In post 572, Shoshin wrote:Why are you assuming that mistakes aren't indicative of alignment? Haven't you ever heard of something called a "scum slip"?
granted it's been a couple of years on this site, in general scum slips rarely happen.
I am actually not making the assumption that mistakes are alignment indicative. You are the one doing that.
The mistake is not alignment indicative, you want everyone to believe it is.
In post 569, Gustavo wrote:That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read in a while. Mistakes happen. People misreading things happen. I almost always end up scum reading the people who scum read me and I do it as town. Your original point has been disproven and now spinning it to something else isn’t going to fly.
Why are you assuming that mistakes aren't indicative of alignment? Haven't you ever heard of something called a "scum slip"? As cognitive science, social psychology, and behavioral economics teaches, mistakes are almost always the result of a cognitive bias. So rather than assume a mistake is nothing more than a mistake, I ask questions about the mistake. I look at what the mistake tells us about a player's unconscious thought patterns and biases. You need to ask what the mistake tells us about Mumble's perspective (is it informed or uninformed? defensive or offensive? directed towards pro-scum or pro-town objectives?), and the answer to that question strongly suggests that Mumble is scum who knows (consciously or unconsciously) that townies are after him.
I've done all this and determined that the "mistake" tells us absolutely nothing about Mumbles alignment cuz all he did was interpret a post a way that it could easily be interpreted.
It doesn't matter whether Mumble's interpretation is "reasonable" because reasonableness isn't indicative of alignment. The question we need to ask is whether it's a "natural" interpretation from a town perspective.
In 309, Mumble questions Garuga's read on Invisibility: "why naked vote him instead of asking him to clarify"? Garuga replies in 311: "I was already voting him since 48. I don't think this sort of posting comes from town trying to solve the game. I think it's newbscum trying to discredit me since I voted havingfitz, and Invis's reaction is actually one of the main reasons I scumread HF. The re-vote confirms my read on him and makes my post a bit more flavorful."
311's first sentence ("I was already voting him since 48") clearly refers to Invisibility.
311's second sentence ("I don't think this sort of posting comes from town trying to solve the game") clearly refers to Invisibility when read in context, because it directly responds to a question about Invisibility, the prior sentence refers to Invisibility, and the following two sentences refer to Invisibility.
311's third sentence ("I think it's newbscum trying to discredit me since I voted havingfitz, and Invis's reaction is actally one of the main reasons I scumread HF") clearly refers to Invisibility.
311's fourth sentence ("The re-vote confirms my read on him and makes my post a bit more flavorful") clearly refers to Invisibility.
The only thing 311 has to do with Mumble is that it answers a question Mumble asked in 309. Yet Mumble interprets 311's second sentence, specifically Garuga's "this sort of posting" language, as referring to Mumble's posting in 309. Is that interpretation possible? Yes. It's always possible to distort what the word "this" refers to. But that doesn't mean it's natural to do so, especially since Mumble had no reason to believe Garuga was scum other than his own distorted reading of Garuga's language (and remember, Mumble immediately changed his vote after Garuga clarified his meaning).
So why'd Mumble distort Garuga's language? Cognitive science teaches that this sort of error happens as a result of unconscious biases. What sort of bias underlies Mumble's error? A belief that Garuga is after him. Is that bias indicative of alignment? Yes, because it's a bias that comes exclusively from a scum perspective. While scum would've known that Garuga was after them because scum would've known that Garuga was town, town wouldn't have had any reason to believe Garuga was after them unless they strongly believed that Garuga was scum (and Mumble didn't strongly believe Garuga was scum because he immediately changed his vote after Garuga clarified his meaning). So the specific bias that explains Mumble's error - a belief that Garuga is after him - reveals an unconscious bias that comes only from scum, not town.
In post 580, Shoshin wrote:Is that bias indicative of alignment? Yes, because it's a bias that comes exclusively from a scum perspective. While scum would've known that Garuga was after them because scum would've known that Garuga was town, town wouldn't have had any reason to believe Garuga was after them unless they strongly believed that Garuga was scum (and Mumble didn't strongly believe Garuga was scum because he immediately changed his vote after Garuga clarified his meaning).
ffs
We were three days into D1, I didn't have a strong read on anyone. I started engaging with Garuga, and thought that he took Rampage up to be a competing wagon with Invis which is why I originally started questioning him. Realized he was already on the wagon which is why I asked why he voted again. He then made a post that I interpreted as push on me for a very weak reason so voted Garuga. After clarification, I had no reason to keep pushing him, wanted a real wagon since we hadn't had one yet in the day (hence "better served) so voted Rampage.
You aren't as smart as you think you are. Your cognitive science is junk. You are possibly being bad town; but, more likely, are scum grasping to push my lynch.
Stop posting walls of junk. Stop tunneling for bad reasons. Stop crapping up the game.
Explain this please. I’ve been really busy irl and haven’t posted as much as I could so I’m kind of skeptical why anyone would town read me. Don’t get me wrong, I definitely appreciate it just don’t understand it.
You haven't posted anything to make me think otherwise. And a congruence of thought for the most part.
In post 580, Shoshin wrote:In 309, Mumble questions Garuga's read on Invisibility: "why naked vote him instead of asking him to clarify"? Garuga replies in 311: "I was already voting him since 48. I don't think this sort of posting comes from town trying to solve the game. I think it's newbscum trying to discredit me since I voted havingfitz, and Invis's reaction is actually one of the main reasons I scumread HF. The re-vote confirms my read on him and makes my post a bit more flavorful."
When you post it without the quote it looks worse.
These 2 sentences can be 2 completely separate thoughts:
I was already voting him since 48. --------------- I don't think this sort of posting comes from town trying to solve the game.
JJD, I understand how it's "possible" to interpret the post as Mumble did. Lots of interpretations are "possible" when you start isolating sentences and words outside of their context, especially when it comes to words like "this." But that's all besides the point. If you're town, and you're asking Garuga a series of questions about his read on Invisibility, you're not reading that sentence in isolation, you're reading it as part of an answer to your questions, in the context of a previous answer to a previous question, right after a sentence that was clearly about Invisibility, and right before another two sentences that clearly refer to Invisibility. It's difficult to imagine a townie in the middle of that inquiry suddenly isolate a single sentence from the context, emphasize the word "this," and interpret "this" as applying to something outside that original inquiry or context. Can you explain how a townie in Mumble's shoes, who presumably cares about Garuga's answers re: Invisibility more than Garuga's read of Mumble, ends up doing that?
