I still don't see what was confusing about IG's reads. They seemed rather straightforward to me.
This seemed straightforward?
Powderminer is activelurking from the look of it, but he is still asking good questions and actively trying to obtain information.
Town, leaning towards scum.
So saying I find X person town and then a week later attacking them over something would be scummy? Because that would be a direct contradiction but wouldn't necessarily be a scum only tactic. What if you've decided that they needed to be pressured whether or not you think they're scum, just so if they are they can't hide?
Obviously every single contradiction a player can make isn't scummy. I'm not looking for those. But let's say Player X day one has a super aggressive playstyle and tends to ignore accusations against them. In day two however, he acts defensively, and only halfheartedly pursues targets. I would argue that that is a scummy change of playstyle. Also note the contradiction NQT did last Revolution. He played up analysis of teams and votes far more then actual discussion, but then mentioned a viable scum strategy "supposedly" to initiate such discussion. This slip up eventually led to the discovery that he was scum.
Also the point of the RVS phase is isn't to spot contradictions. The point is to leave it as soon as possible. How one does so depends on their nature and play style.
I heartily disagree. If the point was to leave RVS as quickly as possible, you wouldn't ask questions applicable to mafia. It may be good to leave the RVS phase quickly, but the point is to look for contradictions in what people say and do later in the game.
How they say things, what they don't say, etc. Basically the fluff surrounding what they say is FAR more important than the specific details of what they say.
I have to mention this. The fluff around the specific details that they say is also WHAT THEY SAY.
\Using current information to prove a statement in the past is fallacious logic. Note this hypothetical. If I ask someone why they know that Dave was town in day one, and they later respond by quoting his role-flip, they managed to avoid the question as well as attempt to prove their prior reasoning by events and material that came out later. This implies that they actually didn't have valid reasoning prior to Dave's role flip. You just did a very similar thing. Now answer the question, this time without quoting something that happened after your statement.
Possibly if I find time, this is the kind of stuff I don't have time for.
I'm absolutely sure it's a time issue, and not the fact that you can't find anything.
If this really is a point in your case against me, you should know where some examples are. This question shouldn't require a reread to find the answer.
But besides the invalidity of your answer, it also implied that I gain absolutely nothing from disproving parts of your case on me, which is obviously untrue. That doesn't make sense regardless of whether I'm scum or not. I have clear motivation to find out where your accusations come from and if they really exist.
Shouldn't you already know that?
I'm not perfect. Although I believe that your accusations are unfounded, I'm not certain of that fact.
Saying: "What is my post frequency?" is a bullshit way of getting someone to admit that you are not lurking. Prodding based on content you added to the game I could understand, but asking him to analyze the frequency of your posts seems needlessly defensive.
Wrong. Making someone explain that they are wrong is always better then explaining why someone is. This probably comes from the debater me though.
Asking him to analyze the frequency of my posts shouldn't of been a problem if he were telling the truth. He would of already looked at that before making the accusation of lurking. Only if he was lying about his motivation for voting me would my question make him do additional work.
GUN:
Please find time to respond to my post.
Author
Topic: BM XLII - Game Over: Mafia Win! (Read 76410 times)