Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mephansteras]

...

There were three extends out of seven players. Last I checked that's more than the 25% needed.

Hmm, you're right. My spreadsheet was off somehow on the extension votes. I'll fix it.

[Servant Corps]

WIFOM is the attempt to guess at the behavior of someone who knows you're guessing at their behavior. Assuming scum would do something to avoid detection at the cost of immediate effectiveness would also be 'direct thinking,' but it'd be the polar opposite, and just as much WIFOM, as what you're saying.

Oh. Now I get the objections to what I said before, and now I understand the problem here.

...alright then, so I won't bring that "NK" discussion up again, because even if I'm right, everyone seems to want to dismiss it. I'll stand by the rest of the case on Urist though.

Same question to everyone not voting Jim. Am I really the only one who sees the flashing neon signs saying SCUM JIM all over the place?

Though it is possible, I rather prefer more evidence that it is indeed the case.

Servant, Shakerag, Toaster: What do you make of the Jim-Irony inconsistency?

Because what I know about Dariush (and most of what I've seen of Jim) doesn't like up with Jim being scum. Night actions are potentially wonky enough that I'm not willing to lynch him on that alone, nor do I think he's been lurky enough to lynch him on just that either.

I put faith in my read on a player over role results. It currently says that IronyOwl is not scum. Apparently you don't like the explanations I've proposed for why this is the case. Sadly, I've got no more to offer you. There's obviously something going on for why I didn't see IronyOwl visit, and you can bet whatever way you want and I'll bet whatever way I want.

I'm thinking it's not the inconsistency that's the problem, but the implicit "buddying" that's occurring. It would be natural these two people to be going after each other, not backing each other up and saying that there must be a good reason for why this happened (even if they can't explain why there was no such good reason).

Jim, Irony: Explain to me why you find each other to be not scum. What was the 'town tells' that the other guy "have"?

[IronyOwl]

GlyphGryph:

He knew who the doctor was, or at least may have known because he was watching the last pilot and seeing who visited him. Who's probably going to visit the last pilot? Any remaining docs, for one. Assuming anyone visited, the least they would get an investigator town, at worst get a doctor. But with the general danger of guards in this game (observant and vengeful), looking before leaping is a good idea.

None of this is conclusive, of course. But Jim isn't stupid - if he is scum (and all the other evidence - his playstyle, his not seeing Irony, his not going AFTER Irony, points in that direction), it would explain why they got the doc, and why they spent a night not killing.

This strikes me as working backwards. If Jim is scum, this makes perfect sense, therefore Jim is scum. How much of your case do you feel is this night action stuff, and how much is other things?

I'd also dispute that everything else says Jim is scum, notably the thing with Dariush. What exactly is it you feel points to a Scum Jim, and why didn't you start with that? I've seen you accuse him of lurking, but not much else.

How does this make sense given that he's claimed reporter?  Do you think he wouldn't have a scumbuddy to do the killing for him?

Assuming any of his scumbuddies were left alive, sure. Or there might be other stuff going on, I don't know. I'm working with the pieces I have here.

And those pieces say one of Irony or Jim is scum, and Irony really isn't looking scummy to me.

Then you admit there might be other weirdness going on, but stick to your guns anyway. Why?



Servant Corps:

Oh. Now I get the objections to what I said before, and now I understand the problem here.

...alright then, so I won't bring that "NK" discussion up again, because even if I'm right, everyone seems to want to dismiss it.

Do you see the problem or not? Do you think that's an invalid line of reasoning or just that everyone is insistent on ignoring your brilliant insights?

I'll stand by the rest of the case on Urist though.

Which is? I don't seem to recall it, and going back a few pages didn't turn anything up.

Same question to everyone not voting Jim. Am I really the only one who sees the flashing neon signs saying SCUM JIM all over the place?

Though it is possible, I rather prefer more evidence that it is indeed the case.

Why didn't this reasoning apply to Imiknorris?

I'm thinking it's not the inconsistency that's the problem, but the implicit "buddying" that's occurring. It would be natural these two people to be going after each other, not backing each other up and saying that there must be a good reason for why this happened (even if they can't explain why there was no such good reason).

If you don't think the discrepancy is a problem, why would it be a problem that we don't think the discrepancy is a (lynchworthy) problem?

Jim, Irony: Explain to me why you find each other to be not scum. What was the 'town tells' that the other guy "have"?

How long have you cared about this topic?

[GlyphGryph]

Why, Jim, you're doing an awful lot of defending yourself and making weak and jabs and a whole lot less of trying to convince us to lynch the guy you think is scum.

What's up with that?

You know how to get lynches, I've seen you work. Unlike me, you're good at it.

So why aren't you doing it.

You seem awfully content to let Urist get lynched. You didn't even extend, though we're potentially at Lylo and the "wrong guy" was about to get lynched.

You're scum. Terribly scummy scum.

And that's not because mechanically, it makes sense.

It's because of how you're acting and responding to this whole situation.

[Jim Groovester]

You know how to get lynches, I've seen you work. Unlike me, you're good at it.

Ain't that the truth. Have you ever wondered why? Maybe it's because of your terrible arguments. Like this one.

I mean really. I read your post and I was livid that you were trying to pass off so much fallacy as actual arguments.

Why, Jim, you're doing an awful lot of defending yourself and making weak and jabs and a whole lot less of trying to convince us to lynch the guy you think is scum.

What's up with that?

You are dumb.

I'm getting attacked, numpnuts. You want me to just ignore all the accusations against me? I'd do it in a heartbeat and go back to playing video games if I didn't think you'd start immediately whining about that.

Defending yourself isn't a scum tell. Maybe you'd like to rethink your arguments, retreat a bit, regroup, and then come back with something that'll stick? I'll wait. I'm sure whatever you come up with will be just as terrible as whatever you have now.

So why aren't you doing it.

You're just so full of shit aren't you. I've seen people play the 'why are you not doing X' game dozens of times and it usually ends up in a mislynch. It's a self-justifying argument, at least to the people using it. Player X is not adhering to some town ideal and is therefore scum. And then no matter what Player X tries to do, he's already condemned, because in the process of answering accusations about this fluff argument he violates some other town ideal and the process continues.

I've made my case. Servant Corps is basing his vote off of WIFOM. If that doesn't convince people immediately, then it probably won't in any timely fashion. What else am I supposed to do? Make shit up? Those are the reasons I suspect him. Adding more would be disingenuous.

You seem awfully content to let Urist get lynched. You didn't even extend, though we're potentially at Lylo and the "wrong guy" was about to get lynched.

So you're accusing me of trying to lynch Urist Imiknorris through inaction?

Right. I guess it's convenient for you that all the people actually voting for Urist Imiknorris are completely blameless for that crime.

If we're discussing culpability through inaction, what about yours when Shakerag opposed the extension? I didn't hear a peep out of you about it.


So much of your argument here is that 'you could've done X and therefore you are scum' instead of 'you did X and therefore you are scum.' Guess which kind is more potent.

[Urist Imiknorris]

If you're asking why I didn't make a post earlier today: I didn't have enough time. Politely go fuck yourself if you think I should have.

Too busy even to make a post consisting of six characters and a bold tag (i.e. voting to extend because you were busy)?

So you're accusing me of trying to lynch Urist Imiknorris through inaction?

Right. I guess it's convenient for you that all the people actually voting for Urist Imiknorris are completely blameless for that crime.

If we're discussing culpability through inaction, what about yours when Shakerag opposed the extension? I didn't hear a peep out of you about it.

a) Deflection.
b) More deflection.
c) GlyphGryph was one of the people voting to extend in the first place. What's that about culpability through inaction?

[Servant Corps]

Do you see the problem or not? Do you think that's an invalid line of reasoning or just that everyone is insistent on ignoring your brilliant insights?

I see the problem with my argument, but I do not think it's an invalid line of reasoning. I think it's a problematic line of reasoning, but it's not invalid. I won't bring it up again.

Which is? I don't seem to recall it, and going back a few pages didn't turn anything up.

His story is untenable due to the information provided by the roleclaims that make his explanations about Bookthras' protection/death more and more tenuous and the suspicious nature of his own pilot claim (which could be used to lure out other pilots for him to be NKed).

The fact that he was not targeted was meant as an addition to the case, but not the central part of it. The roleclaims and his pilot claim makes up the core of my case.

Why didn't this reasoning apply to Imiknorris?

Because Jim did not claim pilot to rolefish for other pilots and there's really only one contradiction between IronyOwl's results and Jim's results, over why you didn't see each other...while Urist had to deal with the protection/death of Bookthras. The cases between Jim and Urist are not comparable.

If you don't think the discrepancy is a problem, why would it be a problem that we don't think the discrepancy is a (lynchworthy) problem?

Because that's...not how these things works. "Town" generally are paranoid, distrust each other, and tend to mislynch each other over silly misunderstandings...this sort of "trust" that you have with each other does not make any logical sense. Yes, there could be some reasoning for why the "discrepancy" happened, but are we to assume that the "discrepancy" just happened for giggles? There must be a reason behind it, but your ability to just slide it on by and push it aside like it's no big deal...that's something that deserve some inquiry.

How long have you cared about this topic?

...Not much, but that's why I asked. You could answer the question, tell me the "town" tells, and if I believed they were sufficient enough, then it'd explain your "buddying", and that'd be end of that questioning. Is it really that hard to explain why you and Jim think each other are town?

[Servant Corps]

I'm getting attacked, numpnuts. You want me to just ignore all the accusations against me?

There is a difference between ignoring accusations and overreacting to them.

[Servant Corps]

EBWOP:

There is a difference between not ignoring accusations and overreacting to them.

The bolded part represent the edit.

[GlyphGryph]

Toaster, I have one question for you - do you REALLY believe a pilot claim from our one completely uninvestigated, unconfirmed player, is enough to lynch the one guy we've got good reason to believe is a pilot because "no role" is generally a survivor role, he's acted like a survivor, and he actually knew who the pilots when most of us didn't (meaning there's a good chance he was a pilot)

Is that really a risk you want to take for someone unconfirmed?

I can investigate him in the night and find his goal, if we have another day (and I live through it) - I'm pretty confident that if he's got "escape", there's no chance of him being scum. If he doesn't, hopefully, we can lynch him tomorrow.

But I seriously feel like we're making a mistake lynching him. He hasn't been acting scummy, to me - not like Jim has, not even as much as Servant has.

Do you really find nothing scummy about Jim's recent actions?

And I never responded to your questions about goals:
I think I'm 'town-survivor' because my goal isn't explicitly to survive, it's explicitly to escape.

[Shakerag]

IronyOwl:

What happened to confirming/retracting your extend?

Since I posted 60 minutes later, and I didn't retract my opposition, you can logically follow that I confirmed my opposition by my omission of a retraction. 


Urist:  You're failing to convince me to not lynch you.  I fully expect that if we don't lynch you today you'll find a way to stab as many of us in the back as you can tomorrow.  In so far as Jim and Irony are concerned, I'm inclined to agree with Jim's statement of trusting read over result.  Were this a normal Paranormal game, I'd be all for lynching Jim.  However, given that this is a bastard version, I'm having difficulty trusting much outside of player reads.  I wouldn't put it past Meph to have altered things in this game to specifically get us to think outside of the usual Paranormal-box, so to speak. 


Servant Corps:

I'm getting attacked, numpnuts. You want me to just ignore all the accusations against me?

There is a difference between ignoring accusations and overreacting to them.

Based on the games I've read and the games I've actually played in with Jim, I would hardly call what he's doing overreacting. 


And, again, I find it of note that we've had all this talk about shortening and extending and flavor being relevant and now we've extended twice right before we should be getting to the hangar.  Urist, Toaster, and GG popped up fairly close together time-wise to extend. 

[Toaster]

Glyph:

Toaster, I have one question for you - do you REALLY believe a pilot claim from our one completely uninvestigated, unconfirmed player, is enough to lynch the one guy we've got good reason to believe is a pilot because "no role" is generally a survivor role, he's acted like a survivor, and he actually knew who the pilots when most of us didn't (meaning there's a good chance he was a pilot)

Is that really a risk you want to take for someone unconfirmed?

Considering I wanted to lynch Urist before Shakerag even claimed pilot, yes it is.

Do you really find nothing scummy about Jim's recent actions?

He's acting like he's confused and unsure about what is going on.  Considering I feel the same way, I can't say too much.

And I never responded to your questions about goals:
I think I'm 'town-survivor' because my goal isn't explicitly to survive, it's explicitly to escape.

Hm.  I see.



Shakerag:  I think Meph's feeding us a load on the extend/shorten debate.

[IronyOwl]

I will not be available again until after the deadline. Preemptive extend in case we need it.


GlyphGryph, why are you ignoring my questions?


Servant Corps:

I think it's a problematic line of reasoning, but it's not invalid. I won't bring it up again.

Well, yes, fair enough.

His story is untenable due to the information provided by the roleclaims that make his explanations about Bookthras' protection/death more and more tenuous and the suspicious nature of his own pilot claim (which could be used to lure out other pilots for him to be NKed).

The fact that he was not targeted was meant as an addition to the case, but not the central part of it. The roleclaims and his pilot claim makes up the core of my case.

I don't understand. What roleclaim information makes his story untenable?

The last part also sounds like working backwards. Imiknorris could have been using his roleclaim to lure out pilots, therefore he was and is scum.

The middle part is interesting though. Are you referring to the fact that he suspected he was still alive due to being protected? What about that makes you think he's scum and not just mistaken? Did you ever bother to confront him with this information?

If you don't think the discrepancy is a problem, why would it be a problem that we don't think the discrepancy is a (lynchworthy) problem?

Because that's...not how these things works. "Town" generally are paranoid, distrust each other, and tend to mislynch each other over silly misunderstandings...this sort of "trust" that you have with each other does not make any logical sense. Yes, there could be some reasoning for why the "discrepancy" happened, but are we to assume that the "discrepancy" just happened for giggles? There must be a reason behind it, but your ability to just slide it on by and push it aside like it's no big deal...that's something that deserve some inquiry.

Town is paranoid and thus if we were both town, we'd be mislynching each other.

Great. Are you admitting that you're not town, then, since you aren't paranoid and on edge regarding this issue?

How long have you cared about this topic?

...Not much, but that's why I asked. You could answer the question, tell me the "town" tells, and if I believed they were sufficient enough, then it'd explain your "buddying", and that'd be end of that questioning. Is it really that hard to explain why you and Jim think each other are town?

I ask because both me and Jim have explained this before, so I'm wondering if you wanted to hear it again or haven't been paying attention or didn't care until now or what. Seems like a combination of "Didn't care until now" and "Didn't notice it before."

Is that about right? Why does it suddenly interest you if it didn't before?


In any case:

Jim spent a fair amount of effort attempting to explain to Powder Miner that he was town. This doesn't seem like something he'd have bothered to do as scum.

Jim has otherwise acted fairly townlike. He's been questioning people, including people he doesn't yet suspect. He hasn't seemed overly concerned about image or excessive explanations, while still having what seem like credible reasons for his suspicions. He's been pondering mechanics, but not excessively or in a way that seems odd. In short, I don't have any reason to suspect him that isn't consistent with Town Jim (like being terse and blunt regarding who he wants dead).

Finally, Jim and Dariush were both Reporters. Given the spread of roles, it seems highly unlikely we've got two of the same role on the same team. We've got two types of scientist, every investigative role, and if you can believe TolyK and Toony, possibly a Tough Dopp and two separate Guardians. Frankly, I'm surprised there's duplicate roles between teams, but everything seems to point that way.

So, given that Dariush was scummy as fuck and admitted to the kills, the only way I could see Jim being scum is if he was different scum than Dariush, and/or Dariush lied outright about killing two people. Terrible RIA is one thing, but fessing up to two murders you didn't do and your team didn't do is beyond pointless. I can't see him doing it.


In short, Jim seems townlike, Dariush is obvscum, Dariush and Jim are on separate teams, and either Dariush or his buddies made the kills.

[Urist Imiknorris]

Shakerag:

Urist:  You're failing to convince me to not lynch you.  I fully expect that if we don't lynch you today you'll find a way to stab as many of us in the back as you can tomorrow.

Really? You want to lynch me D5 because early D1 I didn't know that I had any obligation other than not die?

Servant: Your case on me is terrible and mostly WIFOM. Get an actual argument on somebody (I don't care who so long as you have an actual argument) and vote them.

PPE:

...alright then, so I won't bring that "NK" discussion up again, because even if I'm right, everyone seems to want to dismiss it. I'll stand by the rest of the case on Urist though.

And without it, do you actually have anything backing up your vote?

Extend. This has been a busy day.

[Shakerag]

Oppose extend because I think 25% is too low, and we've done fuck all with the last extend.  Does anyone really think another day is going to suddenly change everyone's convictions?  The same arguments from today will be rehashed tomorrow, and no one is going to budge from thier positions.

I think I understand why GG is a proponent of shortenings now. 

If someone can argue otherwise I'll retract my opposition, but I really don't see the value or purpose here.