Mafiascum.net

In post 270, goodmorning wrote:inb4 amished.

Did this one leak out or do we still keep it amongst ourselves in the cool kid club? I scratched my chin over that as well; it doesn't reach the level of critical assessment that I'd usually demand but when I think about it more there's not a good weird that you'd mention, it's almost certainly setting the table for exactly what the Amished tell was found to catch.

Ast was in my initial "good votes" list, I think this solidly locks Dragonfire in it. Scum-copper is still a better vote for now though.

Dragon is more likely to be town, I see 0 opportunism in his stances.

@GM
Your charge is not a charge, WIFOM is not scum indicative per se and I've yet to see where I've done what you say I've done other than possibly in your imagination.

@DDD: I don't understand what you mean but it is 2:30 so maybe I'll get it when I've had some sleep?

@copper:
A. opportunism is not necessarily scummy.
B. interesting that you'd classify opportunism as scummy right before placing a fairly opportunistic vote on Accountant.

"This WIFOM is why I'm so Town" is scummy.

@GM
How bad vs how full of shit are you?

I said he lacked opportunism so he wasn't likely to be scum, that is not the same as saying that opportunism is necessarily scum-indicative (almost nothing is necessarily scum indicative on it's own btw).

You then proceed to use an invented statement from me and claim that's what I am doing wrt. to my Accountant vote (why would my vote be opportunistic?) and find an hypocrisy (which according to you is not scum-indicative) that never was there to begin with, wut?

No it's not (wrt to WIFOM about being so townie), your invented kind is not by definition (as I have the advantage of being able to read my PM), and I've been in plenty of games where town were the only ones guilty of that sin, Drixx and LucianRoy actually do that more often as town and I've watched roughly a week ago a Lylo where TownEgg's main defense was to try explain why he could not be scum in that situation.

Since you say you don't get DDD, he is saying that Dragon commenting on the previous owner of his slot and finding what he is saying weird is a scum-tell, it's a stretch of the amished tell, which says that if you scum-read the slot you replaced into you are scum.

I'll remove the likely and not likely and just deal with absolutes to make it even easier.

Proposition:
P: X is not opportunistic
Q: X is not scum
NotP: X is opportunistic
NotQ: X is scum


Copper:
- P -> Q so Dragon is town.

GM:
- Since NotP ->NotQ is not necessarily true what you said is incorrect (it's unclear if she means scum indicative or just wrong).
- Since you're doing NotP you're more likely to be scum (she says it's interesting you are doing it but that's the only reasonable conclusion of what she is implying).

This shows either lack of understanding of logic or scum intent as P ->Q is equal to NotP ->NotQ, so which one is it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

P -> Q by itself isn't an obvious statement at all so you need to justify that first.

Leaning town - Accountant, drealmerz, copper, Stapler

Why stapler?

In post 281, Accountant wrote:P -> Q by itself isn't an obvious statement at all so you need to justify that first.

Not for the point I made above I don't.

Why is town less likely to be opportunistic compared to scum?

Because scum have to mislynch a townie so they are on the look-out for opportunities to do so, sometimes they take them and sometimes they don't depending on many factors but on average it's more likely to reflect their behavior compared to a townie that has very little incentive (some cases exist where they are also at risk or we are getting close to the deadline and they believe that a lynch is better than none but they are mostly irrelevant at the moment) and will mostly only do so by happenstance.

Speaking of justification, you have as yet not told me what good arguments there are that you are aware of for my wagon, nor why scumGL would more likely side with Jae in his opening post (see 267), according to you ignoring requests to clarify reads are an indicator that you are scum coasting.

I missed 267.

I think that DDD's point about you being disingenuous, misreppy and intentionally using arbitrarily high standards to make up reasons to scumread him is a good one. I don't like how you went from "outsider offering occasional commentary" to suddenly super invested the moment someone calls you out - I think that's a lesser version of beetlejuicing. I think that you calling GuiltyLion and DDD obvscum without explaining why, then claiming it was a reaction test, then voting me, is terrible and I don't buy your reaction test argument. I don't like how you were trying to set up an ML here:

if I am screwing up by misreading JaeReed (in which case I deserve the heat) this is where I'd look for their partner.

I've gone through your ISO and I haven't seen a single post that I actually really like. Finally, you're a big wagon, and I like jumping on big wagons, especially if they're justified.

As for the second, scum!GL would side with Jae because it's an easy way to attack the IC. Not to mention some people have said Jae is town but everyone is still kinda ambivalent/townleaning but uncertain on GM.

1. I become more or less involved depending on how strong my reads are (IRL limiting factors also can play a role ofc), before the reaction test I had some town-leans and a weak scum-read on Oncilla who wasn't posting, now I want to know which of you (I mean it's possible I am playing so bad that I only have town against me but that has never happened, in fact I have never been lynched as town (WIFOM WIFOM) so I'll believe it when I see it) think they can push me and crush your soul, which does make me quite invested in the game.

2. How convenient of me that I had a perfectly valid reason to reaction test those slots after I randomly decided to set-up a mislynch, makes it look like I actually were reaction testing to begin with.

3. Regarding my vote on you:

3.1. I read 1727 after your vote and Accountant in that game is not very compatible with the Drealmer case you presented earlier on.

3.2.

As for the second, scum!GL would side with Jae because it's an easy way to attack the IC. Not to mention some people have said Jae is town but everyone is still kinda ambivalent/townleaning but uncertain on GM.

This assumption makes no sense to me, further your professed town-read of GL doesn't fit well with your initial reaction to his case on Jae:

In post 198, Accountant wrote:Why is this scummy? Do you think a town Jae would make less assumptions, hold GM to a lesser standard?

In post 198, Accountant wrote:Goes for this as well, actually. You've explained the weakness of the case, but not why it was more likely to come from scum than town.

You later don't even know who your top town-read is voting:

In post 265, Accountant wrote:Oh, he's voting JaeReed?

combined with GL having a low amount of posts and you town reading Jae I think it's likely this read is BS and you made it up.

If that's the case it's likely you did so because GL is right about Jae and that's why he looks town to you, it's also why I said your vote is opportunistic, I'd already have 3 townies against me in your corner and your buddy just needs to find an excuse to vote or more likely another townie will just hammer sooner or later and you'd have a nice split.

4. 255 257 and 259 Your only interest here is to hear my read, discredit it and move on, it makes it unlikely you are genuinely interested in my alignment.

It means that I believe that as scum (notQ) you are more likely to be opportunistic (notP), not that you if you are opportunistic (notP) you are necessarily scum (notQ), which is what GM used to discredit the read and which is a logical fallacy.

That's an outright misrep of what GM said. She said that you thought opportunism was scummy, which is what "as scum you are more likely to be opportunistic" means. That's literally what the word "scummy" means. Stop pretending like you don't know, you're an SE. Nobody on earth claimed that someone is confirmed scum because they did one thing that was scummy.

I become more or less involved depending on how strong my reads are (IRL limiting factors also can play a role ofc), before the reaction test I had some town-leans and a weak scum-read on Oncilla who wasn't posting, now I want to know which of you (I mean it's possible I am playing so bad that I only have town against me but that has never happened, in fact I have never been lynched as town (WIFOM WIFOM) so I'll believe it when I see it) think they can push me and crush your soul, which does make me quite invested in the game.

So in other words ? That's not town mindset. That's OMGUS at best and a scum agenda at worst.

I read 1727 after your vote and Accountant in that game is not very compatible with the Drealmer case you presented earlier on.

It's almost like I change my playstyle between games, because different games have different players and different approaches to playing. Not to mention I learn from my mistakes each game.

This assumption makes no sense to me, further your professed town-read of GL doesn't fit well with your initial reaction to his case on Jae

What do you mean by this?

I think GL's case on Jae is shit - that doesn't mean I don't townread him.

You later don't even know who your top town-read is voting:

Why is this relevant?

If that's the case it's likely you did so because GL is right about Jae and that's why he looks town to you

You're pushing a case on me based on reasoning that's only valid if I'm scum, which boils down to Accountant is scum because X, X because Accountant is scum. And you're doing this, not because you think you can get away with circular logic, but because it looks linear to you - because you already know what conclusion you want to push when you created your case.

Your only interest here is to hear my read, discredit it and move on

Of course. I want to know why you read me as scum. But once you gave a dumb reason for reading me as scum, all I needed to do was show town how wrong you were and move on to something that's more interesting.

In post 279, copper223 wrote:I said he lacked opportunism so he wasn't likely to be scum, that is not the same as saying that opportunism is necessarily scum-indicative (almost nothing is necessarily scum indicative on it's own btw).

If I say "this book has very little plot and so is unlikely to be good" that's exactly the same as saying "lack of plot is typically bad-book-indicative." We use the specific instance to inform the general.

You're playing bullshit with semantics and not even doing it well.

(Since I see you're playing bullshit with logic, too: please note the "typically" above. If you claim that X makes someone to be Scum, then you're mathematically/probabilistically claiming that notX makes them to be Scum.)

(as I have the advantage of being able to read my PM)

How many times are you going to tell us you're Town? You know what they say in writers' workshops? Show, don't tell. You've been onsite long enough to have picked up that maxim.

Since you say you don't get DDD, he is saying that Dragon commenting on the previous owner of his slot and finding what he is saying weird is a scum-tell, it's a stretch of the amished tell, which says that if you scum-read the slot you replaced into you are scum.

Given that I referenced the Amished tell by name, that's obviously not the problem I was having.

In post 284, copper223 wrote:

It means that I believe that as scum (notQ) you are more likely to be opportunistic (notP), not that you if you are opportunistic (notP) you are necessarily scum (notQ), which is what GM used to discredit the read and which is a logical fallacy.

Except that those are two different statements. If you weren't being disingenuous, the second would read "if you are opportunistic, you are to be Scum" to match the wording of the first.

But you are being disingenuous, so.

--

@DDD: I still dgi. Can you rephrase?

In post 286, goodmorning wrote:@DDD: I still dgi. Can you rephrase?

A) Has that tell been widely disseminated? Back in my day... err... only a select few of us knew and used it.

B) Here's the extent of the crime...

In post 268, Dragonfire wrote:I did slightly scumread DDD's predecessor oncilla based on gut feelings, but I should probably put that aside since he has been replaced. After all, my own predecessor said some quite weird things

Initially I wasn't sure "weird" was enough of a criticism to qualify for the tell. But upon pondering it further all the context for weird seems to be negative and I think it's a decent application of it.

I know of the Amished tell. It's not particularly valid imo. It's weird to criticize your predecessor in general, but not alignment-indicative weird.

It has and it's mostly debunked at this point.

I think it's more weird that Dragonfire would drop suspicion just because of a replacement.

In post 285, Accountant wrote:That's an outright misrep of what GM said. She said that you thought opportunism was scummy, which is what "as scum you are more likely to be opportunistic" means. That's literally what the word "scummy" means. Stop pretending like you don't know, you're an SE.

Nobody on earth claimed that someone is confirmed scum because they did one thing that was scummy.

This is what GM said:

goodmorning wrote:A. opportunism is not necessarily scummy.

Which is different from what you are interpreting for her and the difference is not just semantics, it's also why I wrote it like this (nice later accusation of misrep for quoting you GM, that has to be the first case of quote misrepping!)

So in other words your reads strengthened once people started to suspect you? That's not town mindset. That's OMGUS at best and a scum agenda at worst.

In other words my ass, what I said is that the more I'm convinced of my reads the more I'm going to actively push them given available time, in this case my reads strengthened during the reaction test and after my wagon started, but that has nothing to do with people suspecting me as you try to imply.

It's almost like I change my playstyle between games, because different games have different players and different approaches to playing. Not to mention I learn from my mistakes each game.

This is not a matter of play-stile (although yeah, your tone is also very different), as an IC in 1727 you showed understanding of play-stile vs alignment indicative tells in a lot of your commentary, Drealmerz's NL obstinacy, his quirks about joking at the wrong time and tending in general to the socially awkward are therefore things that you would be less likely to make a case on, so it makes that early case suspect.

This assumption makes no sense to me, further your professed town-read of GL doesn't fit well with your initial reaction to his case on Jae

What do you mean by this?

I think GL's case on Jae is shit - that doesn't mean I don't townread him.

I mean there is no valid reason for you to think that scum_GL would go for Jae over GM that I can think of, you saying so is likely a product of seeing what actually happened and rationalizing it, in any case I can't see you having a strong read on GL because of this and the explanation you gave which brings us to the next point.

You later don't even know who your top town-read is voting:

Why is this relevant?
[/quote]
Because you are more likely to notice what your strongest town-read in the game is doing (so once again it makes the read you gave on GL more questionable) and because it and once again hints that a) that is not a true read and b) you are only superficially paying attention.

If that's the case it's likely you did so because GL is right about Jae and that's why he looks town to you

You're pushing a case on me based on reasoning that's only valid if I'm scum, which boils down to Accountant is scum because X, X because Accountant is scum. And you're doing this, not because you think you can get away with circular logic, but because it looks linear to you - because you already know what conclusion you want to push when you created your case.[/quote]
This is pretty egregious, everything up to this point and everything that follows has nothing to do with you being scum per definition so again circular logic my ass, now here I am taking into consideration the case where you are actually scum and explaining the likeliest reason for your behavior, should it become relevant as I think it will.

Your only interest here is to hear my read, discredit it and move on

Of course. I want to know why you read me as scum. But once you gave a dumb reason for reading me as scum, all I needed to do was show town how wrong you were and move on to something that's more interesting.

Lol yeah sure, as if making sure that it's dumb because I am scum would not be relevant and interesting for town_Accountant.

In post 289, goodmorning wrote:It has and

it's mostly debunked

at this point.

That baby had like a 90% success rate for me.

In post 286, goodmorning wrote:If I say "this book has very little plot and so is unlikely to be good" that's exactly the same as saying "lack of plot is typically bad-book-indicative." We use the specific instance to inform the general.

You're playing bullshit with semantics and not even doing it well.

(Since I see you're playing bullshit with logic, too: please note the "typically" above. If you claim that X makes someone unlikely to be Scum, then you're mathematically/probabilistically claiming that notX makes them likely to be Scum

Man alive this is annoying.

"This books has very little plot" would b your P, now your notP that you are using to show that they are exactly the same is: "lack of plot" which is not a fucking negation you blablabla, it's just re-formulating the same concept.

The valid example (although the starting deduction is shitty anyway because there is no necessary correlation between plot length and how good a book is but w/e, would be)

This book has very little plot so it's unlikely to be good

and

it's a bad book so it's unlikely to have long plots

are logically the same but different from

the plot is long so the book is going to be good. (which would be your statement).

Everything that copper just said is a lie. Lynch him.

In post 293, Accountant wrote:Everything that copper just said is a lie. Lynch him.

Facts can't be lies.

That's what scum would say. Lynch him.

In post 286, goodmorning wrote:How many times are you going to tell us you're Town? You know what they say in writers' workshops? Show, don't tell. You've been onsite long enough to have picked up that maxim.

Idgaf about your tells GM, it doesn't work with me (if that's really what I am doing), you have played long enough to realize that you should take the time to judge the player and not dogmatically apply some nonsense if that's what you are doing.

If not then fuck me but you're lucky you gave me crap the last time as well so I can't distinguish bumbling fool for scum and have to assume the former is more likely on D1 when it matches what happened before.

You claim that everyone pushing you is scum trying to misrep or fuck with you, but there are only two scum and more than two people who are pushing you. Out of [me, GM, DDD] alone, at least one has to be town by brute force. How can it be that we're all misrepping you?

In post 295, Accountant wrote:That's what scum would say. Lynch him.

This is what scum that is in a hurry to get rid of me would say, are you getting antsy Accountant?

Yoh're right. I want to get rid of you.

DDD, stop talking about debunked tells and come squeeze copper.