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.
The heck is 'pnged'?
I think building a vote around connections is reasonable, and I consider an unusual amount of retaliatory defense gifted to you by Jim to be a form of connection.
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.
I believe I already gave the definition of genuine I was using - the degree to which a person appears to be arguing for their position in good faith, (high genuineness), or to serve some ulterior purpose (low genuineness).
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.
When I say 'I can't read ToonyMan', I mean that I have extremely low confidence that any read I create on him will have any bearing in reality. Meaning that he's very good at concealing his intentions. My read is my read, but I have low confidence in the effectiveness of my read.
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.
See above for my definition of genuineness. Also see the post I made earlier about it.
(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.
I don't understand your thought process here at all? It's a bit incoherent, sorry. If you'll elaborate I can give a proper response.
(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.
Uh.
Going to try to keep this brief by posting reads and thoughts about players rather than a gigantic wall of text with a million little quotes.
SUSPICIOUS
FallacyofUrist - his read on TricMagic is amongst the worst I've ever seen. I'd feel pretty confident hammering FallacyofUrist this early in the day if he were within range
PFP
Jim is voting me just because I don’t agree with him on Tric?
This is especially aggravating because he simultaneously implies I’m competent enough to easily figure out Tric’s alignment but too incompetent to hide my scum strategies when I’m mafia.
That’s not a reasonable stance to take. I’m doing my first investigation on Tric, to try and validate my read or prove it wrong, but Jim Groovester gets my vote for that garbage.
No, uh, Jim literally voted me first. Look at the dates of the posts. What the heck Tric.From the looks of things I voted Maximum Spin, then Jim Groovester, then TricMagic.
(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.
Ultimately I could put together several posts from each player that support the rating I gave them, but that would have taken far too much time for 13 players. I opted just to go with my overall conclusion. See above definition of genuine.
(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.
See above.
(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.
See above.
(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.
See above. TLDR I didn't bother to dig up all my reasoning because it would have taken too long, each read was a quick evaluation I didn't want to source posts for.
It's like a read list. You don't source direct evidence for every single player in your reads list.
That said, you're right in that I could have gone into more detail on these, at least a little bit.
(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.
Eh, information is still gained if you're third party, though it's essentially just the amount of information given if you're town.
You being scum would be a slam dunk on Jim, though.
(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.
See my definition of genuine, see what I said about how I figured it.
(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.
I'm not a normal thinker. Different people can act scummy in different ways.
Though since that post I've moved Hector out of the potential scumteam and Max Spin into it. ToonyMan could be an alternative for NQT, but I have a hard time believing
every scum player would defend you, they know they'll go down with the ship if you get executed and flipped.
And it's not like I can accurately read Toony. Jim's the only one I'm highly sure about.
(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.
I also don't understand what you're saying here.
(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.
See above for information on genuineness.
If I wasn't voting you I'd be voting one of Jim or Max.
Done.
But why is he a bad choice and not a neutral one?
Because I want to lynch scum and TricMagic isn't scum.
Shouldn't I be trying to actively lynch the players I suspect? Isn't that how I'm supposed to be playing mafia? I'm really baffled at where these questions are coming from or where they're going.
Is a serial killer a bad execution? You're eliminating a threat to the town. If I had Tric's alignment confirmed to me as SK I'd rate his execution as
fair, as opposed to
good (executing scum) or
bad (executing town).
Author
Topic: BYOR 16: Game Over. Mafia 2 Wins. (Read 50771 times)