Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:30 pm
The best elim for today is Rock/Lunar, btw.
Page 19 of 58
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:32 pm
Chumbo as a possible third if these two towntell in some way ^
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:38 pm
Actually, Markhor instead of Chumbo for third.In post 369, LoneMarkhor wrote:They are town masons?
This is very likely role-fishing.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:40 pm
clidd keeps making arguments he should know better than
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:46 pm
I'm just sharing my pov, it's up to you to agree or not.
It is not because I am not actively posted in the game that I am not reading the events and slots.
It is not because I am not actively posted in the game that I am not reading the events and slots.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:47 pm
Wha..
I call out Pragdoiid for having a generic read followed by lazy reasoningIn post 260, Rockhopper wrote: That's most probably a scum stance IMO. It's just a reflection of the consensus with lazy reasoning.
And my next move is the opposite with lazy reasoning.In post 302, Rockhopper wrote:gut
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:47 pm
Sigh...god I'm going to have to do another reread to organize my reads then if everyone is casting my clidd attack as biased.
Can someone at least provide an example of what is biased in my ISO? I'd like to know so I can get better at making meta attacks another game.
Can someone at least provide an example of what is biased in my ISO? I'd like to know so I can get better at making meta attacks another game.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:48 pm
I never said it wasIn post 454, clidd wrote:It is not because I am not actively posted in the game that I am not reading the events and slots.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:49 pm
Wait what is this for?In post 455, Rockhopper wrote:Wha..
I call out Pragdoiid for having a generic read followed by lazy reasoningIn post 260, Rockhopper wrote: That's most probably a scum stance IMO. It's just a reflection of the consensus with lazy reasoning.
And my next move is the opposite with lazy reasoning.In post 302, Rockhopper wrote:gut
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:50 pm
True. The role fishing argument is pretty darn stupid (considering that LoneMarkhor is a first time newbie), and I have seen other examples too.In post 453, Trendall wrote:clidd keeps making arguments he should know better than
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:53 pm
Hum.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:54 pm
Eh, no. I don't buy, sorry.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:56 pm
You don't buy what? And I don't like these unnecessary "Hums". They are just clogging the thread even more smh.In post 461, clidd wrote:Eh, no. I don't buy, sorry.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:56 pm
1) I answered this one already. I'm from India.In post 342, ben dover123 wrote:Hm. Maybe I did but...
I'm almost convinced Rock is the other scum alongside clidd now, Rock SR'ed me for TMI, an absurdly strong tell, a tell way stronger than anything Rock had against Lavar, and yet all he says is:
No vote, no nothing. His scumlean came nearlyIn post 325, Rockhopper wrote:Interesting. You are now a scum lean.In post 324, ben dover123 wrote:No, I'm not sure what to make of you yet. Rereading.In post 323, Rockhopper wrote:And therefore scummy?In post 322, ben dover123 wrote:At this point clidd has made enough content to be better than a "gut" read though. Actually, all of Rock's reads are really bad ngl.In post 319, Trendall wrote:Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.7 hoursbefore he explained the reasoning, which I assume either he constructed a case against me in those 7 hours because he needed to push me, or his reasoning for the scumlean was already set as TMI. If he constructed a case on the go, that just screams scum trying to progress the push of my miselimination and if he already had his scumlean set as "I had TMI", then him not voting there is indecisive scum who doesn't want to push me here.
He literally admitted to purposely creating a f***** up readlist, which is beyond sub-optimal play for town.
He says "bad reads =/= scummy" in a vacuum? He should know this is blatantly false (from plain experience), as bad reads are not a direct scumtell.
He is using burden of proof to deflect the fact that he is making bad reads.
(burden of proof is a logical fallacy, when used to deflect the person that is using this fallacy is trying to divert attention from one aspect of their argument)
Hm. Is it me or is it just so coincidental that when I start using emotions to pressure him, he leaves the chat? I must say....
VOTE: Rockhopper
clidd's meta case is a good case but this is just actually terrible coming from Rock.
2) I agree with you that bad reads are generally =/= scummy. It just isn't the case here, I've explained why.
3) I'm not. I didn't think clidd was
probably
town (455). I just asked why something like this never comes from town.4) Ok? How is that AI?
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:58 pm
In post 462, ben dover123 wrote:You don't buy what? And I don't like these unnecessary "Hums". They are just clogging the thread even more smh.In post 461, clidd wrote:Eh, no. I don't buy, sorry.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:00 pm
Ben, I have an important question.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:01 pm
lel.In post 429, clidd wrote:Yeah, I'm pretty sure Rock is mafia trolling us.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:01 pm
{clidd, Lavar, Chumbo}
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:02 pm
I already see you, buddy.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:02 pm
Bend is just town with that reaction.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:02 pm
VOTE: Chumbo
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:04 pm
Yes, just 2 years later to figure that out lol.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:06 pm
What does 1, 2, 3, and 4 answer? I'm not sure if I'm lining each attack up with the right defense.
1. Even so, this doesn't answer much. Why didn't you just vote me when you announced I was a scumlean, when the reasoning you had was TMI?
2. Lets settle this. Originally when you posted your readlist, I thought that it was just a bad readlist and so bad reads =/= scummy and it wasn't AI to me. I thought likely you were still reading through the whole game. But then you announced later that your intentions with that readlist was to purposely make it bad, therefore I have no clue why you would do this from a towny motivation. So bad reads =/= scummy, but purposely making bad reads? That's just straight up wacky.
3. Wait, what does this answer?
4. Burden of proof is not AI in general, but when used to deflect it is scummy. Imagine this:
Person A: I believe Person B is scum for these reasons: <insert reasons here>
Person C: But why is Person B not town?
That is like a very simple form of burden of proof. Obviously, in this scenario it's way easier to see that Person C is likely scum with Person B, and this basically is what you were doing on a much more basic level and with different reasoning. Asking "Why not?" is you knowing that purposely making a bad readlist is the most bullcrap thing you could do, and you just want to disprove that fact by using burden of proof.
1. Even so, this doesn't answer much. Why didn't you just vote me when you announced I was a scumlean, when the reasoning you had was TMI?
2. Lets settle this. Originally when you posted your readlist, I thought that it was just a bad readlist and so bad reads =/= scummy and it wasn't AI to me. I thought likely you were still reading through the whole game. But then you announced later that your intentions with that readlist was to purposely make it bad, therefore I have no clue why you would do this from a towny motivation. So bad reads =/= scummy, but purposely making bad reads? That's just straight up wacky.
3. Wait, what does this answer?
4. Burden of proof is not AI in general, but when used to deflect it is scummy. Imagine this:
Person A: I believe Person B is scum for these reasons: <insert reasons here>
Person C: But why is Person B not town?
That is like a very simple form of burden of proof. Obviously, in this scenario it's way easier to see that Person C is likely scum with Person B, and this basically is what you were doing on a much more basic level and with different reasoning. Asking "Why not?" is you knowing that purposely making a bad readlist is the most bullcrap thing you could do, and you just want to disprove that fact by using burden of proof.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:07 pm
smh.Rockhopper wrote:Bend is just town with that reaction.
Wait why is this?Rockhopper wrote:VOTE: Chumbo
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:12 pm
Ah, nvm. I'll let you think more.In post 465, clidd wrote:Ben, I have an important question.