MINI 1423 Dark Souls: Prepare to die....YOU DIED

[FourTrouble]

So town would not vote for someone on the SK wagon? What is the implication of that?

[PeregrineV]

Iecerint, he says he's voting me because I voted someone on SK's wagon. The implication is that everyone on the SK wagon is town, and thus anyone voting one of them is scum. It has everything to do with what Peregrine posted.

OK, mayhaps an example.

Player B votes Player A
Player A votes Player A
Player C votes Player A
Player D votes Player A
Player E votes Player A

You: There is scum on player A's wagon. It is Player E!
Me: Hey, Player A is on Player A's wagon....

Meh, my point is

I

want to vote Kerrigan for that, but L-1 on page ain't happening. So I'll let her explain it, then will decide.

Meanwhile, options...

[Iecerint]

So town would not vote for someone on the SK wagon? What is the implication of that?

Again, that has nothing to do with why he voted you. You are strawmanning his reasons for voting you to make them look ridiculous and scummy. The fact that you are doing this is scummy. That is why I am voting you.

You also did that no-town-motivation follow-up rhetorical question thing here again (cf., the quote). Is this a quirk that you do in all your games (e.g., regardless of alignment)?

[FourTrouble]

Iecerint, if I express something as a question, it probably means I want to make sure I'm understanding what you are saying correctly. It is a conversational thing, people do it all the time. It basically qualifies things with, "unless I'm mistaken, you're saying..."

Point is, you're saying Peregrine voted for me because town would not vote for someone on the SK wagon. I'm saying the implication there is that everyone on the SK wagon is town.

I never strawmanned Peregrine, I never even said Peregrine was conscious of the implication behind his vote for me. Hence why I asked him the question in the first place. I was trying to understand the depth of Peregrine's thought process as well as his overall logical consistency.

This is the way I play, there is nothing scummy about it.

[Iecerint]

Point is, you're saying Peregrine voted for me because town would not vote for someone on the SK wagon. I'm saying the implication there is that everyone on the SK wagon is town.

I neither said that, nor does that implication follow. I think Peregrine voted for you because your vote for EmpKing was poorly-critical-thinking'd, and then you tried to construe that as Peregrine thinking that the entire SK wagon was town. I think that that construal was scummy because it obviously had nothing to do with why Peregrine voted for you.

The implication itself does not follow because the fact that a vote is poorly-reasoned is only indirectly related to the player the vote is for. For example, you could make a scummy/non-town-motivated vote on town due to bad play or on scum due to bad distancing.

I never strawmanned Peregrine, I never even said Peregrine was conscious of the implication behind his vote for me. Hence why I asked him the question in the first place. I was trying to understand the depth of Peregrine's thought process as well as his overall logical consistency. This is the way I play, there is nothing scummy about it.

The implications of your rhetorical question were so haphazard from my POV that I thought you had to be construing them. Construing things is scummy.

It sounds like you are now saying that your rhetorical question was not rhetorical at all. If true, that deals with my main concern. I will still probably feel weird about you, though, because the implications of what you were saying seemed out-of-left-field to me.

[Zachrulez]

"Hmph. What a waste of time.
Go and fall off a cliff."

Second vote count of Day one

SaintKerrigan: 5 (RestFermata, SaintKerrigan, tigerzone, Nachomamma8, Empking)

FourTrouble 3 (PeregrineV, JasonT1981, Iecerint)
empking: 2 (leviathan93, Human Destroyer)
Human Destroyer: 1 (VP Baltar)
Iecerint: 1 (FourTrouble)

Not voting: 1 (Debonair Danny DiPietro)

With

13

players alive it takes

7

to lynch

DEADLINE:

(expired on 2013-03-07 21:00:00)

[leviathan93]

First I'm going to throw my opinion on the the Kerrigan situation. I am inclined to believe naturally that she is town because the likelihood of pinning scum down on the first day on the first try is incredibly low. however, the self-vote makes things a bit complicated for me. I have self voted before when I was town. I personally see it as a strategy and believe with FT that scum is probably definitely on the wagon somewhere just hoping that there will be enough votes and then a quick-lynch without a claim.

however there is the possibility of SK being scum and using it as a ploy in its own right. I feel that is a bit of a stretch though.

second point. I understand Fourtrouble's point. thought I don't know why he had to go with the LAST person on the SK wagon. there are five people on it on the very first page. I would definitely believe that scum was on it somewhere whether it be one or more. his thinking that it was the last person makes sense but honestly doesn't prove that empking IS in fact scummy.

though I like Peregrines analysis of the situation in post 51, I disagree that it SUDDENLY makes someone scummy or is ANTI-TOWN just because someone votes themselves. I really don't believe that naturally. there is a reason, we just don't know it and SK is the only one who does. yes i can see that i meas SK is hiding something, making them possibly scummy but it is not for sure and indeed not anti-town.

I have a gut read on both and Iecerint as well as Fourtrouble that I think they are all town. Fourtrouble, because I understand his situation because I have been in it myself as town and Iecerint because i think his questioning of fourtrouble is scum hunting worthy.

[Iecerint]

Unvote; Vote: Leviathan

[leviathan93]

^^^^based on mother fucking what?!?

[FourTrouble]

It sounds like you are now saying that your rhetorical question was not rhetorical at all. If true, that deals with my main concern. I will still probably feel weird about you, though, because the implications of what you were saying seemed out-of-left-field to me.

You "construed" my question as rhetorical, I never said nor implied that it was. As for you feeling "weird" about me, I still don't see the problem with what I was saying. I'd like to return briefly to Peregrine's reasoning:

You're voting EmpKing for getting on Kerrigan wagon, which is a wagon she herself is on.Somehow that bugs me.

Peregrine votes for me because I voted for someone on the SK wagon, and this is scummy because SK is voting herself. In other words, it has nothing to do with MY reasoning. It has to do with the facts of the situation: SK voting herself. Peregrine figures SK is scum so the people voting for SK are probably town. And since I'm voting someone who is probably town, Peregrine votes for me.

This is the logic I assumed was behind Peregrine's thought process when he voted for me. It is pretty straight forward, nothing "out-of-left-field." Then, I asked Peregrine a question which would either confirm or disconfirm my theory. What I find scummy is Iecerint's attempt to make me look scummy for asking Peregrine that question. The hypocrisy there is not even subtle: Iecerint says my question construes Peregrine as scummy when actually Iecerint is construing my question as rhetorical and therefore scummy...

[FourTrouble]

Unvote; Vote: Leviathan

Actually, I agree with this vote. What are you reasons though?

[leviathan93]

Unvote; Vote: Leviathan

Actually, I agree with this vote. What are you reasons though?

Yes. but what are YOUR reasons?! you need your own if you are going to hang me out to dry for defending what i see as an obvi town.

[PeregrineV]

@Mod- My weekends have been busy, so I am going LA from now until Monday. Will post if able.

[Iecerint]

@ Leviathan - Your post's reasoning is facile and equivocal.

Pedit @ FT - Consider for a moment that someone posted pure rhetoric to support a perceived strawman argument. Would you find that scummy? I think that is how you should read my reaction.

If the strawman perception on my part was mistaken and/or the question was not rhetorical, my concern starts to go away.

[leviathan93]

@ Leviathan - Your post's reasoning is facile and equivocal.

Pedit @ FT - Consider for a moment that someone posted pure rhetoric to support a perceived strawman argument. Would you find that scummy? I think that is how you should read my reaction.

If the strawman perception on my part was mistaken and/or the question was not rhetorical, my concern starts to go away.

I don't know what a strawman argument is so don't know where you're going with that.

as for my reasoning, who cares if its easy or equivocal? thats what we want here. easy reasoning to follow. not complex reasoning no one can follow. I stated my point and what I believe. that doesn't instantly make me scummy. it disagreed with some of your points. that ALSO doesn't make me scummy.

so unless you go into more depth of what you mean, i cannot follow your reasoning because I don't understand.

[FourTrouble]

Alright, Iecerint gets a pass for now.

Unvote, Vote: Leviathan

Iecerint did not mean how simple/complex your reasoning was... he's talking about the lack of effort behind your post or the taking of strong stances. If you can't even bother to look up what strawman means (Wikipedia serves this purpose quite well), it further confirms the point.

[leviathan93]

then because y'all are so pointless and stupid in your reasoning cuz it doesn't MAKE me scummy.

UNVOTE: VOTE: leviathan

I did put effort into those reads. Its my opinion and what I read. also just because I don't know something doesn't make me scummy cuz i haven't looked it up. no effort, does not imply scumminess. even though you can't read the amount of effort i DID put in to it.

[Iecerint]

A strawman argument is when you pretend that your opponent is making an argument that he is not making, and then you attack that invalid argument. I was talking about FT -> Peregrine stuff, though -- that part had nothing to do with you.

Facile carries the connotation of "problematically simplistic" rather than "easy-to-follow." For example, saying that something is possible, but a stretch, is facile. You are sharing facts about the universe instead of sharing your analysis of the thread. This is scummy because sometimes scum, who KNOW about the universe, have very little to analyze, especially early D1. Struggling to post something thoughtful can sometimes have this effect.

Pedit: Lack of effort can go into it, but it's more like lack of effort + simultaneous attempt to appear as if the posting has depth in concert with that. The equivocation just takes it to the next level.

Peditx2: Oh lordy.

[leviathan93]

sorry for my misinterpretation of the word "facile" I know that word to mean easy. not have much connotation to it. and well I believe that when I said something is POSSIBLE that we should all know that it doesn't make someone scummy. it this instance. SK. SK is not guaranteed scummy because they self-voted. I prove that with my own self-vote. that y'all will see at the end of the game whenever I get lynched because I always look so scummy.

I could care less if scum KNOW about the universe. town know about it too. and everyone I would say is struggling naturally day 1 because we have no real basis arguments to go on other then gut I believe. or a scum tell that I would argue is NOT really all that necessarily scummy. I believe 80 percent or more chance that a town is the one lynched day 1. therefore I use deductive reasoning that the person we most likely choose and think is scummy and too lynch is most likely town. Not ALWAYS. but i would say the majority of the time and that we should throw that into the argument and deciding factor of who to lynch.

and i know i'm not posting much Depth. I'm not good at that kind of thing. i'm more of a philosophical argument thinker rather then an analyzer. therefore all my arguments will show that i'm not showing much depth or any "real scum hunting" my meta constantly shows that which is why I am always getting mislynched.

I never made an argument though. I only defended pre-existing ones.

[Iecerint]

By your logic, we should never lynch anyone because they are probably town.

[leviathan93]

By your logic, we should never lynch anyone because they are probably town.

false. that is not true. that is an understandable path to lead too, but not one that is good for town in the long run. the way around that is for people to truly understand arguments and make them reasonable votes. not just vote for things like obvious scum tells. things change in games. and i find most scum tells are done by town and other scum use them to lynch town.

[leviathan93]

eventually someone has to be lynched. I always believe a claim should happen before that. quick lynches are a no. plus in this game we can give our character name that cannot be faked.

[Empking]

Unvote
Vote: lev

His wself-vote was a ploy; a ploy of the scum variety.

[leviathan93]

^^^^^ another excuse just to lynch someone.

UNVOTE: which means because I unvote myself that means its a ploy. a ploy of the TOWN variety....your logic used against you. =P

[Empking]

^^^^^ another excuse just to lynch someone.

UNVOTE: which means because I unvote myself that means its a ploy. a ploy of the TOWN variety....your logic used against you. =P

No it's still a ploy of the scum variety. The ability to unvote, denting their wagon and possibly unraveling it, is a base bonus of scum self-voting.