Print

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

[Darvi]

Darvi: ...So you're trying to say that in a logical debate, you can just ignore all the questions you don't want to answer? That is not true.

No, but you can ignore all the questions that are plain irrelevant to the debate because they don't actually contribute anything. Also, trick questions which you cannot answer without anybody going "Aha, gotcha!".

Also, you overestimate the importance of q&a when it comes to logic. Logic is about facts, not loaded questions and opinionated answers. If somebody  doesn't want to answer a question, then consider why they would do that and substitute that for it.


And "waiting for answers" is a lazy, lazy excuse for not doing anything, you lazy-ass.

I would be voting NUKE for being generally stupid, and because the DEFCON worries me, but I suspect he may be a jester and that somebody else is the actual nukular threat (probably somebody who inned after NUKE, maybe even sending in the nukular explosion that I posted jokingly).

I can probably assemble a quote from every game I've been in lately where someone seriously suspects me of being a jester.

Maybe, but this is the first time that I remember that your arguments were so alcoholic.

For some reason dariush worries me.

Any more concrete reasons or do you just want to throw around some suspicions and hope we buy them?

[NUKE9.13]

NUKE: Are you going to start boycotting question marks, now??? How does using a lot of question marks make someone scum??? Maybe they're just asking a lot of questions?? How are question marks passive???

What are you doing. I thought you were clever.
You must realise that someone who ends almost every sentence with a question mark is being overly passive and not expressing opinions of their own, which is a bad thing.

You missed my post back there, NUKE. How about a response?

Certainly:

I don't care if it was a joke, stop buddying webadict.

He started it.[/joke]

Yes, but that is an assumption. An assumption based on evidence from previous games, but scum have been lynched on day one before.

I believe it is a safe assumption. Scum have been lynched D1, but it is a rare occurrence.
Not that I think it is literally impossible to lynch scum D1, or even that it is prohibitively unlikely- I just think it is sufficiently unlikely that it makes sense to assume it won't happen, and act thereon (terms and conditions apply)

The NK actually gives less information, as unless an investigative role was right on the money, you have no idea who performed the kill. It could be the Mafia, an SK, or a vigilante. He could've targeted a PWV, or been targeted by a CPR doctor. While, with a mislynch, you have people who voted for the dead townie with questionable motive/arguments/accusations/whatever. You get their interactions with players from both. A lynch gives you a lot more to go off of than a night kill.

I disagree for reasons previously stated:

You earn little information from the death of a towny itself. At least, little valuable information. The process leading up to it, yes. I do not disagree. I am not advocating doing away with the process and ending the day right now with no one lynched; that would be stupid. I am merely objecting to the death at the end of the process.

For extra clarification: The dying part of the lynching process is pretty useless. The information you gain from that is also gained from NKs (to wit what other people's roles are like)

If that person is acting scummy enough, they should be lynched anyway because they could be a godfather.

Yeah, yeah. I am not saying every innocent result should always equal not lynching someone- I don't want to go into a detailed analysis of when with what information it is right to lynch who.

NUKE: How is my use of question marks hypocritical?

Because you have asked many people to deliver more concrete opinions, and stop being passive.
But only asking questions of others is an excellent way to not have to deliver concrete opinions of your own as you sit passively in the background.

[Orangebottle]

What are you doing. I thought you were clever.
You must realise that someone who ends almost every sentence with a question mark is being overly passive and not expressing opinions of their own, which is a bad thing.

Hm. Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.

I believe it is a safe assumption. Scum have been lynched D1, but it is a rare occurrence.
Not that I think it is literally impossible to lynch scum D1, or even that it is prohibitively unlikely- I just think it is sufficiently unlikely that it makes sense to assume it won't happen, and act thereon (terms and conditions apply)

So, we shouldn't even try because there's a slightly increased chance we won't hit scum?

I disagree for reasons previously stated:

You earn little information from the death of a towny itself. At least, little valuable information. The process leading up to it, yes. I do not disagree. I am not advocating doing away with the process and ending the day right now with no one lynched; that would be stupid. I am merely objecting to the death at the end of the process.

For extra clarification: The dying part of the lynching process is pretty useless. The information you gain from that is also gained from NKs (to wit what other people's roles are like)

Mrh. I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this.

[webadict]

And my 2x WIFOM combo is fine. I know how not to get trapped. Because really, I'm not a moron. I don't think scum would directly engage in WIFOM as a solid defense for No Lynching. It's just... stupid. And you don't try to be stupid as scum. It's exactly what I would say/do in his position.

No, it isn't fine. Intelligence is not a measure of scumminess, webadict. Any of us could be scum, regardless of how smart or stupid we are. Action is a measure of scumminess, and voting for a no lynch is a scummy action, unless there's a damn good reason behind it. 

Using a lot of WIFOM is also a scummy action. Which is exactly what the bolded part is. Stop it.

I'm not saying only smart people are scum. I'm saying scum try to act smart. You can be stupid and act smart, but you will certainly not act stupid. Acting stupid draws attention to yourself, or at least it does in this instance. So, you are correct in that action is a measure of scumminess, but you are looking at it in a blatantly dumb way. While there is a black-white answer, there is no black-white process in mafia, so I am allowed to use my own biases in order to say who I believe and do not believe is town or scum. I am predisposed to believe that if someone does what I would do in that exact same situation, then they are probably my current alignment.

What would you do in his position?

I wouldn't be caught dead in his position as any team.
To answer your hypothetical, I'd  start scumhunting instead of pushing a no lynch and making myself look even scummier. Especially since I don't have an established meta of doing scummy bullshit on every day one ever to 'promote discussion'.

Right. You wouldn't be caught dead doing that as scum. It doesn't matter that you wouldn't do this as Town. You're only looking at it from your view. NUKE does not care for RVS, so if I assume that RVS is pointless, and that, hey, why not do my own thing and therefore force it to stop then counter the backlash without thinking about the consequences, then I end up with explaining the previous situation by saying I would indeed not have done that as scum, because it's a stupid thing to do as scum, since he could very well be lynched if no one makes a WORSE misstep than that and, it IS a stupid thing to do as scum.

You just won't accept a basic fact of it is more stupid to do as SCUM than it is to do as TOWN, and that explaining it away as WIFOM is even STUPIDER to do as scum. So, it comes down to whether I believe someone is stupid enough to do these things as scum. I don't. I don't think even I would do that as scum, and I've done some bizarre, silly things.

If you think like NUKE for a second, do you think he would do that as scum?

[Think0028]

RVS vote, why do you still exist? Unvote.

...

Why are you so passive in forming opinions on Nuke's plan ? Do you agree or not ?

His no-lynching is illogical (but usual for his meta, right?). I don't agree with Nuke on no-lynch, but lynching the first guy that pops up is not a good idea either. Since D1 lynches are usually useless.

Now that i think about it, with third parties this might kinda suck. *is confused*

Wait, so you say that you don't want to no-lynch, but D1 lynches are useless. Buddying AND inconsistent logic? That just doesn't sound good, TolyK.


Also, sorry for not posting much. Trying to break this habit of little posting during D1.

Now you're putting words in TolyK's mouth. How is 'not lynching the first person that pops up' saying 'D1 lynches are useless'? Can you explain how his statement is buddying? And your latest post contributed nothing to the overall conversation. I understand not being able to post much, but your posts should still have content when they come. What do you really think regarding NUKE and webadict, aside from joking comments about Webadict's logic?

IronyOwl: who do you currently suspect? What do you think about webadict's discussion about NUKE, considering your vote is currently still on him?

[NativeForeigner]

Just popping in to let everyone know I'm actually here now. I'll finish catching up on the last few pages and make a post after class.

[Powder Miner]

Darvi: ...So you're trying to say that in a logical debate, you can just ignore all the questions you don't want to answer? That is not true.

No, but you can ignore all the questions that are plain irrelevant to the debate because they don't actually contribute anything. Also, trick questions which you cannot answer without anybody going "Aha, gotcha!".
Also, you overestimate the importance of q&a when it comes to logic. Logic is about facts, not loaded questions and opinionated answers. If somebody  doesn't want to answer a question, then consider why they would do that and substitute that for it.

...Hadn't thought of that. I guess you're right, I just get pissed off when people say thigns like "My point is so obvious that I don't have to prove it."

And "waiting for answers" is a lazy, lazy excuse for not doing anything, you lazy-ass.

Yes, I am lazy, to be honest.

[Darvi]

And "waiting for answers" is a lazy, lazy excuse for not doing anything, you lazy-ass.

Yes, I am lazy, to be honest.

Tbh, I can relate to that.

you think like NUKE for a second, do you think he would do that as scum?

If I tried thinking like NUKE, my head would probably collapse from the nuclear fallout. Harharhar.

You earn little information from the death of a towny itself. At least, little valuable information. The process leading up to it, yes. I do not disagree. I am not advocating doing away with the process and ending the day right now with no one lynched; that would be stupid. I am merely objecting to the death at the end of the process.

For extra clarification: The dying part of the lynching process is pretty useless. The information you gain from that is also gained from NKs (to wit what other people's roles are like)

You know, that's plain false. A mislynch oon D1 can tell you a lot about the people who did and who did not vote for the victim. You can guess what somebody's true intentions where depending on the reasons and arguments given. With NK's? not so much.

[Orangebottle]

Orange, you need to think more and act less.

And he's right. Argh. NUKE has his own reasons for voting for a no lynch, and it's apparent that nothing I say or do is going to change that. He does something like this every game, regardless of team.

If you think like NUKE for a second, do you think he would do that as scum?

Why would scumNUKE do this? Probably because he wants me to think he's town.

[IronyOwl]

Darvi:

I don't get it. What does inspecting someone have to do with relying on them to not be bigger assholes than you?

What I'm saying is that'd it help to have somebody be a confirmed townie whose comments are actually worth the time it takes to read them and not just some crap said by a scumbucket.

How do you view comments made by nonconfirmed people?

Darvi, if you were a cop, who would you inspect first?

Why just one question?

Why just him?

I didn't think it'd have any meaning if I asked both/all of them.



Nuke:

How are you going to play a game with so many special roles?

Carefully.

Why?

Very well.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Firstly, I will analyse the given flavour. We don't know if flavour will play a large role here, but it might.
Secondly, I will watch for odd behaviour. Occasionally BYOR roles will have requirements in the form of 'say this every post'.
Thirdly, I will watch with great interest what happens when someone is lynched; how much information we receive as to their role, and what flavour is involved with their death.
Fourthly, I will watch what happens at night, based on public knowledge, claims, and any information that my role might give me. Information pieced together can suggest the shape of missing parts.
Then, all information will be scrutinised for patterns. No crazy theory will be left unconsidered, at least until the level of sanity is known (or guessed at).
Every piece of information will be assumed to be wrong, or caused by someone deliberately obfuscating the truth, and the consequences thereof will be considered
It will be assumed that every lynching will fail (be it due to roles who prevent lynching, doublevoters, vote stealers, unlynchables, or other), and the consequences thereof will be considered.
It will be assumed that every night action will not only fail but backfire spectacularly and the consequences thereof will be considered.
Having considered what could go wrong an estimation as to what will probably happen will be constructed, being an average of the expected and the complete failure (unless the ratio of chaos has been better determined).
Action will occur on the basis of the the most probable scenario with a generous margin of error. Actions which require everything to go right will be considered invalid.

In summary, I intend to act cautiously.

This is completely and utterly worthless, as you basically say "I will assume everything is and goes wrong and nothing is as it seems and consider all possibilities," which mostly translates to "I will be paranoid and do nothing because of it." How exactly do you intend to be useful while contemplating bizarre theories which assume the inspection results are wrong and scum is unlynchable?

The level of chaos is unknown, and there are a lot of players. Which is to say, we have no idea what to expect. The possibility that the town has a glut of investigative roles is valid. A D1 no lynch, then, is not as foolish a course of action as it normally is in games where the structure is well known, and we can expect lynchings to have a useful effect.
D1 lynches being essentially random, it may be better not to risk killing a useful towny who might otherwise have identified a member of the scumteam in the night.

Level of chaos unknown, yet possibility of strong town power roles is valid enough to base actions off of. Right.

Also, this is mafia. Town has to scumhunt, scum has to hide. The notion that town can overwhelm scum using their raw night action strength, even just on N1, is utterly retarded outside of a bastard game (or very specific scenario).

2)I don't. Please read. If, in the cold light of dawn (tempers having being tempered by a nights rest), they still look like scum, I have no problem with lynching them. I suspect that they will not look like scum anymore, unless they actually are. Mistakes could still be made, but I consider it less likely.

What massive difference is the night supposed to make? How are obvscum town going to suddenly look townier next day, while obvscum scum won't?

For example, in the classic WIFOM situation, the odds are 50/50. You can um and ah, but that is what they are. There are two situations, and arguments can be made for both of them- the odds, then, are 50/50, give or take an insignificant percentage. In a situation where, say, the wine in cup A is bright green, bubbling, and giving off smoke which stings the eyes, whilst it is still possible that cup B has been poisoned, the odds are no longer 50/50. More like 80/20, depending. Once again, you can um and ah, but you would still, with no other information, be smart to drink from cup B. Thus, this situation, whilst similar, is not WIFOM.

Not every situation which has two possibilities, neither of which you can be certain of, is WIFOM.

Except then they know it's 80/20 and so intentionally make the bubbling glass not poison, unless they know you'd know they'd do that and make the bubbling glass poison, etc.

Being more or less likely than 50/50 doesn't make it not WIFOM.



Orangebottle:

webadict, what color are you thinking of?

I expected more from you.
You should be experienced enough to know that such questions are usually used as jokes. Except, you slapped a vote onto it, which makes me take the question seriously. Now you've taken the time to put pressure on someone to answer your question, except your question is silly and pointless.

Not necessarily. It got him saying something, and I'm sure he knows a correct/consistent answer to pretty much any "real" RVS question, so I'd say it served its purpose. At the very least, I don't think I'd have gotten more out of a more traditional question.



Tolyk:

Questioning more experienced players imo has less of a chance of mislynching.
Folks pouring on newbtown will break them with the slightest slip, while if the experienced folks slip it's easier to get a closer-to-reality result.
This isn't saying that not everyone should be questioned - obviously we need a sampling of everybody.
 The thing is that in my experience, one person breaks down (typically a new player) and they get trampled, with a potentially helpful player down.

Then why aren't you questioning experienced players? You've even said later that you're afraid of messing up, but here you're claiming there's several individuals you probably don't have to worry about that with.

I don't think we should lynch NUKE.

Well he's acting like himself 
I think we should wait until the other folks come in to make any decisions...
>.>

Why? What do the others have to do with whether or not we should kill Nuke?



Webadict:

The real question is would scum WIFOM. I don't think so, ergo, I don't think NUKE is scum. And yes, I did just use WIFOM on the use of WIFOM. He seemed genuinely sincere about it, so I figured he's probably town.

What about Totem Mafia? Sure, he abandoned it rather swiftly, but that could have been because his partner was the one ragging on him for it.




Urist:

MBP, Think, IronyOwl, Jack: Do something.

Working on it. Long thread is long.


Think:

IronyOwl: who do you currently suspect? What do you think about webadict's discussion about NUKE, considering your vote is currently still on him?

Mainly TolyK and Crown for passiveness.

I think he's experienced enough for it to potentially be valid, but I'm always concerned about anything that requires someone to not be a blithering imbecile, especially someone who's outright known for stupid plans.


Crown: I suppose if I'd wanted to know I should have asked you myself, but I really do want to hear your answer to Simple's question.

Aside from that, who do you suspect other than TolyK? What's your view on the OB vs MBP scuffle?

[ECrownofFire]

I didn't think it was really much of a scumtell. In retrospect, I should have pushed that...

MBP vs OB ended a while ago, but they were both being incredibly stupid. Especially MBP. Really, how hard is it to understand that "What is your favorite flavor of icecream?" is not a good RVS question?

Oh, and other suspicions, working on that. I'm never active enough on D1...

[IronyOwl]

I didn't think it was really much of a scumtell. In retrospect, I should have pushed that...

Then why mention it at all? Why should you have pushed it then but shouldn't push it now?

MBP vs OB ended a while ago, but they were both being incredibly stupid. Especially MBP. Really, how hard is it to understand that "What is your favorite flavor of icecream?" is not a good RVS question?

What was OB being stupid about?

Oh, and other suspicions, working on that. I'm never active enough on D1...

How so? You're not asking questions and you've never mentioned a reread.

[ECrownofFire]

1. I think my logic was that I was hoping that there'd be a reaction to it other than "say something about it".

2. For arguing the damn thing in the first place.

3. Fine, I'm rereading. Happy now?

[webadict]

Orange, you need to think more and act less.

And he's right. Argh. NUKE has his own reasons for voting for a no lynch, and it's apparent that nothing I say or do is going to change that. He does something like this every game, regardless of team.

If you think like NUKE for a second, do you think he would do that as scum?

Why would scumNUKE do this? Probably because he wants me to think he's town.

I dunno. That'd be an awfully dumb way to convince me he's town. He'd have to be incredibly lucky in knowing how I would choose that glass of wine. I know I wouldn't count on it.

Webadict:

The real question is would scum WIFOM. I don't think so, ergo, I don't think NUKE is scum. And yes, I did just use WIFOM on the use of WIFOM. He seemed genuinely sincere about it, so I figured he's probably town.

What about Totem Mafia? Sure, he abandoned it rather swiftly, but that could have been because his partner was the one ragging on him for it.

I didn't read Totem Mafia, so I wouldn't know. But, I dunno. I'll take a look at his other stance, but I'm pretty sure he's town.

Also, TolyK, I need you to start playing less passively. You are not making any opinions on anyone, and you are not being helpful. If I wanted questions answered with questions, I would talk to a valley girl.

[NativeForeigner]

So far, the thread looks like a mess. In short, I'm going to have to go through it again.

For now:

I'm not sure about NUKE, he pulls something like this every game, but this is the first time I've seen him go for a no vote. I don't see the big deal about Wubba defending him, however. If you don't think someone's scum, say something. That is, unless you're looking for a mislynch. I don't like the wine he was throwing around earlier, though.

Wubba: You are aware that NUKE has used risky tactics in the past as scum, right? Particularly in Wild West Mafia (if I remember correctly), where it worked. Just because it seems unlikely doesn't mean that's exactly what's happening.