Print

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

[Jim Groovester]

Well, I'm posting more and I'm starting to ask a few questions so I'd say I'm starting.

It would be pretty cool if you would put all that good advice into action.

Sometime soon.

Like now.

I made a shaky accusation to see if it would turn anything up. This is known as reaction testing. It's a fairly common tactic, and the only reason it's not very effective is because pretty much everybody can recognize what's going on. It is, unfortunately, in apparent violation of what I said about being transparent, because it's a tactic that requires some subtlety. I can't tell Okami No Rei that I'm testing for his reaction, now can I?

In the same way, wouldn't what Okami did be reaction testing? Why would you agree with me in the first place if that was the case?

Yeah, that was reaction testing. But I don't like it and I don't believe that he was doing it to try and catch scum. Or even that he was actually trying to do a reaction test in the first place.

I agreed with you because I actually was twisting his words, but I knew full well what I was doing and what I was trying to accomplish by doing that.

There's nothing wrong with reaction testing, and there's nothing wrong on the surface about what I did or what Okami No Rei did. It comes down to a question of motives, just like everything else. I think he was trying to be malicious about it, so it ultimately comes down to whether you think I was trying to do the same when I was testing for his reaction.

I love it when people use what I say against me.

I'm pretty sure that's the only way to play mafia.

Well, yeah, but I seem especially prone to people using my mafia platitudes as attacks against me or a defense against what I have to say about them.

My typical response is to say that I don't give a flying fuck about what I said in the past, but I'm an IC so I'm sorta stuck with what I said.

[Powder Miner]

I'm going to need some seriou s advice on how to play once this is over.

[Taricus]

Supercharizad: Why haven't you posted today?

[Vector]

I'm going to need some seriou s advice on how to play once this is over.

You're already receiving that advice, you know.

Calm down, breathe, stop panicking, and stop posting about panicking.  The first step to not panicking is to refuse to allow yourself to panic.

[Heliman]

I love it when people use what I say against me.

I'm pretty sure that's the only way to play mafia.

Well, yeah, but I seem especially prone to people using my mafia platitudes as attacks against me or a defense against what I have to say about them.

So... your saying that your advice is really meaningless statements presented as if they were significant?

I made a shaky accusation to see if it would turn anything up. This is known as reaction testing. It's a fairly common tactic, and the only reason it's not very effective is because pretty much everybody can recognize what's going on. It is, unfortunately, in apparent violation of what I said about being transparent, because it's a tactic that requires some subtlety. I can't tell Okami No Rei that I'm testing for his reaction, now can I?

In the same way, wouldn't what Okami did be reaction testing? Why would you agree with me in the first place if that was the case?

Yeah, that was reaction testing. But I don't like it and I don't believe that he was doing it to try and catch scum. Or even that he was actually trying to do a reaction test in the first place.
I agreed with you because I actually was twisting his words, but I knew full well what I was doing and what I was trying to accomplish by doing that.
There's nothing wrong with reaction testing, and there's nothing wrong on the surface about what I did or what Okami No Rei did. It comes down to a question of motives, just like everything else.

Where does the line between a lie and a reaction test end, exactly?

I think he was trying to be malicious about it, so it ultimately comes down to whether you think I was trying to do the same when I was testing for his reaction.

And ultimately, your defense comes down to a WIFOM scenario.
Unvote
Vote Jim Groovester.

[Jim Groovester]

So... your saying that your advice is really meaningless statements presented as if they were significant?

No, it's good advice. It's definitely worth listening to.

I just hate it when it gets thrown back in my face to make me look like a hypocrite, as if that's somehow supposed to prove something.

I'll tell you right now that hypocrisy isn't a scum tell. It just makes the person a hypocrite. And scum love it, they absolutely relish the opportunity to make somebody look like a hypocrite, because it means they can get away with something that they're completely guilty of.

I know this from experience, because it's happened to me several times.

Where does the line between a lie and a reaction test end, exactly?

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no specific relationship between lies and reaction tests so I don't know why you're asking for the line between the two.

And ultimately, your defense comes down to a WIFOM scenario.
Unvote
Vote Jim Groovester.

What the hell are you talking about, that's not a WIFOM scenario.

If I were trying to use WIFOM to defend myself I would be saying something along these lines: "Why would I do something as x if I were y?"

Do you see me doing that? No. I've explained exactly what I was doing completely unambiguously.

Would you like to vote me for something else you clearly don't have a full understanding of? I would love to correct you about it.

[Heliman]

So... your saying that your advice is really meaningless statements presented as if they were significant?

No, it's good advice. It's definitely worth listening to.

Then you may want to look at the definition of "platitudes" again.

Where does the line between a lie and a reaction test end, exactly?

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no specific relationship between lies and reaction tests so I don't know why you're asking for the line between the two.

In saying "Ah, so I was right. You were just pressuring Taricus for show." Because you knew that your interpretation truly wasn't what he meant, you made, strictly speaking, a lie. You say you used this lie as a mechanism for a reaction test, so I'm asking you, where's the difference? What makes the lie suddenly okay? Okami didn't lie when he tried to do a reaction test, he just aggrandized the truth, so what stopped you from doing the same?

And ultimately, your defense comes down to a WIFOM scenario.
Unvote
Vote Jim Groovester.

What the hell are you talking about, that's not a WIFOM scenario.
If I were trying to use WIFOM to defend myself I would be saying something along these lines: "Why would I do something as x if I were y?"
Do you see me doing that? No. I've explained exactly what I was doing completely unambiguously.
Would you like to vote me for something else you clearly don't have a full understanding of? I would love to correct you about it.
[/quote]WIFOM is the circular reasoning that results from trying to determine the choices of an opponent who acted with full knowledge that his behavior would be subject to scrutiny. Your defense was telling me that in order for me to consider you scum, I have to decide weather or not your actions were malicious. This means that you invited me decide weather or not you were scum by scrutinizing your behavior and therefore formed the following question: "Why would I do something malicious if I'm Town?"

[Heliman]

Oh god damn it I messed up the quotes again.

[Jim Groovester]

Where does the line between a lie and a reaction test end, exactly?

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no specific relationship between lies and reaction tests so I don't know why you're asking for the line between the two.

In saying "Ah, so I was right. You were just pressuring Taricus for show." Because you knew that your interpretation truly wasn't what he meant, you made, strictly speaking, a lie. You say you used this lie as a mechanism for a reaction test, so I'm asking you, where's the difference? What makes the lie suddenly okay? Okami didn't lie when he tried to do a reaction test, he just aggrandized the truth, so what stopped you from doing the same?

I tried to get him to slip up. I used a lie to do this. It's a tactic. I explained exactly what I was doing and what its purpose was when I was asked. If it worked I would have ended up with something usable, more than a worthy goal. It didn't work. Just because it didn't doesn't mean the attempt was some horribly scummy thing to do. (I'll mention that there are tactics out there that are completely dangerous and stupid and scummy to use; a worthy goal doesn't justify using a tactic if it's incredibly risky, but the most that could happen from reaction testing is that somebody points out that you're reaction testing. It's a pretty safe thing to do.)

What would I have used to 'aggrandize the truth'? I used what I thought I could since I've already stated Okami No Rei is hard to attack. I did everything I could think of to do.

'Aggrandizing the truth' still would've been dishonest of me, so if you've got a problem with just the dishonesty itself I guess you're suggesting that I shouldn't try anything at all if I'm completely flummoxed by a difficult opponent where my normal methods wouldn't work at all.

And ultimately, your defense comes down to a WIFOM scenario.
Unvote
Vote Jim Groovester.

What the hell are you talking about, that's not a WIFOM scenario.
If I were trying to use WIFOM to defend myself I would be saying something along these lines: "Why would I do something as x if I were y?"
Do you see me doing that? No. I've explained exactly what I was doing completely unambiguously.
Would you like to vote me for something else you clearly don't have a full understanding of? I would love to correct you about it.

WIFOM is the circular reasoning that results from trying to determine the choices of an opponent who acted with full knowledge that his behavior would be subject to scrutiny. Your defense was telling me that in order for me to consider you scum, I have to decide weather or not your actions were malicious. This means that you invited me decide weather or not you were scum by scrutinizing your behavior and therefore formed the following question: "Why would I do something malicious if I'm Town?"

Well, then, you should clarify. I did not use WIFOM. I did nothing of the sort. You're just reading too much into what I said and putting words in my mouth that I did not say or mean. Now who's fault is that?

I told you to look at it and make a judgment for yourself. In case it's not obvious, that's what you're supposed to be doing for everything you come across.

Why are you saying I've tried using WIFOM when I told you to do something that isn't even remotely remarkable or objectionable at all?

That's silly.

You're silly.

[Heliman]

Where does the line between a lie and a reaction test end, exactly?

I have no idea what you're talking about. There's no specific relationship between lies and reaction tests so I don't know why you're asking for the line between the two.

In saying "Ah, so I was right. You were just pressuring Taricus for show." Because you knew that your interpretation truly wasn't what he meant, you made, strictly speaking, a lie. You say you used this lie as a mechanism for a reaction test, so I'm asking you, where's the difference? What makes the lie suddenly okay? Okami didn't lie when he tried to do a reaction test, he just aggrandized the truth, so what stopped you from doing the same?

I tried to get him to slip up. I used a lie to do this. It's a tactic. I explained exactly what I was doing and what its purpose was when I was asked. If it worked I would have ended up with something usable, more than a worthy goal. It didn't work. Just because it didn't doesn't mean the attempt was some horribly scummy thing to do. (I'll mention that there are tactics out there that are completely dangerous and stupid and scummy to use; a worthy goal doesn't justify using a tactic if it's incredibly risky, but the most that could happen from reaction testing is that somebody points out that you're reaction testing. It's a pretty safe thing to do.)

What would I have used to 'aggrandize the truth'? I used what I thought I could since I've already stated Okami No Rei is hard to attack. I did everything I could think of to do.

'Aggrandizing the truth' still would've been dishonest of me, so if you've got a problem with just the dishonesty itself I guess you're suggesting that I shouldn't try anything at all if I'm completely flummoxed by a difficult opponent where my normal methods wouldn't work at all.

Flummoxed? I don't need to hear complaints like that from an IC. I've only been around a bit and I've already caught him with a scum slip that many people are giving him the eye for! Perhaps you can't find an avenue of attack because you're scum and you know that he's town?
You can use almost any fact to aggrandize the truth. Fact+Suitably Ridiculous Summation= Aggrandized truth, Case in point, the last sentence of my first paragraph would be one such aggrandized truth.
Also you seem to be vague about "If it worked." You know full well that Okami wasn't going to cave to pressure, what were you expecting?

And ultimately, your defense comes down to a WIFOM scenario.
Unvote
Vote Jim Groovester.

What the hell are you talking about, that's not a WIFOM scenario.
If I were trying to use WIFOM to defend myself I would be saying something along these lines: "Why would I do something as x if I were y?"
Do you see me doing that? No. I've explained exactly what I was doing completely unambiguously.
Would you like to vote me for something else you clearly don't have a full understanding of? I would love to correct you about it.

WIFOM is the circular reasoning that results from trying to determine the choices of an opponent who acted with full knowledge that his behavior would be subject to scrutiny. Your defense was telling me that in order for me to consider you scum, I have to decide weather or not your actions were malicious. This means that you invited me decide weather or not you were scum by scrutinizing your behavior and therefore formed the following question: "Why would I do something malicious if I'm Town?"

Well, then, you should clarify. I did not use WIFOM. I did nothing of the sort. You're just reading too much into what I said and putting words in my mouth that I did not say or mean. Now who's fault is that?
I told you to look at it and make a judgment for yourself. In case it's not obvious, that's what you're supposed to be doing for everything you come across.
Why are you saying I've tried using WIFOM when I told you to do something that isn't even remotely remarkable or objectionable at all?

To say that statement twice in a row without a reason would just be a pointless waste of space, because everyone, especially me, knows that already. But, you put meaning behind your statement by posting it and I can only take that meaning as a concealed WIFOM. WIFOM isn't good WIFOM just because it comes in a pretty bottle, sometimes the best WIFOM doesn't even have a label.

[Jim Groovester]

Flummoxed? I don't need to hear complaints like that from an IC. I've only been around a bit and I've already caught him with a scum slip that many people are giving him the eye for! Perhaps you can't find an avenue of attack because you're scum and you know that he's town?

Gotcha. This is about my ICness.

Least I know that's in play again.

You can use almost any fact to aggrandize the truth. Fact+Suitably Ridiculous Summation= Aggrandized truth, Case in point, the last sentence of my first paragraph would be one such aggrandized truth.

What about: "So I was right: You were just pressuring Taricus for show."

I mean, it meets your criteria.

Fact: Okami No Rei was pressuring Taricus.
Suitably Ridiculous Summation: He was doing it for show.

Good enough? It must not be. I can't fathom why not.

Also you seem to be vague about "If it worked." You know full well that Okami wasn't going to cave to pressure, what were you expecting?

What are you expecting with your aggrandized truth in your first paragraph? You can't be expecting much. But you did it anyway. Why? I bet you thought it wouldn't hurt.

Same deal.

To say that statement twice in a row without a reason would just be a pointless waste of space, because everyone, especially me, knows that already. But, you put meaning behind your statement by posting it and I can only take that meaning as a concealed WIFOM. WIFOM isn't good WIFOM just because it comes in a pretty bottle, sometimes the best WIFOM doesn't even have a label.

That's idiotic. That is the most downright idiotic thing that was ever produced by the gentle tapping of your fingers on a keyboard. I mean, how terribly malicious of me to mention that you should do the obvious thing. It clearly was part of some devious plan I employed to dupe you into thinking that I was somehow... you know what. I don't even know what the fuck you're going on about. Concealed WIFOM is pretty much the most bullshit accusation I've ever heard. I mean, it's just so fucking goddamn pointless.

Let's take it further, to its logical extreme. Any person who answers a question quickly and honestly is using Concealed WIFOM. Clearly they want you to think they're town by answering your questions. It's all part of their devious plan to make everybody think they're town. But you're gonna call them out on it, because you know what's up. There's obviously no other alternative.

Oh, and anybody who scumhunts too. Concealed WIFOM. Only scum would want to look like town by hunting for scum.

You know what? Pretty much anybody who's trying to do good townlike things is probably using Concealed WIFOM. You should probably get on everybody for that.

Are you done yet? This whole conversation is bullshit. I already answered everything perfectly fine, and now you're making shit up to be difficult for no good reason since you've got { } to go on.

That's a math joke by the way. It means the empty set. I.E., nothing. I'm sure Vector appreciated it.

[Toaster]

A word on reaction testing:

It's a useful tactic.  If someone seems scummy to you but you can't nail down why, a well-worded leading question can sometimes provoke a slip out of them.  This is one of those times where you hold back from being fully open.  Asking them a question and expecting a certain answer to be scummy can put a wedge in someone's defenses that you can pry open and use for an attack.  Alternately, accusing them with something flimsy can potentially squeeze out an overreaction, a sign that they're nervous about something.  Again, you can use that reaction as an avenue to open an attack.

If you get a solid town response out of them, you can either move on to the next target or try something else.

Scum can do something similar as well- they can try to provoke an "easy target" into making a mistake and then throwing a case at them over that.  It's a blurry line that mostly comes down to intent and the soundness of the argument against the target.  If someone reaction tests someone and goes overboard attacking what seems to be a reasonable response, it could be someone fishing for a lynch.  Telling the difference will come with experience.


Powder:  Telling us that you're panicking won't influence us, because we can tell that already from your posts.  Show us (not tell us, show us) that you've calmed down and proceed reasonably with your case on someone else and you may find the votes falling off you.

So..... Okami, why haven't you been posting?

This is a start, but the question is weak.  You should have enough content by now to be asking prying questions regarding statements the target has made, not offhand questions that could be dismissed with a simple "I've been busy."


Taricus:

Good, and very necessary if do want to win and/or survive ingame.

You're reading the advice.  You're acknowledging that you got the advice.  You're then ignoring it.

I don't know what else to say here.  Look around at the other posts in this game.  Can you not get enough information out of any of them to ask probing questions of others?


Heliman:  You're making a mountain out of a molehill here with your case on Jim.  It's founded on this:

Continuing to interrogate Taricus wasn't exactly getting me anywhere.  I don't like doing work and then having nothing to show for my efforts.

Ah, so I was right. You were just pressuring Taricus for show.

I don't like how you're purposely twisting Okami's words here. He's not saying "show" he's saying "to show for my efforts," which denotes a meaning that translates to "to get from all this."

You're mincing words here.  I'd be lying if I said I hadn't minced words in the past, but I really think you've got nothing here.  Yes, you should be open, but you can't tell someone why you're asking them a question if you're looking for a specific reaction out of them.

You've played a couple games- you should know this.

Just so I'm clear at what's going on in your head, who is your #2 pick and why?

[Taricus]

Right now, I don't see what I could question anyone about in regards to their posts and such.

[Toaster]

Then you're not looking hard enough.

I suggest doing a reread in one of two ways:

1) Read the thread post by post.  In Notepad or whatever, mark down anything odd/interesting about posts something like this:

PlayerA asks RV of PlayerB
PlayerB blows it off and votes PlayerA
PlayerC votes Player B for OMGUS

When that's done, read over the list and see who looks scummiest.  Ask them about whatever it was that made them the scummiest.

2)  Pick a player (either one you suspect, have a bad read of, or arbitrarily) and read all their posts.  Follow their train of thought and see where it takes you.  Is it honest?  Are they consistent?  Are they doing original work and not looking for an easy lynch?  If the answer to any of those questions is no, ask them about it.  Repeat for another player if nothing comes up, or do it even if it does.


You'll get something- you just have to do a bit of work.

[Supercharazad]

Supercharizad: Why haven't you posted today?

Because I'm human, as such, I need sleep. I also had this magical thing called school.


Taricus: Why did you ask such an idiotic question?