I've moved back into campus residence and I've settled down. Time to get back to playing.
FallacyofUrist, I'd like to talk to you a bit about what your statements today imply about your actions D1.
You have given no behavioural evidence against me today (in fact, you've put more effort into not giving any and justifying not giving any than most people put into giving evidence), and you have made it clear that your vote has nothing to do with my behaviour. You have repeatedly stated that your sole reason for going after me today is your inspect. You
have established that your cause of suspicion is an inspect result (in this of all games) and that you "are not going at [me] because of [my] behavior." Even when asked for your case against me, you
gave no behavioural evidence and relied solely on your inspect. So, my behaviour has not contributed to your suspicion of me.
In fact, you have made an amazing admission:
you have not seen me do anything you consider scummy:
FoU: [...][2] Has [Jack] actually done anything that you consider scummy?
[2]: No. Not that I've detected, anyway. I'm going off my inspect, thank you.
The following is your claimed cause for inspecting me last night:
I investigated you last night, because you are an experienced player and I wanted to know if you were misguided town or plotting scum against me, my result was you being mafia.
You have
been consistent in claiming that you inspected me because I was attacking you D1. You have not mentioned anything indicating your inspect decision was influenced by evidence of scumhood.
Let's go back to D1. Specifically, back to when you started the effort to get someone to make a case against me:
Jack A T: Please construct an argument from my perspective on why you and TDS are the scum team.
TheDarkStar: Do you think that from my perspective, it might be a bit suspicious that you and Jack have echoed each other's votes?
Nothing significant changed about the behaviour of TDS and I after this point D1: TDS did little more and I was on vacation.
You have made it quite clear that you have never seen anything scummy from me. In addition, your inspect was not based on scummy behaviour, but just on the fact that I was attacking you. With that in mind, these questions (particularly the second) stand out.
You asked me for a case against TDS and I, but not because you saw me do anything scummy. You asked TDS about how suspicious it was that we voted for the same people twice (with my vote being second both times, I will note), but deny having ever seen me act scummily.
Hm. I wonder what could lead you to try to get your two assailants, one of whom you've stated you've not seen any scummy behaviour from, to go after an associational tell that you deny was a scumtell (at least for the second voter). I wonder why you wanted a case constructed against an attacker you saw no scummy behaviour from.
So,
Fallacy, would it be accurate to characterize these questions as an effort to protect yourself from TDS and I first and foremost, and not as an effort to pursue your suspects? If not, why did you ask the questions?
Furthermore, would it be accurate to say that your
two references
today to background lurkers were made in significant part to protect yourself?
Unless plans change my plans, I intend to inspect one of the non-cops (they stick out) or juicebox (when inspects start making sense, this may really help). I do not intend to lean much on my inspects until I can make sense of them. With the obvious structural inspection issues, this cop-saturated game should be pretty classic-scumhunting-focused for a while, at least in theory (though practice is a different matter).
My cop comments a bit earlier still largely apply.
Author
Topic: Mind Reading Mafia Game Over, No One Won. (Read 95960 times)