Print

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

[ToonyMan]

I'd third that if Pandarsenic wasn't just going to say to cut that shit out.

[Rashilul]

Well, I think that Dak has summed up my feelings about a month long 109 page game pretty well.

[ToonyMan]

Well, I think that Dak has summed up my feelings about a month long 109 page game pretty well.

Nope, you can't say that.  You didn't participate at all the whole game so fart.

[webadict]

Well, I think that Dak has summed up my feelings about a month long 109 page game pretty well.

Nope, you can't say that.  You didn't participate at all the whole game so fart.

Yeah, you've didn't even try to do anything.

[Cheeetar]

Dude, we went over this A DAY AGO.  I hate re-explaining this so...

http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=44270.msg894492#msg894492

...that dosen't explain anything.

LIST WHY, STEP BY STEP.

As in:
1. I nightkilled you.
2. This is why you percieve me as a threat.
3. Also, Cobalt also night-killed you.
4. He is also a threat.

WHY ARE YOU A TARGET TO ME?
WHY AM I SUSPICIOUS TO YOU?
WHY IS COBALT A TARGET TO ME?
Also, what changed your mind about Cobalt being a scum? Don't just quote a post and leave it. Quote a post, explain which parts. Put some effort in.

[Cheeetar]

And by 'I' I am speaking from your perspective.

[CobaltKobold]

And by 'I' I am speaking from your perspective.

Could you two please use the names instead of "I" and "you" in these arguments where the referents people to which they point are mixed up, instead, please?

@Sirbayer: Your possibilities didn't span the set. You left out all three scum for some reason. also, I think

Thus putting an FOS on SirBayer to hear the resolution of the doc issue.

miht be it.

Maybe I won't press that issue. ._.

Also, don't be cautious-scum, or we lynch you.

Ok, instead of addressing every point directly(since, when I try it, I either have to leave every quote in, making it a horrible mess of a WOT or take them out, leaving it unreadable), I'll take on the topics themselves.

So, starting back to "Dakarian Case"

1. first point destroys itself.  You make a claim about me being bloodthirsty in RVS when it's..well. RVS.  The entire point of RVS is to spark a reaction.

Also bloodthirstiness is NOT a scumtell.[/quote]Bloodthirstiness, no. Lynch-anyone-period-bandwagon,yes.

2. The 'not dakarian' deal.  No, I don't act the way I did when I first started playing.  I've had half a year of postings and a large batch of ChatMafia to practice on.  I use a good deal more aggression and emotion in my games now, especially when I'm in 'pressure' mode.  Your meta is old for one thing.

Furthermore, for meta to actually WORK, you need a comparison.  You need a 'scum-dakarian' to go along with a 'town-dakarian'.  For that, you need Religious Mafia 2, KWN, and BYOR:ExKirby for a reference.  Otherwise, you're pigeonholing me into what you think 'town-dakarian' should always do.

So I call BS on your Meta claims.

I call BS on your selfmeta. Also, the answer to your question "How should I play?" was not answering to your meta primarily (though tht was how you played)- it was how you should play, and secondarily how you DID play.

If you're not displaying your town-tells, then...you're either a. changing your meta (hurts town) or b. not displaying them because you're not town (hurts town).

3. Arguments with Web.  Creating scumteams never work out.  I learned that way back in BM1 and my times as host have proven it time after time: when you create a 'team', you never catch all of the scum in it.

The point: you can only really look at scum-on-scum interactions AFTER one of the scum is confirmed. 

That's why I linked ExKirby to Leafsnail, because Leafsnail was confirmed. 

If you want to prove that Web or myself is scum, do it on individual terms.  If you can't, you don't have scum on your hands.

Lay the groundwork now, follow it (or, in unlikely towndak case, not) after you flip.

4. Appeals to emotion: you aren't exactly sure what that term entails.

You appeal to emotion as a form of DEFENSE against an accusation.  Someone attacks you, you get them to emphasize with you, and they pull off.  Vector knows about this since he pulled it off on me in BM1. 

AtE isn't EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that isn't attacking someone, which is exactly what you pulled. 

If I'm not using the term as is usual in mafia, forgive me. But you are appealing to emotion with "Pages...*cry*" using the same mechanism. Why should it matter whether you're under attack? Wouldn't it be more effective to get people sympathising, perhaps subconsciously, before anybody is under fire? Isn't this why people shun/attack jokes?

5. Hypocritical

Already explained the ExKirby/Leaf vs Dakarian/Web situation.  AFTER scum is confirmed you start linking, not before.

This can also be marked as tunnelvisioning at this point.  For this argument to work you have to assume another unproven argument already works.  You've yet to proven that me and Web are scumbuddies so saying I'm Hypocritical falls flat without it.

that is only one case where I called you a hypocrite. Others (like the many complaints about the 'mess' and '*cry* much to scan but nothing comes up *kick*' contrasted with 'mafiascum hammer games take 9 days for first day'...or times when you are inconsistent with yourself (save cheat 'til lylo vs not)-Oh, and your "save until lylo argument" is...WIFOM!

Save it until lylo, since the mafia don't seem afraid of it or else they'd kill you already while you were still blocked.

Sorry, you're not wiggling out of this.

6. Point missing:

- Ok, so I DO make mistakes.  Often.  It's the basis behind my Scans: so I can pull accurate information.

Now here's the question: how is that scummy?  For that matter, how is making mistakes 'undakarian'? 

You generally don't miss points. (you're calling this 'old meta' it seems)

7. My daykill

-first off, it wasn't a superkill.  Leafsnail's protection protects against NKs.  My kill was a daykill so it bypassed the protection. 

Superkill=bypasses protection, so functionally equivalent is my point

-second off, why didn't I use it on Webadict?  Same reason why I didn't vote for him.  I fought with him in Day 1 to get a read on him and what I found didn't show off scum.  When the town charged headlong into web, I read the reasons and found them lacking:


-1. His fight with me: I found him unscummy after that fight, so others seeing scum in that same fight wouldn't convince me.

-2. His attitude: I saw quite a bit of "I don't like you attitude".  It felt like a policy lynch just to 'get the jerk'.  I dislike policy lynches: lynches are for SCUM, not for jerks, or lurkers, or anti-towns, or anything else. 

Those were pretty much the main attacks against web.  With that, no, he won't get my vote and like hell he'll get my one-shot kill.

So you admit you were being selfish about it. I mean, if you weren't going to hammer, then ok- you could have either gone with the slightly smaller consensus OR put it out there "If someone else wants to hammer, don't, I'll kill him instead and we get two lynches". Treat it like Alex-chan's ability.

8. The 'you will suit well as a lynch' bit vs Mr.Person.

I was still pressuring Mr.Person at that point.  When I was finally finished pressuring and started seeking his lynch I called him scum.

9. Telling Web to save it until lylo

He wanted a MC to use his powers on.  MCs come at lylo or close to lylo.  Thus the suggestion.  Again, he's best off just going after someone who claims instead, which can be done much earlier.

addressed above under hypocrisy

10. Third vote

You claim you don't care for it, yet you readily use it when its on me?  Funny that.

"Funny that" without explanation. I have two good reasons to use it on you.
1. It's something that you're claiming points scum on others and are trying to wave off from your attacks (more hypocrisy)
2. It's showing up (as you point out) rather like a cherry on top of any good scum evidence pile
3. I figured out what was wrong with my original theory about the statistics (3/4 of 9)-third/fourth not to be late to party, but to avoid being prime/second (high-visibility) and to avoid hammer (fifth), but helping to build a wagon.

11. "One, you point out how lots of time and posts is a good thing, the other, you're complaining about it. Feels hypocritical."

Just because it's a good thing doesn't mean it's EASY to handle. 

Btw, how in the world is that scummy even IF it's true? 

More posts, more to analyze, yet you complain.

12. Dakarian = Logically, with well-structured, well-researched arguments, and not appealing to emotion.

Old meta is old.

ChatMafia changed a good bit in me. 

I said above, this is way ANYONE should play. IF your meta is changing from 'ideal town player'...

13. The 'give scum two mislynchs'

It IS wifom.  I'm trying to give the town a free lynch.. but that's what I want you to think!

You're trying to outguess me.  That's the basis behind wifom.

Um...yeah. Wow. You're pointing out/creating your OWN WIFOM and trying to say that it's mine. No. Nice try.

"Kills exkirby while he's asleep/asked for a replacement"

Funny, since you're so pushy about 'not getting things wrong' that you missed Exkirby responding to me with defeatism and threats rather than a defense.  A few others noticed: those above went against him BECAUSE of those statement.

The defeatism appears to be crossgame, not because he's scum here (And look! We can even point out that he wasn't scum here!)- that he always gets quickly lynched for being exkirby.

They're your scummy actions-I shouldn't have to explain your actions. Explaining why they're scummy- that I'm doing. (Assuming people will grasp a concept when I display only necessary steps is a failing of mine sometimes.)

The problem is that for much of them you DON'T explain why they are scummy. A one word "that's bad" is NOT explaining yourself.  I have to guess at 'why' you thought something looked bad in order to speak about them, and at that point I'm creating the argument for you.

See above "That's funny" you're pulling on my "third vote use", where you are doing the EXACT SAME THING. Hypocrite.

In fact, that's really a large batch of your arguments.  You're pulling just about everything I did that you didn't like and molding it into some mass theory based on what you think I SHOULD act like. 

See prior statement, hypocrite

I'm not the Perfect Robot Player that you think I am and frankly, I dislike the idea of getting lynched because of it.

Fear of death, noted.

That said, I still think he's scum based on his recent statements.  I apologize for the lack of quotations in the below; they are partially because the behaviors are rampant, and partially because it is nearly impossible to dig them out of his crunched blocks of text.

This doesn't look good. "He's doing these things. I won't show you. It's hard."

Busy, dude.  "He's doing these things.  I'll provide examples which people will easily find the actual quotations for, but I'm not going to go dig through his Posts from Hell to quote every single little thing."

Soft hits.  Scared of me?

I feel, however, that I have not been entirely precise in that characterization.

"I am attacking but hedging my bets." = CAUTIOUS. lso, making other people fill in your arguments = scum:
"No particular statements because it's blatant and general" = I'm not supporting my arguments also I am attacking meta vs "Meta is not a traditional scumtell"

Then, most of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies he "seems to have found" are actually applications of different thinking to different situations, such as calling Dakarian out for a claim request just before vigging ExKirby. This may simply just be inflexible thinking, however, so I push this one somewhat less strongly and ask merely that he think harder before posting.

-more caution. Vector.
"It turns out that I was mistaken," followed by "Fifth, there still remain inconsistencies in his arguments, which he has brushed over."-hypocrisy- brushing over own mistakes, followed by accusing me of same.
" I apologize for the lack of quotations in the below; they are partially because the behaviors are rampant, and partially because it is nearly impossible to dig them out of his crunched blocks of text." vs. "I have carefully combed through the recent statements in an attempt to figure out what, precisely, was bothering me about his statements." apparent inconsistency.

I'm not talking about evidence quantities.  I'm saying that all your "appeals to emotion" you cited were... found in practically every single other player.  As such, they are null.  If half the town is lurking to the same degree, then you cannot base most of your argument against a given player on lurking that much.  It just doesn't work that way.

..if half the town is acting scummy, then I can't base my arguments against them based on that scumminess? This makes no sense, Vector. Stop grasping at straws.

Further, as I've been saying: most of your stated "hypocrisy" is not hypocritical at all.  You like throwing that word around like it's candy, whereas most of what I see is "CobaltKobold is trying to get everybody lynched on the mildest of offenses."  Then, you also end up just going "HYPOCRISY!  CONTRADICTION!" with very little explanation whatsoever.  At the very least, it's severely anti-town.  At the most, it's scummy.

Finding inconsistencies is serious stuff, because scum are far, FAR more likely to be inconsistent.

The purpose of the above statements is to inform CobaltKobold that, if he is town, he would do well to reconsider his attacking style, as it is so full of holes that the only thing it will hold is viscous liquid.  Such as scum.

The icing my be holy, but there is still a cake beneath it.

The cake is a lie.

A joke? Vector?

Second, though he addresses the WIFOM-spreading, he does not address his apparent cautiousness.  Further, all that crap about staged fights is nothing but a vat of WIFOM, and it constitutes most of his arguments against Webadict and perhaps half of the WoT against dakarian.

*shrug* It's my interpretation. It's been...interesting that they've been into each other all game. Also, the nature of the fights is very odd, since each of them are throwing mostly-bad arguments against eachother. "I have a hole but I'm not telling you" for instance.

You have a duty not to WIFOM the town.  The fact that you are doing so happily bothers me.

Happily? I retracted the statement, didn't I?

Third, his arguments continue to be horrifyingly flimsy.  His statement was that he was pointing out "every scummy thing as it floated by, which doesn't look very town."  This is not the issue I take with his statements.  The problem is that he argues based on (extremely old) meta and, rather than searching for scumtells, seems to have confounded himself with "not-town-tells"--i.e., nulltells.

Null-tells would be either known self-used tells (which are going to be town-tells).

Uh.... no.  Null-tells are things that players do when they are town or scum.  We have three options: town-tells, null-tells, and scumtells.  The fact that Dakarian is acting in a way that does not coincide with his town-tells does not mean that he is displaying his scumtells, or is even scum.

Null-tells are either known self-used tells, or... what?  What I'm saying here is that you really aren't doing much by way of identifying scumtells.  Mostly, you're sitting about digging up nulltells, and asking us to believe you're town.

  I treat a bit more as meta than you do, I think. if someone is known for (town)strong arguments, and gives weak ones- that's both scummy(weak arguments) and metascummy(different to their town meta).

Further, the "appeals to emotion" he has found do not constitute true appeals to emotion.  Everyone in this thread (a generalization, as I am sure someone has been lurking too much to complain) has complained about its length/ridiculousness here or elsewhere. The "appeals to emotion" he found in me were nothing but apologies after having made grating statements.

There is quite a difference between

A bigger part tells me that Wide Scanning 19 people will make me cry.  *sigh*

and, something like "Yikes, 10 pages overnight"- for instance.

Yes.  That difference is called "personality."  Are we allowed to have those, or has King Kobold banned them, too?

No, that difference is the difference between commenting on something and hamming it up to get the town on your side for no good reason.

Also, Queen Kobold.

Next, he is tunnelvisioning to force his arguments to work:

Seriously guys.  Stop the nonscum lynching.  Killing Web because's he's a prick.  Killing Shadow because he writes in 3 words for one day.  Killing Eduren even though a nolynch will mean he frys (when we get close to lylo, it'll be another matter).

So...uh...wow. Buddying on web after stagedfight.

He has no problem with the defense of eduren and SHAD0W, it seems, though of course Webadict is an issue.

Since webadict is higher in my scumlists than either, yes, I point it out more. I do not "have no problem" with the other buddyings, but they are patently obvious and still present in the quoted matter. Shad0w is up for replacement.

Right.

They're patently obvious, but you never explicitly point them out.  You're expecting us to do your work for you, which ... well, it makes me pissed at you, at the very least.  You don't get to say "Well, I pointed it out by virtue of throwing a mass of quotes at you."  I continue to find your reasoning highly suspect.

I pointed it out by virtue of throwing a mass of quotes at you. I suppose saying "Here we find three buddyings, including, suspiciously, webadict!" would be superior, but communication has been a problem for me, clearly.

I feel like you're saying "Well, you're just too dumb to understand what I mean, then, what with my sesquipedalian diction," to which I answer "screw you."  Being smart includes knowing how to communicate, not just dicking around with things that are so obvious to you and so unobvious to us, the idiots.  This feeling increases when I remember the argument with Cheeetar, where you defined a "referent" as

referent: concept to which an indexical refers.

"An indexical?"  Really?  If you're going to bash us for spelling incorrectly (sware vs. swear), how about learning to use the correct form of a word?

I am using the correct form of the word. Indexical as noun: an indexical statement: a statement pointing at something else. "An index" does not contain this meaning.

Fifth, there still remain inconsistencies in his arguments, which he has brushed over.  When we were still functioning under the assumption that he had indeed spoken about the doctor in BMIV, he stated that his inconsistency was reasonable given that he had started playing Mafia two weeks ago.  When I brought up the fact that he had started perhaps a month and a half ago, he completely brushed it off.

What I see here is an individual who is bending fact and, when someone brings up the fact that he is incorrect, does not correct himself, apologize, or bring up further reasoning.  He forgets the point as soon as it has been noticed, perhaps in an attempt to cause others to forget as well.

Grasping at straws, I see. You're arguing that my "If it was my first two weeks" comment is bad because it wasn't my first two weeks. However, the point that I'm making with it- that it is still incredibly early in my mafia tenure (or whatever you want to call it)- does not hinge on that fact. So yes, I don't see it as a problem to be found as mistaken or incorrect on a fact that does not impact the game. Like, for instance, if I got your gender wrong. It would not matter for the game unless it was integral to some argument. So, a pronoun inconsistency would not be grounds for "lynch all liars".

No.  My point is not about that specific inconsistency.  It is about the part where I made a remark about your being inconsistent, and you ignored it until I brought it up... again.  In combination with Dakarian's noticing you ignoring his attacks so many times, it is scummy in the extreme.

Further, it did seem to influence the game at the time.  As such, your failure to make any statement about it is suspect.

If it's so small, why not own up to it?  Why not address it?  Instead, you leave it out and later cover by saying "But that wasn't important!!"

I have made statements, I have addressed it.

Sixth, buddying.  I refer here to the statements in his WoT which are merely stating that others agree with him, i.e. that Mr. Person and Webadict have had similar feelings about Dakarian's scummitude.  If this does not constitute buddying, I will classify it as "an overblown fear of death and attempt to get others on his team," which fits well with his sudden WoT-spewage.  It does not fit well with the behavior of a typical townie, in light of said townie's goals.

That is not buddying as I understand or intend it- it is evidence gathering for meta. and..."an overblown fear of death and attempt to get others on his team"? I classify this as an overblown attack.

Ah, so your experience of meta is "Other people think the person is scum."

If you want to explain why that attack is overblown, I'd be happy to hear about it.  As-is, you're doing that thing again where you attack me and don't explain anything.

[/quote]No, it's that other people were commenting -not that the person was scum- but that their behavior(meta) was off. The overblown is because I knocked down the rest of your attacks.

And now again. The house of cards tumbles down...

[webadict]

... Can we have a claim at least?

[CobaltKobold]

I'm at L-2 and actually so- Mr.Person went to Dakarian. I feel like I'm not going to be lynched, as the motion is now going away from it. If I am credibly threatened again, I might claim, but until then no, not responding to your continued rolefishing.

[webadict]

Continued rolefishing, eh?

Oh boohoo. You were at L-1 before and you STILL didn't claim.

[dakarian]

Bloodthirstiness, no. Lynch-anyone-period-bandwagon,yes.

Ok.. you are saying I'm trying to bandwagon and lynch anyone... in RVS..

"lynch anyone period" in..RVS.


This isn't a small thing to me.  This is an example of your entire argument.  You take any statement, then mold and twist it into any form of scumtell you wish it to be. 

I mean you're taking a RANDOM VOTE, the FIRST post I've made in the game, the first vote I've made when I was the first voter on Mr.Person and you made a serious accusation out of it!

I'm calling 'Tunnelvision' now.  You just don't care anymore.  You just want me lynched and looking for any means to do it.

I call BS on your selfmeta. Also, the answer to your question "How should I play?" was not answering to your meta primarily (though tht was how you played)- it was how you should play, and secondarily how you DID play.

If you're not displaying your town-tells, then...you're either a. changing your meta (hurts town) or b. not displaying them because you're not town (hurts town).

First off, you bring up my meta then discredit ANY attempt for me to talk about it as 'self-meta'.  You're not only using one of my arguments, you're using it POORLY!

The Self-meta null tell, which is something "I" use-thank you very much-is when someone first brings up meta to prove themselves as town.  I.e.

"I can't be scum.  Haven't you seen me throw Wide Scans out?  That's how I act as town.  I'm much less willing to Scan as scum."

That's an attempt to prove yourself town with your meta.  It shows that you KNOW your own meta and, thus, can control it.  It MAY be true that you are doing it as town but, thanks to you knowing, you MAY have the ability to manipulate it when you're scum.  Thus, a Null tell.

I'm not using my meta to prove I'm town. I'm using my meta to NULLIFY your own meta arguments.  You claim I'm not acting like Town-Dakarian.  I'm saying that Town-Dakarian is NOT what you think it is, which is based half on half-a-year old data and your own ideals on what I 'should' be as a player.  Unless you can prove that Recent-Town-Dakarian acts like you THINK it does (and, for all your LOVE of quotes, I see nothing of the sort for examples) your own argument is Nullified.

Prove me town?  No.  Turns your meta arguments into bullcrap?  Yes.

I'm sure you are laughing in Quick chat about how "dakarian is getting hanged by his own devices" but you can stop now.  It's looking ugly, VERY ugly.

Lay the groundwork now, follow it (or, in unlikely towndak case, not) after you flip.

Funny, I've hosted quite a few games now.  That's EXACTLY how well set mafia tend to think.  Setup players early on..buddy this one, accuse this one..but not lynch just yet.. then checkmate!

Go and reread the QuickChat of BM4 which you remember since you were beaten by the scumteam then. 

Townies don't think like that: not the good ones.  They don't setup chain kills.  They focus one at a time.

If I'm not using the term as is usual in mafia, forgive me. But you are appealing to emotion with "Pages...*cry*" using the same mechanism. Why should it matter whether you're under attack? Wouldn't it be more effective to get people sympathising, perhaps subconsciously, before anybody is under fire? Isn't this why people shun/attack jokes?

If you're not using the mafia term, then don't USE the mafia term.  You're confusing everyone into thinking I did the mafia-styled appeal.

And no, people don't attack jokes because of that.  They attack jokes when the person uses the joke instead of actual content.  Even then, it's a poor argument.

And again, you're reaching for anything that can be twisted into something scummy.

that is only one case where I called you a hypocrite. Others (like the many complaints about the 'mess' and '*cry* much to scan but nothing comes up *kick*' contrasted with 'mafiascum hammer games take 9 days for first day'...or times when you are inconsistent with yourself (save cheat 'til lylo vs not)-Oh, and your "save until lylo argument" is...WIFOM!

now you're just throwing around any term that you like.

I already said that I'm allowed to say that a day is hard to handle BUT useful, even if you don't like it.  It's not hypocritical/WIFOM/Appealing to do that.

And I thought the 'save until lylo' comment was supposed to be 'bad logic', not 'wifom'. 

"save the MC and scan until lylo..but that's what I want you to think!"

MEH!

You generally don't miss points. (you're calling this 'old meta' it seems)

Prove it.

Superkill=bypasses protection, so functionally equivalent is my point

BULLSHIT!

Superkill = can kill even when protection is active.  That's a Nightkiller being able to One-shot-kill through Leafsnail's protection.

A Daykiller is NOT known as a Superkiller.  They just kill BEFORE the protection kicks in.

No, you CAN'T flex the definition to fit your desires.  They are TWO separate things!

So you admit you were being selfish about it. I mean, if you weren't going to hammer, then ok- you could have either gone with the slightly smaller consensus OR put it out there "If someone else wants to hammer, don't, I'll kill him instead and we get two lynches". Treat it like Alex-chan's ability.

I want this to be made very...very clear.

So you're saying I'm supposed to use my daykill on someone I did not think was scum just because the town wants that person dead? 

Do you remember what Alex actually did with his daykill back in Bay 12?

addressed above under hypocrisy

Addressed above as well

Btw, I noticed you skipped #8.

"Funny that" without explanation. I have two good reasons to use it on you.
1. It's something that you're claiming points scum on others and are trying to wave off from your attacks (more hypocrisy)
2. It's showing up (as you point out) rather like a cherry on top of any good scum evidence pile
3. I figured out what was wrong with my original theory about the statistics (3/4 of 9)-third/fourth not to be late to party, but to avoid being prime/second (high-visibility) and to avoid hammer (fifth), but helping to build a wagon.

In other words, "HAHA let's lynch Dakarian using his own devices."  Are you trying to get me killed as scum or just wanting to "see the mighty fall"? 

You said yourself that you don't care for 3rd vote.  As such you wouldn't have a reason to notice it unless it was me using it.  As such, the only reason you bring it up is because of the irony and the sheer pleasure its bringing you that "I would fall to my own traps."  In fact, it gives a double benefit.  Not only can you get me lynched by it, but you can prove it wrong by having it lynch a townie. 

It's seriously looking like you just want me killed.. not actually trying to go after scum.

More posts, more to analyze, yet you complain.

Spent an entire day working on that widescan.  You bet that I'll complain.  You'll also bet that I so much prefer it to the silent mess many of the other games deliver.

I complain about my cat, Litia, for harassing my other pets, stealing food from everyone, and being a nuance at times.  I'll kill anyone who tries to hurt her.

People who are more than one-dimensional are NOT scum.  You, of course, don't care since it's just a means to get me killed.

I said above, this is way ANYONE should play. IF your meta is changing from 'ideal town player'...

Funny that.  I was closer to your idea of the 'ideal player' when Vector tore me to pieces back in BM1.  When I step away from your 'ideal player model', I catch scum much more regularly (to the point where I'm getting NKed left and right ). 

Only scum worry so much about looking 'perfect' to other players.  Townies do whatever they need to so long as they scumhunt. 

Um...yeah. Wow. You're pointing out/creating your OWN WIFOM and trying to say that it's mine. No. Nice try.

Not exactly.

Your the one playing Vizzy saying that you know exactly what I planned.  You're the one willing to ignore the idea that Town-Dakarian just may have just wanted to use that Daykill right then and went strait for the Scum-Dakarian theory with no evidence of either direction.

Thus it's your wine, not mine.

The defeatism appears to be crossgame, not because he's scum here (And look! We can even point out that he wasn't scum here!)- that he always gets quickly lynched for being exkirby.

"ExKirby being ExKirby" was figured out AFTER that daykill.  Now, we can look at him and go "meh, Newtells".  Then it wasn't quite so clear. 

So yes, it's easy to read him now.  If you knew of it then I would've loved to have heard of it while I was asking everyone how they felt about an ExKirby Vig.

Though you didn't seem to want to talk till it was over, even though you assure me it was so clear anyone should've seen it.

They're your scummy actions-I shouldn't have to explain your actions. Explaining why they're scummy- that I'm doing. (Assuming people will grasp a concept when I display only necessary steps is a failing of mine sometimes.)

The problem is that for much of them you DON'T explain why they are scummy. A one word "that's bad" is NOT explaining yourself.  I have to guess at 'why' you thought something looked bad in order to speak about them, and at that point I'm creating the argument for you.

See above "That's funny" you're pulling on my "third vote use", where you are doing the EXACT SAME THING. Hypocrite.

Explain this one, because it's sounding like you're just after my play style with this, not actually aiming for scum.

I'm not the Perfect Robot Player that you think I am and frankly, I dislike the idea of getting lynched because of it.

Fear of death, noted.

Third use of my style, noted.

Which further adds to the "get dakarian lynched by his own devices" argument, which isn't exactly scumhunting, but just trying to get me killed in a very ironic way.

Lastly

And now again. The house of cards tumbles down...

Allow me to replace it with a brick castle.

[dakarian]

@Everyone:


CobaltKobold has NOT been trying to actually scumhunt.  The only thing she has truly been doing is attempting to destroy my playing style.  Instead of using her own arguments and reasonings to find scum, she's been looking for every attempt to 'throw my own arguments at my face' to both kill me off and discredit my arguments even after I'm dead.  She bends definitions, arguments, and past posts into any form of attack she can think of. 

She's not trying to lynch a scummy Dakarian.  She's just trying to get someone she thinks she can lynch, lynched.

She's already at L-2, but she clearly doesn't much find that of concern, clearly thinking that she's going to live once she revives the bandwagon on me.  She won't claim, and does little to defend herself. 

If you find a fault in my argument against her-that you feel that she may still be town acting like this, please express them.

If you find my reasonings sound but you still have questions or are unsure then please speak to CobaltKobold about them, so you can be sure either way.

If you agree with my findings and have nothing left to offer to CobaltKobold then let's end this day and hammer her.



And yes, with that, I'm done with you, Cobalt.

[Vector]

I feel, however, that I have not been entirely precise in that characterization.

"I am attacking but hedging my bets." = CAUTIOUS. lso, making other people fill in your arguments = scum:

"No particular statements because it's blatant and general" = I'm not supporting my arguments also I am attacking meta vs "Meta is not a traditional scumtell"

Then, most of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies he "seems to have found" are actually applications of different thinking to different situations, such as calling Dakarian out for a claim request just before vigging ExKirby. This may simply just be inflexible thinking, however, so I push this one somewhat less strongly and ask merely that he think harder before posting.

-more caution. Vector.

"It turns out that I was mistaken," followed by "Fifth, there still remain inconsistencies in his arguments, which he has brushed over."-hypocrisy- brushing over own mistakes, followed by accusing me of same.

" I apologize for the lack of quotations in the below; they are partially because the behaviors are rampant, and partially because it is nearly impossible to dig them out of his crunched blocks of text." vs. "I have carefully combed through the recent statements in an attempt to figure out what, precisely, was bothering me about his statements." apparent inconsistency.

a. "I feel I have not been precise in that characterization" == what I was writing was a general idea of what I meant, but not what I actually meant.  I'm sick and tired of playing word games with you because you don't like how I put something.  Is writing more precisely hedging your bets?

No.  "Hedging bets" would involve writing in your style, so that there were so many interpretations to everything you write that we cannot help being wrong, over and over again.  You are intentionally tripping people up with your explanatory system, and it ... well, I'm really tired of saying this, too, but it makes me angry.

Further, I have not seen any place in which I was allowing people to fill in my arguments.  The most I've done is said "Find your own damn quotes--I'll reference events that are easily memorable, but I'm not going to go prying those suckers out."  Lazy, maybe, but I'm not forcing others to fill anything in but your pain-in-the-ass quotations.

Interesting how you'll attack me for my lack of quotations, but didn't attack Dakarian for following me on the behavior.  That's inconsistency at its finest.


b. "No particular statements because it's blatant and general" != "I am attacking meta => hypocrisy."  It means "Your scumtells are all over the place, so that even a braindead two-year-old could find them without a flashlight."  Also, "if you happen to be a braindead one-year-old sans flashlight, I will be more than happy to direct you to the posts in question.  I just don't have much time right now." 

It's not so much about "how you're behaving differently from usual" as it is about "how you're behaving right now, in this game alone."

c. "More caution"?  More like "Vector sees a different interpretation for this behavior.  Vector thinks inflexibly across situations, himself!  It ends up looking just like this.  Maybe I should bring up this point but mostly leave it alone, given that I cannot figure out which of the two interpretations it is.  If I get more evidence for one than the other, then I will decide what to do."

d. We seem to be using different definitions of "brushing off" and "addressing."  You brush things off, i.e. people say "You did this wrong!" and you say nothing.  I address my errors by issuing apologies for being incorrect--i.e., I admit my mistakes and don't continue to push my poorly-formed ideas after the fact.  Not hypocritical, doodabuddy.

e. "I looked carefully through the text.  I am not, however, going to spend hours furnishing an internet forum with all the quotations coinciding to every behavior."  How is this inconsistent?


I'm not perfect and one-dimensional.  I know this.  My suggestion is that you stop complaining at people for being human, given that it is PROFOUNDLY irritating.

..if half the town is acting scummy, then I can't base my arguments against them based on that scumminess? This makes no sense, Vector. Stop grasping at straws.

If half the town is acting scummy in precisely the same fashion, then you cannot base your arguments against a single person on that ground alone.  Thus I don't think your complaints against Dakarian (where they are mostly talking about his "appeals to emotion") are valid, and I think you should know that already.

Further, as I've been saying: most of your stated "hypocrisy" is not hypocritical at all.  You like throwing that word around like it's candy, whereas most of what I see is "CobaltKobold is trying to get everybody lynched on the mildest of offenses."  Then, you also end up just going "HYPOCRISY!  CONTRADICTION!" with very little explanation whatsoever.  At the very least, it's severely anti-town.  At the most, it's scummy.

Finding inconsistencies is serious stuff, because scum are far, FAR more likely to be inconsistent.

You aren't addressing what I'm actually saying at all.  Finding inconsistencies: yes, that's serious stuff.  Going through yelling "HYPOCRISY AND CONTRADICTION, AND NO I WON'T EXPLAIN MYSELF!" is also serious stuff, and it happens to be ridiculously scummy.

I mean... "I've pulled the bottom card out of a house of cards again!  " with THIS stuff?  Are you serious?  You aren't even addressing my accusations, and in the above tab of scummy stuff you KEEP ON WRITING THE SAME WAY.

The purpose of the above statements is to inform CobaltKobold that, if he is town, he would do well to reconsider his attacking style, as it is so full of holes that the only thing it will hold is viscous liquid.  Such as scum.

The icing my be holy, but there is still a cake beneath it.

The cake is a lie.

A joke? Vector?

A popular culture reference.

... What, do I have a reputation for being humorless?

Second, though he addresses the WIFOM-spreading, he does not address his apparent cautiousness.  Further, all that crap about staged fights is nothing but a vat of WIFOM, and it constitutes most of his arguments against Webadict and perhaps half of the WoT against dakarian.

*shrug* It's my interpretation. It's been...interesting that they've been into each other all game. Also, the nature of the fights is very odd, since each of them are throwing mostly-bad arguments against eachother. "I have a hole but I'm not telling you" for instance.

You have a duty not to WIFOM the town.  The fact that you are doing so happily bothers me.

Happily? I retracted the statement, didn't I?

I don't see you retracting the statement.  I see you explaining it and trying to reinforce it in the above quotation.  Hence, yes.  "CobaltKobold is happily WIFOMing the town."

Third, his arguments continue to be horrifyingly flimsy.  His statement was that he was pointing out "every scummy thing as it floated by, which doesn't look very town."  This is not the issue I take with his statements.  The problem is that he argues based on (extremely old) meta and, rather than searching for scumtells, seems to have confounded himself with "not-town-tells"--i.e., nulltells.

Null-tells would be either known self-used tells (which are going to be town-tells).

Uh.... no.  Null-tells are things that players do when they are town or scum.  We have three options: town-tells, null-tells, and scumtells.  The fact that Dakarian is acting in a way that does not coincide with his town-tells does not mean that he is displaying his scumtells, or is even scum.

Null-tells are either known self-used tells, or... what?  What I'm saying here is that you really aren't doing much by way of identifying scumtells.  Mostly, you're sitting about digging up nulltells, and asking us to believe you're town.

  I treat a bit more as meta than you do, I think. if someone is known for (town)strong arguments, and gives weak ones- that's both scummy(weak arguments) and metascummy(different to their town meta).

Ah-ha, kind of like you used to speak logically and coherently and suddenly you're spewing these messes.  Now I understand.

You may have gone quote-happy in BMIV, but at least you tried to explain yourself.

Further, the "appeals to emotion" he has found do not constitute true appeals to emotion.  Everyone in this thread (a generalization, as I am sure someone has been lurking too much to complain) has complained about its length/ridiculousness here or elsewhere. The "appeals to emotion" he found in me were nothing but apologies after having made grating statements.

There is quite a difference between

A bigger part tells me that Wide Scanning 19 people will make me cry.  *sigh*

and, something like "Yikes, 10 pages overnight"- for instance.

Yes.  That difference is called "personality."  Are we allowed to have those, or has King Kobold banned them, too?

No, that difference is the difference between commenting on something and hamming it up to get the town on your side for no good reason.

Also, Queen Kobold.

Maybe so.  I will continue to posit that Dakarian is acting just the way he usually does, but will leave this point for now.

Also, King Hatshepsut.

I pointed it out by virtue of throwing a mass of quotes at you. I suppose saying "Here we find three buddyings, including, suspiciously, webadict!" would be superior, but communication has been a problem for me, clearly.

Yes.  I suggest you work on that.

I feel like you're saying "Well, you're just too dumb to understand what I mean, then, what with my sesquipedalian diction," to which I answer "screw you."  Being smart includes knowing how to communicate, not just dicking around with things that are so obvious to you and so unobvious to us, the idiots.  This feeling increases when I remember the argument with Cheeetar, where you defined a "referent" as

referent: concept to which an indexical refers.

"An indexical?"  Really?  If you're going to bash us for spelling incorrectly (sware vs. swear), how about learning to use the correct form of a word?

I am using the correct form of the word. Indexical as noun: an indexical statement: a statement pointing at something else. "An index" does not contain this meaning.

1. Screw dictionary.com.
2. Amusing how Dakarian has also picked up on the insane amounts of hubris you're spewing everywhere.  Not really an important point; I just think it's funny.
3. This is a formal request (what, the third one?) that you start working harder on communicating with us.  I don't care how awesome you think you are, you need to work on it.  You may be the best scum-hunter who ever lived, but you're just going to keep getting lynched if you continue to argue like this.

Fifth, there still remain inconsistencies in his arguments, which he has brushed over.  When we were still functioning under the assumption that he had indeed spoken about the doctor in BMIV, he stated that his inconsistency was reasonable given that he had started playing Mafia two weeks ago.  When I brought up the fact that he had started perhaps a month and a half ago, he completely brushed it off.

What I see here is an individual who is bending fact and, when someone brings up the fact that he is incorrect, does not correct himself, apologize, or bring up further reasoning.  He forgets the point as soon as it has been noticed, perhaps in an attempt to cause others to forget as well.

Grasping at straws, I see. You're arguing that my "If it was my first two weeks" comment is bad because it wasn't my first two weeks. However, the point that I'm making with it- that it is still incredibly early in my mafia tenure (or whatever you want to call it)- does not hinge on that fact. So yes, I don't see it as a problem to be found as mistaken or incorrect on a fact that does not impact the game. Like, for instance, if I got your gender wrong. It would not matter for the game unless it was integral to some argument. So, a pronoun inconsistency would not be grounds for "lynch all liars".

No.  My point is not about that specific inconsistency.  It is about the part where I made a remark about your being inconsistent, and you ignored it until I brought it up... again.  In combination with Dakarian's noticing you ignoring his attacks so many times, it is scummy in the extreme.

Further, it did seem to influence the game at the time.  As such, your failure to make any statement about it is suspect.

If it's so small, why not own up to it?  Why not address it?  Instead, you leave it out and later cover by saying "But that wasn't important!!"

I have made statements, I have addressed it.

...

Now you have, after a whole bunch of crap where I run around and try to get you to talk.  That's just fabulous.

No, it's that other people were commenting -not that the person was scum- but that their behavior(meta) was off. The overblown is because I knocked down the rest of your attacks.

Fair enough.

And now again. The house of cards tumbles down...

Wishful thinking.  You cannot bend iron bars with your desire to be free.

[ToonyMan]

list your list of list list hahah

That's not at all what I'm saying.  Let me explain this again again.

1.  All of us were at 1-L for Cobalt in this mafia game.
2.  Cheeetar tells ToonyMan to lynch Cobalt because ToonyMan said he was scum earlier.
3.  ToonyMan says no.
4.  Cheeetar asks why.
5.  ToonyMan says Cheeetar wants to use ToonyMan as a way to lynch CobaltKobold(town).  Cheeetar(scum) THEN can try to get ToonyMan(town) lynched tomorrow ON THE NEXT DAY.  NEXT DAY NEXT DAY.

Why in the world can you not understand this?!

WHY ARE YOU A TARGET TO ME?

You are telling me to lynch a townie, you pop out of nowhere quote what I said early 'cause you know my "tunnelvision" yaddha yaddha so you hoped you could use that against me, IT DIDN'T WORK.

WHY AM I SUSPICIOUS TO YOU?

Oh, isn't this the same thing, oh wait.  You think I'm going to target you in the night?  WUT?  Find this quote I don't remember saying that at all.

WHY IS COBALT A TARGET TO ME?

This makes no sense.  I don't know what Cobalt is going to do.

Also, what changed your mind about Cobalt being a scum? Don't just quote a post and leave it. Quote a post, explain which parts. Put some effort in.

TOONYMAN ONLY TUNNELVISION HAHAHA I CAN GET HIM WITH THIS

Stop saying nonsense, I have absolutely NO CLUE what you are babbling about with targets and all.

[SirBayer]

I did neglect the all-three scum possibility. I don't see it as particularly likely, though. Far, far, far too much attention being garnered - it would be a stupid move in my opinion. Faked fights frequently become obvious, and scum doesn't want to be caught in that.

Also, thanks for finding that quote, Kobold. It isn't the complete thing, but it's the last mention of it that I could find - Dakarian really expected me to KNOW why I wasn't killed, which is slightly more suspicious to me.

Dak, I still think I agree with you... think. Let's finish this. Whether good lynch or bad, it will give us a wonderful foundation to hunt down you and Vector and force out blazing colors.

Toony: You really do need to explain too. Vector brings this up in Cobalt's style, and Webadict is another guilty party. Sometimes you have to change your style for the layman. I saw what Cheeetar was talking about. I don't like it.