to lynch me right now. My playstyle isn't going to change.

[Accountant]

Is your current vote, XnadrojX, super-scummy?

Yes. If XnadrojX didn't exist then I'd definitely be voting nn30. But I can't let this guy slip by.

[nn30]

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

[Accountant]

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?

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

[Accountant]

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.