Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:18 pm
Looking back, maybe my advice on page 1 could have avoided a lot of headaches in this game.Idk if I should post my meta here, maybe you will expect something from me that I won't be able to deliver.
Page 20 of 58
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:19 pm
No, no I'm open rn.In post 474, clidd wrote:Ah, nvm. I'll let you think more.In post 465, clidd wrote:Ben, I have an important question.
Go ahead. I'm still waiting for Rock to answer anyways.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:20 pm
1) Because I still thought Pragdoid was worse. I thought TMI was probably the reason for why you wouldn't have connected the dots. Don't you think it's scummy if someone misses a simple deduction?In post 472, ben dover123 wrote: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.
2) That's in line with my thoughts on Pragdoid's contradiction case. You shouldn't have automatically equated 'bad reads' with 'not AI'.
3) Fine, screw bop. I don't think it's scummy to post a wrong read on purpose.
4) This was regarding my absence when you got emotional.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:23 pm
@Ben Look, it isn't even a question.
I just need you to relax a bit and think about what I'll say, ok?
pedit: ah, you again.
I just need you to relax a bit and think about what I'll say, ok?
pedit: ah, you again.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:28 pm
1. What. How is Pragdoid worse then what you thought I was then. TMI is stronger and then anything you had against Pragdoid for a mile.In post 477, Rockhopper wrote:1) Because I still thought Pragdoid was worse. I thought TMI was probably the reason for why you wouldn't have connected the dots. Don't you think it's scummy if someone misses a simple deduction?In post 472, ben dover123 wrote: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.
2) That's in line with my thoughts on Pragdoid's contradiction case. You shouldn't have automatically equated 'bad reads' with 'not AI'.
3) Fine, screw bop. I don't think it's scummy to post a wrong read on purpose.
4) This was regarding my absence when you got emotional.
2. Whoops. Also, I didn't automatically equate bad reads with not AI. I said you making bad reads then wasn't AI for me because you probably were still collecting thoughts from the whole game. Difference, much?
3. :thonk: Uh...I'd like you to say that statement again to yourself.
4. Oh. That wasn't really AI, but scum don't like to get in a emotional battle since they know their emotions probably won't match with the townie's true emotions.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:29 pm
Spoiler:
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:31 pm
Got it.In post 478, clidd wrote:@Ben Look, it isn't even a question.
I just need you to relax a bit and think about what I'll say, ok?
pedit: ah, you again.
I mean, I'm not even 75 percent sure I can trust what you say, word by word but I'll still listen with all ears.
Ah, I'm thinking too hard about this crap.
Pedit: WTF IS THIS
Sorry, my bad. Manners went out of the window. But this is not the greatest time to claim...
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:31 pm
Ok, I'll give some time to everyone to read this ^ so I can just forget about every line that I have to answer on my head.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:34 pm
lol
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:35 pm
1) It could have just been you not paying attention.In post 479, ben dover123 wrote:1. What. How is Pragdoid worse then what you thought I was then. TMI is stronger and then anything you had against Pragdoid for a mile.In post 477, Rockhopper wrote:1) Because I still thought Pragdoid was worse. I thought TMI was probably the reason for why you wouldn't have connected the dots. Don't you think it's scummy if someone misses a simple deduction?In post 472, ben dover123 wrote: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.
2) That's in line with my thoughts on Pragdoid's contradiction case. You shouldn't have automatically equated 'bad reads' with 'not AI'.
3) Fine, screw bop. I don't think it's scummy to post a wrong read on purpose.
4) This was regarding my absence when you got emotional.
2. Whoops. Also, I didn't automatically equate bad reads with not AI. I said you making bad reads then wasn't AI for me because you probably were still collecting thoughts from the whole game. Difference, much?
3. :thonk: Uh...I'd like you to say that statement again to yourself.
4. Oh. That wasn't really AI, but scum don't like to get in a emotional battle since they know their emotions probably won't match with the townie's true emotions.
2) Doesn't matter. My read on Pragdoid was all that was necessary.
3) ..I don't think it is
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:38 pm
Alright, can we pause the argument real quick.
This is like 75% coming from town clidd, since there are so many CC's that could go wrong with doctor. But, if you are a PR that is not cop or tracker, you should probably claim now, because that completely nullifies clidd's claim. Otherwise, everyone, including vt's and town cop or tracker stay silent.
This limits the possible scum, so I'm going to muse over this a bit and be back later.
This is like 75% coming from town clidd, since there are so many CC's that could go wrong with doctor. But, if you are a PR that is not cop or tracker, you should probably claim now, because that completely nullifies clidd's claim. Otherwise, everyone, including vt's and town cop or tracker stay silent.
This limits the possible scum, so I'm going to muse over this a bit and be back later.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:39 pm
In post 483, LavarManos wrote:lol
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:53 pm
Spoiler:
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:07 pm
Where is clidd on there?
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:12 pm
He isn't an elim choice until and unless there's a CC so I'm just treating him as conftown for now.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:16 pm
Cool, that was what I was thinking.In post 489, Rockhopper wrote:He isn't an elim choice until and unless there's a CC so I'm just treating him as conftown for now.
The stakes are high for scum clidd if this is a gambit, the only scenario where there is a town cop/tracker but no town doctor is the Cop 9 setup, so if clidd doesn't get CC'ed here he is basically 90% cleared. It's such a risky gambit for scum clidd as well, there are so many counterclaims to doctor here, and there is a better role to gambit off of.
This would also explain why he is not following his regular vt playstyle, which I was wondering why he wasn't following his successful playstyle.
So, I'm just going to recollect my reads, will post them soon. This narrows down scumteam quite a lot though, I want to see who can be scum here.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:19 pm
Mafia know what their roles are, so if he knows that there are just two mafia goons then he has a one in three chance of getting away with it and a two in three chance of outing some other power role.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:24 pm
Wait, what?In post 491, Trendall wrote:Mafia know what their roles are, so if he knows that there are just two mafia goons then he has a one in three chance of getting away with it and a two in three chance of outing some other power role.
Spoiler: Reads
My reads are a mess right now after this claim. Hopefully we can clean this mess up soon.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:33 pm
This argument is doing no good to anyone, so this is the last time I will argue over these points.In post 484, Rockhopper wrote: 1) It could have just been you not paying attention.
2) Doesn't matter. My read on Pragdoid was all that was necessary.
3) ..I don't think it is
1. Let me see, your reasons for voting Pragdoid/LavarManos are:
- Consensus reads
- Attacking his SR for contradiction
- Posts do not come from town (?)
Uh...TMI as a scumtell crushes all of these reasons. I have been paying attention to your SR on Pragdoid/Lavar and I disagree with these reasons.
2. Wait, what? I'm not quite understanding this, but what I can say is your attack on Pragdoid is much, much weaker than TMI in any scenario.
3. I don't think I can change your mind about this, but I'll try one more time:
Purposely making bad reads is faking reads, and that is just not ok from a towny perspective. You just never, ever, fake reads. If you have good reads, share them. Then, people can interact with your true reads rather than faking all of your reads and making a garbage readlist.
Sigh. Hopefully this is the end to this argument. It's been going on for too long and has done nothing for town. Just pretend my vote is on Rock rn, I don't want to put him in hammer range again. I still don't understand his defense against my attack, but I want someone else to check it for themselves, as this argument has become increasingly confbiased for both sides. smh.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:42 pm
Do you think I would take these odds?In post 491, Trendall wrote:Mafia know what their roles are, so if he knows that there are just two mafia goons then he has a one in three chance of getting away with it and a two in three chance of outing some other power role.
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:42 pm
I can't work out the town motivation for claiming so early?
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:42 pm
Probably not but:In post 494, clidd wrote:Do you think I would take these odds?In post 491, Trendall wrote:Mafia know what their roles are, so if he knows that there are just two mafia goons then he has a one in three chance of getting away with it and a two in three chance of outing some other power role.
Trendall wrote:I can't work out the town motivation for claiming so early?
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:49 pm
Maybe being top 2 SR?In post 495, Trendall wrote:I can't work out the town motivation for claiming so early?
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:50 pm
Maybe a big case against me?
Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:52 pm
Yeah so as mafia you sacrifice yourself to out a pr.