as well as saying that swapping votes makes people scummier, which is inherently not true from a statistical perspective
I didn't say that... I very specifically complained about EuchreJack's voting in this particular game setup; don't try to draw any broader generalization from it.
I might've maybe been persuaded with enough evidence to vote for Roden if Jim or Maximum Spin had suggested it, but that'd probably involve them engaging in ways they didn't want to, since they were still treating me like I was a Traitor.
No, I didn't think you were a traitor, but I wasn't going to push Roden when Roden was my second target after Knightwing, until either Knightwing was out
or other voters made it clear that Knightwing wasn't a viable target and Roden was. My push on Knightwing had adequate support until the very end of day when everything fell apart; before that, I wasn't even trying to convince you to vote for him, since you had the 2×lynch which meant it was better for you to vote for your own top choice. I guess I could have tried to convince you to vote Roden, but: first, my main motivation, given the risks, it seemed better that different people with different theories control each lynch, instead of betting it all on one theory being right; second, I wasn't really going to argue "this Roden just looks indescribably like scum Roden" after I was already arguing "this Knightwing just looks indescribably like scum Knightwing" because I don't expect to get that much credit all in one go; and third and maybe most importantly, I'm just not the kind of guy who usually tries to convince others to vote for someone for whom I'm not voting. I prefer to treat my vote as pretty serious.
My scumhunting style works best when all players are active, and while executing every lurker is a great method, and would've worked in theory, using a lurker execution mentality in this game could've also lead to an instant loss. There was no way to actually test out lurkers, and using the ability before I knew there was lurkers to begin with only made it an extremely high-risk gambit without enough evidence backing it up at all. This is mostly why it was unfun to lose, since there wasn't anything being done on anyone's part except ToonyMan, who did play well, since he was absolutely incriminating Jim Groovester the entire time. To me, lurking is simultaneously the worst way to win and the worst way to lose because it requires the least amount of effort.
The thing is, blaming the lurking is a little unavailing to me because, when Knightwing and Roden DID talk, they both looked scummy. I wasn't asking you to lynch Knightwing for being a lurker, I was asking you to lynch him for being his obvious scumself. Sure, I get that you didn't see it, somehow ToonyMan and I were the only ones to see it and ToonyMan had the benefit of already knowing; clearly, it's not as obvious to everyone, and I'm not currently arguing that it should have been – but making it all about the lurking is "missing something crucial".
I think it's worth pointing out again that I didn't assume you and/or Jack were mafia, and didn't even think it was very likely that either of you were.
If I didn't think he was town, would I keep trying to explain the Knightwing thing to him?
— and I was doing the same to you so it applies both times. I think you took what I said here too seriously —
Look, I'm trying to be modestly diffident about this but you are really making me feel like the scum team is just knightwing/Jack/webadict. If you're town and don't want to lose the game, you need to do better than to just say something that is obviously the opposite of reality.
— but you need to understand that, if I thought that was the most likely team, I wouldn't have
said it, since I would not want to give you the opportunity to convince me otherwise. In this case I was explicitly giving you the opportunity to convince me otherwise.
So you keep talking about my thinking Jack or you were mafia, but this is just based on a mistaken assumption about what I thought. Committing to this mistaken assumption even after
I tell you otherwise makes it impossible for us to communicate usefully.
Max said earlier that I'm emotional as scum, but I think I'm just as emotional as town.
It's a little more complicated than that. As scum, you believe you are more emotional as town than you actually are, or maybe just not quite in the same way. It leaves a mark. On the other hand, it's a mark that was missing in, say, the last game of the ticking Fallacy marathon, possibly because webadict was on your team so you weren't arguing with him; I remember thinking you seemed a little like your scumself in the first round, then doubting that after all that went on, so that I ended up trusting you by the end (which was obviously the wrong decision). So it's not something that's always there, but when you
do start to get/act angry, there's something hard to describe that shows through.
And I have noticed, yes, that you usually seem to make honest statements about your views on the other players, then turn them to suit your evil purposes. I figured you were probably being sincere (on that level) about both Knightwing and webadict. Well, like I said at the time about the latter, I didn't trust your motives for saying it but you were right.
One last thing for the road.
I wasn't going to engage with logic explaining why someone was scum when I'm already using logic and intuition on why they aren't scum[...]My scumhunting style works best when all players are active[...]Does that help explain my mindset, Max?
Look, I get it. I was using intuition too, as always. I understand the value of it. The harsh truth of the problem is just this: I can't recall having ever seen your intuition, scumhunting style, or mindset actually win a game. Certainly not without making a lot of mistakes along the way (and usually specifically turning on me for some reason). That's not even that bad, everyone makes mistakes, but it seems to me that, every time you feel 100% convinced and unwilling to consider alternatives about the
wrong thing, that should be a big deal that changes how you think about things going forward; but you seem content to say, oh well, I'm just a stubborn and arrogant guy, guess them's the breaks. At the end of the day I don't even care that much, I'm not your mom and you can play how you like – it's just staggering to me that you don't see this as a problem the way I would.
Author
Topic: Traitors in the Fortress: Presidential Executions: Traitors Win! (Read 15174 times)