Mafiascum.net

In post 199, Drew-Sta wrote: You didn’t make that clear in your original post. Maybe be clearer, and then I won’t confuse your intentions.
What you’ve done (a form of gaslighting) is very effective at making a person look guilty, because you’re changing the past on them.
I’m not a fan of that behaviour and it stinks.

I'm sorry you feel like I'm gaslighting you, I'm not though....
What I said was

Riabi wrote: I accept the possibility that there are two millers, but, it doesn't seem very likely to me. I think it's way more likely that one of them (Drew, probably) is lying.

Where do you get from that that I said anything was impossible? I don't see how this could be interpreted any other way....

Just as an aside, I don't take things personally in game. I've seen gaslighting used effectively by mafia before, so I don't consider anything in game a personal thing etc. Play the game, and play hard

--

This is directed @Riabi:

You said this:

All that said, I accept the possibility that there are two millers, but, it doesn't seem very likely to me. I think it's way more likely that one of them (Drew, probably) is lying.

You accept the situation as unlikely. This means the following:

* You have a set view of the game set up, that you aren't willing to expand your mind to accept a different reality
* You don't believe me, and consider me a liar

I said this:

I can’t wait to flip town. The egg on peoples faces...

I don’t proclaim to be a brilliant player, but gosh, the completely retarded reasoning of ‘it’s totally unlikely, therefore impossible and Drew is lying’ reasoning is some of the worst I’ve ever seen.

... which is saying what I said in my two points above. Just differently.

You said:

I feel like I should point out that the argument you claim I'm making is literally not the one I'm making. I never said "it's unlikely, therefore impossible" I said, it's unlikely, and so you lying is more likely. I know you have to defend yourself but, mischaracterizing other's arguments is maybe not the most effective way to do that...

You are basically saying, I accept the two points as true, because the alternative doesn't make sense to me. And what I've said is such, but you've said something different.

I said:

You didn’t make that clear in your original post. Maybe be clearer, and then I won’t confuse your intentions.

What you’ve done (a form of gaslighting) is very effective at making a person look guilty, because you’re changing the past on them.

I’m not a fan of that behaviour and it stinks.

... which is me saying 'You've accepted a truth and are behaving as such. As is indicated in how you are treating situation. I'm calling you out on that, but you're suggesting I'm mischaracterising your argument. That is false.'

Can you understand now?

Also, open your mind to the possibility that what I'm saying is true. Who benefits from this confusion and focus on me?

The part I object to in your characterization of my argument is:

Drew-Sta wrote:‘it’s totally unlikely, therefore impossible

I've never said it was impossible, and to interpret anything I've said as that is disingenuous at best, malicious at worst.

Then you go and add this:

Drew-Sta wrote: * You have a set view of the game set up, that you aren't willing to expand your mind to accept a different reality

This is a terrible premise, and completely false. It's not a question of willingness at all. It's just that I find the likelyhood of there actually being two millers in the same game to be fleetingly small. I've considered your argument that you and mavs are both telling the truth, and, while I admit it is possible, I just find it far more likely that one of you is lying. From there, I consider which of the two of you is more likely to be lying, and I think that's you.

Drew-Sta wrote: You are basically saying, I accept the two points as true, because the alternative doesn't make sense to me. And what I've said is such, but you've said something different.

Once again, this is false. Your argument does make sense to me, I just don't find it compelling. There's a big difference.

Why don't you stop trying to summarize what I'm saying and let me speak for myself?

@Mod Thank you.

VOTE: Drew

In post 202, Riabi wrote:The part I object to in your characterization of my argument is:

Drew-Sta wrote:‘it’s totally unlikely, therefore impossible

I've never said it was impossible, and to interpret anything I've said as that is disingenuous at best, malicious at worst.

Then you go and add this:

Drew-Sta wrote: * You have a set view of the game set up, that you aren't willing to expand your mind to accept a different reality

This is a terrible premise, and completely false. It's not a question of willingness at all. It's just that I find the likelyhood of there actually being two millers in the same game to be fleetingly small. I've considered your argument that you and mavs are both telling the truth, and, while I admit it is possible, I just find it far more likely that one of you is lying. From there, I consider which of the two of you is more likely to be lying, and I think that's you.

Drew-Sta wrote: You are basically saying, I accept the two points as true, because the alternative doesn't make sense to me. And what I've said is such, but you've said something different.

Once again, this is false. Your argument does make sense to me, I just don't find it compelling. There's a big difference.

Why don't you stop trying to summarize what I'm saying and let me speak for myself?

It’s not a terrible premise. It’s a reality I’m trying to get you to conceive of because it IS what is happening.

You consider the likelihood of two millers as not applying to this situation. Therefore, it’s impossible for you to conceive of it being in play, and dealing with that scenario. I’m not misrepresenting or summarising your argument. I’m following it through to it’s conclusion.

Do you see that?

Tell me. What posts make you think I’m lying and why?

Knightmare, Una, Salad, Luca. They’re my scum picks.

Lynch me now.

Then look at them.

In post 205, Drew-Sta wrote: It’s not a terrible premise. It’s a reality I’m trying to get you to conceive of because it IS what is happening.

Your premise is terrible because you say it's about my willingness to consider your argument. I DID consider it, and I don't agree.

In post 205, Drew-Sta wrote: You consider the likelihood of two millers as not applying to this situation. Therefore, it’s impossible for you to conceive of it being in play, and dealing with that scenario. I’m not misrepresenting or summarising your argument. I’m following it through to it’s conclusion.

This is not how probabilities and likelyhoods work, and what's worse, is I think you know that, but I can't prove that part.

I'm bored of this argument, and won't be engaging it any more after this post, you are consistently, (and I believe flagrantly), misrepresenting me, and it's a pretty useless argument at this point.

In post 205, Drew-Sta wrote: Tell me. What posts make you think I’m lying and why?

There aren't any specific posts, again it's a probabilities game. If I'm going with the assumption that one of you is lying, which one of you is most likely? Well, counter-claiming a miller if you're not one would a really ballsy play, and, I think the first claim is more likely false.

What if there are two millers?

When I show up as town, what will be your first response in the game eg what will you look to do?

In post 209, Drew-Sta wrote:What if there are two millers?

Then I'm wrong?

Drew-Sta wrote:When I show up as town, what will be your first response in the game eg what will you look to do?

There are too many factors at play for me to answer this question. Things like who else dies at night will weigh heavily on how I proceed in D2.

In post 206, Drew-Sta wrote:Knightmare, Una, Salad, Luca. They’re my scum picks.

Lynch me now.

Then look at them.

Sure a person who's on v/la is your scum read lmao.

I saw another person accuse Una of "double speaking", and like... are you people intentionally playing dumb?

As for my suspicion of Knightmare. Started off with an RVS vote, then dissapeared, and reappeared only to contribute to mech talk (65, 66). His first "game contribution" comes in 102, which was after I was voting him, and he prods about something that was posted a while back. And for the rest of his ISO there's very little "actual game-related content" while he's been pretty active throughout. So makes me think active lurking.

In post 212, Knightmare491 wrote:

In post 206, Drew-Sta wrote:Knightmare, Una, Salad, Luca. They’re my scum picks.

Lynch me now.

Then look at them.

Sure a person who's on v/la is your scum read lmao.

A person who is avoiding this issue. Yes.

In post 213, Tanner wrote:I saw another person accuse Una of "double speaking", and like... are you people intentionally playing dumb?

Una has not been consistent.

You can probably say that about 4 other people in this game. My timezone is GMT +5.30 so I wasn't there for most of the RVS. Drew's claim was the first real point of interest in the game, it had already been explored and he was questioned by other so there was no point beating a dead horse.

In post 213, Tanner wrote:I saw another person accuse Una of "double speaking", and like... are you people intentionally playing dumb?

I'm surprised you of all the players here apparently understood my motives.
Doesn't change the fact that I currently scumread you the most, and therefore it sort of makes me feel uneasy.

others*

...am ...am I seriously the only person here that knows what a reaction test is? After it has been laid out as such?7

pedit: Knightmare, I'm not talking about your inactivity as a whole (you'll notice I haven't pushed Luca or Riabi who have been the most inactive so far - Riabi up to recently at least.) It's the fact your posts are empty air when you *do* post them.

Oh, and to be absolutely clear - I'm not arrogant enought to say that people are stupid for not understanding me.
I know for a fact that if no one else gets me, the blame lies with me and my output.
But.
..nobody gets me.

Sorry to hear that, Una. Do you wanna talk about it?

pedit: this was re: 217

In post 215, Drew-Sta wrote:A person who is avoiding this issue. Yes.

You're assuming he's read the thread. Seeing that even the IC isn't reading the thread....................

Luca is always V/LA on weekends. That kinda push is disingenuous at best, downright insulting at worst.

In post 219, Tanner wrote:pedit: Knightmare, I'm not talking about your inactivity as a whole (you'll notice I haven't pushed Luca or Riabi who have been the most inactive so far - Riabi up to recently at least.) It's the fact your posts are empty air when you *do* post them.

Yeah like I said, there hasn't been something which nobody has picked on or much happening in general to post about. I can't produce content from thin air.