Print

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

[TricMagic]

... Notes down a Fallacy/Lenglon scumteam. That's the last shred of good faith gone.

IMPORTANT: Timeline does not line up. Fallacy voted Jim first, after Jim voted Fallacy for his read. See Mamobo *links.
A point of order. Toaster was voting me before all of this. It's an outright fabrication of events to fit a theme.)

I'm guessing you also are just choosing to ignore this cause it doesn't fit your worldview. You can't discard info simply because of it's source.

[Toaster]

... Notes down a Fallacy/Lenglon scumteam. That's the last shred of good faith gone.

IMPORTANT: Timeline does not line up. Fallacy voted Jim first, after Jim voted Fallacy for his read. See Mamobo *links.
A point of order. Toaster was voting me before all of this. It's an outright fabrication of events to fit a theme.)

Fallacy voted Jim first… after Jim voted Fallacy?

You realize that statement is self-contradictory, right?

Inline edit responses are very difficult to parse.

[Maximum Spin]

Fallacy voted Jim first… after Jim voted Fallacy?

You realize that statement is self-contradictory, right?

I believe this means "first as in before voting Tric, thus obviating Fallacy's claim that Jim voted Fallacy for voting Tric". I haven't gone back to check if this is true because I do not care.

Inline edit responses are very difficult to parse.

THIS, however, is correct and worth caring about. Not just Tric, but everyone who does this is on notice. Just separate the quotes like, well, this if you have to.

[Lenglon]

IMPORTANT: Timeline does not line up. Fallacy voted Jim first, after Jim voted Fallacy for his read. See Mamobo *links.
A point of order. Toaster was voting me before all of this. It's an outright fabrication of events to fit a theme.)

I'm guessing you also are just choosing to ignore this cause it doesn't fit your worldview. You can't discard info simply because of it's source.

What timeline are you talking about and why should I care about it? I don't care who voted whom in whatever order. Even if someone claimed one order and it actually was another, there's a reasonable chance that whoever said it wrong just mis-remembered. What's the point you're trying to make here?

omg Lenglon dismissed me out of hand and thinks I'm not worth her time?!? scum!

Tric, you have never communicated in good faith. Prove me wrong and answer the following: are you Town?

reasons I discarded your post out of hand:

1) red text
2) you don't even know what the word genuine means and are too lazy to look it up.
3) you then go off into insane-fairyland based on your misunderstanding of genuine, which you already said you don't know what it means, and derive all kinds of garbage off of your obvious and trivial to avoid misunderstanding.

That post and everything you derived from it is not worth anyone's time. shove it up your ass and rewrite it from the very beginning after you look up the basic vocabulary used.

seriously. The only thing that post is good for is building evidence to lynch you with. Because you based the whole thing on an obvious and easy to avoid misunderstanding about "what word do?" it meant that anything that came out of it would be garbage. garbage in, garbage out. simple as that. I'm not reading garbage, and neither should anyone else.

[Maximum Spin]

2) you don't even know what the word genuine means and are too lazy to look it up.
3) you then go off into insane-fairyland based on your misunderstanding of genuine, which you already said you don't know what it means, and derive all kinds of garbage off of your obvious and trivial to avoid misunderstanding.

This seems like an obviously stupid misunderstanding. Fallacy used the word "Genuineness" in a specific and obtuse way. Knowing what the word 'genuine' means is not the same as knowing what Fallacy means by "Genuineness". In fact, Tric clearly does know what "genuine" means since he goes on to assume that "Genuineness" is some kind of badly-specified trust measure.
Ultimately, the point Tric was making there overlaps with the point I was making: Fallacy isn't actually talking about scumminess, he's just making up an emotion of "Genuineness", assigning it arbitrarily, and pretending like it matters.

[Lenglon]

Max: okay, was there anything of note in Tric's response though? He did clearly misunderstand the term in use, and GIGO still applies.

[Maximum Spin]

Max: okay, was there anything of note in Tric's response though? He did clearly misunderstand the term in use, and GIGO still applies.

I disagree.
Fallacy clearly equivocated between at least three different possible interpretations of "genuineness" of an opinion:
The opinion making sense (to him), the opinion being consistent with the player's meta, and the opinion giving Fallacy good vibes.
This equivocation is very much enabled by Fallacy's choice of the vague feeling-word "genuineness" without explaining it. (Well, he does explain it in saying "Now the question is, which of these reads makes the least sense? Which is least genuine?", but then proceeds to use that definition least.)

TricMagic correctly points out that, for example, the line "Fluffe is new. Genuineness high." doesn't mean anything. Fallacy might have meant that Fluffe's reads seem genuine (in whatever way) because he doesn't seem to know what's going on so he isn't being coached, or that Fluffe's appearance of being new strikes him as genuine, or that he is cutting Fluffe some slack for being new in the same way he says about Curry Cat, or that Fluffe strikes him as genuine and is also unrelatedly new, or maybe he just generated that line with GPT for all the good it does. Whichever of these, if any, it is, Fallacy doesn't say; he's more interested in asserting that Fluffe is genuine and moving on. It's not a real opinion, it's just a bundle of affect. It's a non-thing posing as a thing. Saying something doesn't make it so.

[Lenglon]

okay, so there were some reads of FoU's the Tric (and seemingly you as well) would like FoU to expand on and be more specific about? cool, ya'll should ask FoU to do that. what does any of that have to do with Jim though?

[FallacyofUrist]

PfP

I can’t believe anyone is able to follow Tric’s arguments in the slightest.

I’ll… try to address them, all of them, no matter how frustrating, after work.

Here’s the definition of genuine I was using in that post. ‘Does this person appear to be arguing in good faith?’ Less genuine would be ‘this person appears to be arguing in bad faith, that is, they are arguing to protect TricMagic because they have ulterior motives for doing so.’

Under this measurement, Jim is less genuine and Fluffe and Toony are more genuine.

[FallacyofUrist]

2) you don't even know what the word genuine means and are too lazy to look it up.
3) you then go off into insane-fairyland based on your misunderstanding of genuine, which you already said you don't know what it means, and derive all kinds of garbage off of your obvious and trivial to avoid misunderstanding.

This seems like an obviously stupid misunderstanding. Fallacy used the word "Genuineness" in a specific and obtuse way. Knowing what the word 'genuine' means is not the same as knowing what Fallacy means by "Genuineness". In fact, Tric clearly does know what "genuine" means since he goes on to assume that "Genuineness" is some kind of badly-specified trust measure.
Ultimately, the point Tric was making there overlaps with the point I was making: Fallacy isn't actually talking about scumminess, he's just making up an emotion of "Genuineness", assigning it arbitrarily, and pretending like it matters.

Max

You can always just ask me exactly what I meant instead of assuming I’m talking nonsense.

In fact, please do so. Reasonable questions can help me refine my position.

[Maximum Spin]

Here’s the definition of genuine I was using in that post. ‘Does this person appear to be arguing in good faith?’ Less genuine would be ‘this person appears to be arguing in bad faith, that is, they are arguing to protect TricMagic because they have ulterior motives for doing so.’

How do you determine this?

[FallacyofUrist]

Here’s the definition of genuine I was using in that post. ‘Does this person appear to be arguing in good faith?’ Less genuine would be ‘this person appears to be arguing in bad faith, that is, they are arguing to protect TricMagic because they have ulterior motives for doing so.’

How do you determine this?

A combination of my perception of their meta and the context of the arguments they are making.

I’m sure you’ll find some fault in that, but it’s literally what we’re all doing.

No, it’s not a gut feel check, if that’s what you were wondering.

[Fluffe9911]

I can’t believe anyone is able to follow Tric’s arguments in the slightest.

Someone should really do a recap at one point cause I am frankly uber confused at the entire argument.

[Maximum Spin]

A combination of my perception of their meta and the context of the arguments they are making.

I’m sure you’ll find some fault in that, but it’s literally what we’re all doing.

No, it’s not a gut feel check, if that’s what you were wondering.

How do you square this claim to have done thorough analysis with your earlier statement about driving a bus on fire into hell?

[TricMagic]

I can admit my method of dissecting that post wasn't the best, since it would have been better to just split everything up into quotes.

checks GIGO meaning.hmm..

Fallacy:

If TricMagic actually transitions into acting properly town, I'll probably unvote, or move back to Jim.

Is this an actual response to my unvote, which is me unvoting him because I think he's acting better?  It doesn't sound like one.

Currently I don't really care about the number of people voting Tric? He's not going to go down, so what matters more is what I learned from the attempt.

Nearly certain Jim's going to launch a case on me as soon as he's next on the forum.

I do think my case jarred Tric into action, I'm just not sure by how much and whether that means he's town.

You mostly learned that I can gift hats. Not much else. I'm still waiting for that Thunderdome Fallacy, have some Conviction in your case. As is(and Toaster said it better), voting me while making that lynch my guilt. But you built that vote around people who I don't have any connections with personally. I haven't really pnged them as much, so.

Now the question is, which of these reads makes the least sense? Which is least genuine?


Knightwing's read on Tric reeks of Knightwing. Genuineness high.

What is Genuineness? You claim them to be correct in their read, yet vote me in the same post.
(post-edit.) Genuineness: the quality of truly being what something is said to be; authenticity. Alternatively, Sincerity. The second sentence in this response is me question Fallacy on their definition of it. Since it's something that can be used as an argument against their case if taken at the usual definition.

ToonyMan thinks Tric is being Tric. Genuineness high, but in all honesty I can't read Toony at all, generally speaking.

You can't read Toony, but claim Genuineness from them. Being honest, I'm not really sure I can trust them if they're playing the long con. But that's fairly normal from me.
(post-edit.)This uses the same question as above. Fallacy claims Toony is either sincere or authentic in their posting, but claims they can't read them. This is the part that tells you his definition does not match the term? My response is basically this explanation. If with a bit extra on my feelings towards Toony.

Fluffe is new. Genuineness high.

Genuineness is new. Fluffe high. (Just words that can be swapped around. Rather than my opinion on them.)
(post-edit.) Max is very on point today. He's not using the definition normally. It's a buzzword.

EuchreJack... eh. Feels like he can do better. Genuineness N/A, will be reevaluated when he makes a proper effort to read him.

(You claim Jack is a bad lynch, a trash read by me. Yet someone you can't trust and has yet to really be seen could be a possible Day 1 lynch. Why the Change of Heart?{I swear if that's actually your role I will laugh.})
(post-edit.) Fallacy has called my putting forth Jack as lynch a bad read. Or whatever it was. But he doesn't actually trust him. As a doublevoter, they are rather dangerous if left alive. But they can't be seen as backing Jack either. I'm not sure what is going on with Fallacy here. Well, I do... I'm doing the same thing of waiting to see, but what I've seen so far doesn't reassure me. Which is why I put them forward in the first place, see how FoU reacted, while not being someone I would mourn.

Jim Groovester's read doesn't seem right. It seems like it's accurately described, but his behavior is eerily defensive. His sole reason for voting me is that I voted TricMagic and didn't read him how Jim read him. Genuineness low.

(How is it low? They've participated, should be readable. What makes the drop in Genuineness? IMPORTANT: Timeline does not line up. Fallacy voted Jim first, after Jim voted Fallacy for his read. See Mamobo *links.
A point of order. Toaster was voting me before all of this. It's an outright fabrication of events to fit a theme.)
This is why having a lot of discussion is good, lies like these pop up. All you need to do is look for them. (You can say you made a mistake, but it's still a fault in your reasoning.)
(post-edit) The vote order was Jim votes Fallacy, Fallacy votes Jim back. Not even remembering why you voted someone? Or twisting the events to make up a reason to suspect them. As Jim is part of his suggested scumteam, this is a major crack in his reasoning. As for Jim's defense of me, well. We've talked about that. As stated lower in this post, Fallacy is making his case based upon me being Mafia/Third Party, guilty before proven innocent.

Lenglon subscribes to hat tyrant theory. Genuineness moderate? Could do with more detail.

(Why is Lenglon's Genuineness moderate? This is the point where we see who you don't trust. Or are setting up. In any case, please explain why.)
(post-edit.) And here comes the Hat Tyrant posts. I actually had to go back to beginning of day to catch that lore piece when webadict posted the second one for us. Notably, there isn't anything here. And further posts in this line vary wildly in "Genuineness" reasonings.

juicebox subscribes to hat tyrant theory. Genuineness high, but also subject to reevaluation. This deserves more detail.

(An error? What makes the difference in Genuineness and why does Hat Tyrant make a lick of difference?
... Beyond which, in the same line you say reevalutation needed, which just feels... Tacky?)
(post-edit.) Last was moderate, this one's high. Same text at the start, still wants detail. On top of reevaluation? You could take this to mean he's actually using the meaning, but such is why the internal logic isn't consistent within the same post. Mine isn't always much better.

Toaster thinks TricMagic is Org's reincarnation. Genuineness high.

(No data for this read. No data for the reason.)
(post-edit.)... I'll be honest, this one is just ridiculous. I put in a whole analysis on Toaster and their reasoning. You can see how as it goes down, we end up with what in any other read-list would be the reds. Notably, I'm excused from it.

Egan's read is very Egany. Hat tyrant theory. Genuineness high.

(At this point you've just stopped No reason beyond being Egany. And not even reevaluation.. Why are these three so different?)
(post-edit.) So.. 4th in a row. 3rd I guess given Hat Tyrant. Note this isn't one that reevaluation is stated. And what even denotes an Egany read? This is where you know Genuineness is a buzzword.

A_Curious_Cat, aka Chilicarp, hasn't talked about Tric. Genuineness high, it's their first game, they get some slack.

(And at this point it's all about the dragon in the room, not about connections and who's mafia or not.)
(post-edit.) An important part to this one is the previous post. One can find it just by clicking the quote and looking up. He's made this by himself, by seperating people into groups based around reactions to me. It leads further down near the bottom where he makes it seem "reasonable" to lynch me for information it gives. Which only pops up if I'm Mafia, or Town. As Third Party, no info is gained at all. Yet this is seen as a good thing? sighs.

hector13... hm. Feels like he's not putting as much into reading Tric as he could be. Genuineness moderate-low.

(And now you subscribe Genuineness to if people are even talking about me in the first place.)[/color]
(post-edit.) Statement says it all. If they aren't trying, they aren't townie.
Note the bit directly above with Cat. But most above this are High Genuineness. Which makes no sense as the post states.

notquitethere, as mentioned, seems to be avoiding making alignment based points about Tric.

(Which is how you got the Mafia Team in the first place. This is completely backwards, as you'd be making the argument Mafia has just abandoned me. While in later posts you say Mafia doesn't ant to lose a vote. So wouldn't they attack you?)
(post-edit) As below this bit, they've subscried to a Tric/Jim| Hector OR NQT team. With the primary.... Well,...
Tric/Jim is based upon protectiveness. Hector/NQT as the third is based upon not even bothering to protect. Do you see the issue here? Two lines of thought jammed together into one team read. That is not normal behavior or thought process.

So, crazy theory. I think the scumteam could realistically be TricMagic, Jim Groovester, and then one or both of hector13/notquitethere, depending on how the setup works out. If there's a bunch of third parties it'd be just one of them, if not it's both.

Jim and notquitethere's behavior seems to match the idea of 'distance the guy that'll drag us down like an anchor if we don't'. Reluctant to target him, but acknowledging that he's funky as hell. Hector is less suspicious, but still a possibility.

If this theory does hold water I'd scum-percentage these people as 100% scum (required) TricMagic, 85% scum Jim, 65% notquitethere, 40% scum hector.

The thing is though?

This makes TricMagic an ideal execution / vote. Based on this connection, it'll be extremely informative about the scumminess or lack thereof of a good few people. Nearly everyone has thoughts on Tric. We don't lose anything from the vote since the most likely outcomes are he's either third party or scum - most of us don't think he's town.

](In conclusion, you've built your case around nothing, a complete lack of connections preluding a connection based upon that. But you've used Jim as your lynchpin for the team, who is trying to protect me. So your Fallacy isn't even internally consistent. There is no data to be gained because the internal reasoning is cracked, falling apart..)
(post-edit.) As the one directly above this. It's not a consistent reasoning on the scum team. One person is protecting me. (Which is false btw. Max has also expressed such in his own way.) But they also use people who are ignoring me/the hat tyrant debacle. If I'm Third Party, then scumminess can't really be found within town. If I'm town, then clearly the people protecting me are townie. If I'm mafia, well.. The FoU shows some town points, somehow. But as Mafia with FoU, this would be a prelude to trouble for town. Since the one... Well, might be getting a bit crazy myself given time constraints.

It's, in other words, a safe, effective execution - perfect for Day 1.

I'm willing to sustain this vote for the remainder of the day unless a better target presents themselves.

(So.. Fallacy. Who's the better target now that you're backing off?)
(post-edit.) Still waiting on FoU's answer to this. As well as what Genuineness means to them.

There probably are ninjas here. I'm posting this anyway, cause breaking apart a post is a fairly effective method of mine. Don't poke the sleeping dragon and all that. As for my third party status, no comment for now cause all my energy was focused upon this post.

gtg. Ninja'd too..