I mean if you want to argue semantics. Sure some mistakes can be AI but since true scum slips happen so rare in my experience, I stand by my argument that mistakes aren’t AI.In post 697, Shoshin wrote:If scum slips happen, then mistakes can be alignment indicative, right?
How strong town? And why?In post 703, Mumble wrote:In my town pool for now.
I don't think that's the entire case on Mumble, and I do think reading mistakes can be AI, but are not necessarily AI. A lot of whether something is AI or not is meta based. What does that person usually do as scum or as town? As a general rule, I think Shoshin is correct, that scum usually are more paranoid and are more likely to make a mistake of the sort Mumble made. But the post was confusing and I can easily see how it could be misread, and so I think in this case it doesn't mean very much.In post 677, Gustavo wrote:can you chime in on shoshin's idea that mumbles making a reading mistake is AI which makes mumbles scum.In post 673, texcat wrote:VOTE: Invisibility
I didn't like his quick vote on JJD toDay, followed by a vote for Shoshin, the 2 people he said were not SvS.
This is just twisting what I’m saying in that post. If somebody makes a mistake, realizes it, admits it and moves on. That’s not AI. If they deny they made one and keeps pushing their agenda, then it’s AI.In post 697, Shoshin wrote:Wait, nevermind. Mistakes can be alignment indicative ("have to look at the intent behind it").
You're 75% that he's town? That's basically random... What do you think of the reasons people have given for voting him? Do you think scum are voting him?In post 706, Mumble wrote:75% confidence level. We have similar town reads and he is the counterwagon to you, who I think is scum.
That's my point... You seem to be saying mistakes can't be alignment indicative (i.e. an absolute) and I'm saying that in some circumstances they can be (i.e. looking at specific circumstances on their own terms). So I want a straight answer:In post 708, Gustavo wrote:This isn’t a game of absolutes.
I’ve never waiverd from that idea. You tried your best but just like I expected you failed. You are very obviously scum at this point.In post 697, Shoshin wrote:Oh, that didn't last long - we're back to saying mistakes can't be alignment indicative.
These reads feel kind of random. Feel like explaining em?In post 714, Mumble wrote:Between Texcat or BBT. Leaning BBT.
TownIn post 699, Shoshin wrote:Gustavo, what's your read on Invisibility?
Yeah, sure. Wait until I get to a computer though.In post 716, JarJarDrinks wrote:These reads feel kind of random. Feel like explaining em?In post 714, Mumble wrote:Between Texcat or BBT. Leaning BBT.
lol no, my scum play sucks... I wish I could play scum the way I'm playing in this game...In post 720, Mumble wrote:Shoshin push on me this game feels almost identical to Shoshin on Byron in Scientific mafia.
Meaning if somebody makes a mistake and gets called on it, it they don’t admit their mistake and back off, their intent is scummy. It actually means it wasn’t a mistake after all.In post 702, Shoshin wrote:Gustavo, you said earlier that "you have to look at the intent behind it." What did you mean by that if no that mistakes can be alignment indicative depending on the underlying intent?
He defended BBT earlier.In post 717, Shoshin wrote:I actually like Mumble's reads on Tex and BBT. They're probably wrong, but they make sense given his internal logic.
