Mafiascum.net

Cause I'm voting for hoppster.

He is my biggest scum read.

Dear lord_hur, if I am repeating myself it is only because you are denying that the very opinions that I have held forth hold any water, when I have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they do. Please respond to the following crystallised points as they at least were direct questions;

AurorusVox wrote:If you think that there is a 75% chance that he trapped TS with ill intent, that is also thinking that there is a 75% chance that he was lying about it not being a trap in the first place, surely?

lord_hur wrote:It is as I said, which is not anywhere near either proposition. Thank you for clearly demonstrating (yet again) your uncanny ability to twist words.

I am afraid I was merely asking for confirmation. I do not understand what you are saying in the terms in which you have expressed them. Please, clarify.

lord_hur wrote:In this post, I think you are guilty of appeal to emotion and bullshit logic. A reread of your predecessor is in order.

its stuff like this that isn't helping at all. Incredibly antagonistic and attempting to undermine arguments with this. Vezok brings up the point that only you and AV are reading the walls. Its true, I'm only skimming, and stuff like this stick out. I don't see AV's arguments as emotional. I'm not voting you for answering a question, I'm voting you because of your defensive attitude and my earlier suspicions of caboose.

AurorusVox wrote:Dear lord_hur, if I am repeating myself it is only because you are denying that the very opinions that I have held forth hold any water, when I have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they do. Please respond to the following crystallised points as they at least were direct questions;

AurorusVox wrote:If you think that there is a 75% chance that he trapped TS with ill intent, that is also thinking that there is a 75% chance that he was lying about it not being a trap in the first place, surely?

lord_hur wrote:It is as I said, which is not anywhere near either proposition. Thank you for clearly demonstrating (yet again) your uncanny ability to twist words.

I am afraid I was merely asking for confirmation. I do not understand what you are saying in the terms in which you have expressed them. Please, clarify.

Alright, this is fair :
- I can only answer with how I would play as scum. As scum, I would never lie about something as unconsequential as this. So it leads me to think that the chance is low, maybe 10%, for the sake of the argument. So (0x25%+10x75%=) something like 7,5%.
- I meant that I do not suspect Sir inHimshallibe substantially more than the rest.

ToastyToast wrote:

lord_hur wrote:In this post, I think you are guilty of appeal to emotion and bullshit logic. A reread of your predecessor is in order.

its stuff like this that isn't helping at all. Incredibly antagonistic and attempting to undermine arguments with this. Vezok brings up the point that only you and AV are reading the walls. Its true, I'm only skimming, and stuff like this stick out. I don't see AV's arguments as emotional. I'm not voting you for answering a question, I'm voting you because of your defensive attitude and my earlier suspicions of caboose.

Very strange. You're voting me, and yet you're pointing out mistakes to help me? This is not consistant at all...

lord_hur wrote:I meant that I do not suspect Sir inHimshallibe substantially more than the rest.

And this is regardless of your point about him seeming to "know" that you are a true gentleman, or what you have referred to as "alignment knowledge"?

Also, I hate to be impertinent here and yet I feel it is my duty to point out that Lord Toasty was saying that your point stuck out as scandalous, not mine, ergo his communique and stated opinions are quite in line. Perhaps you can reread the message in question, and tell me if you still think he is acting in your defence?

vezok, for what reason(s) do you believe me to be scum?

lord_hur: Is TT's 'inconsistency' villainous?



I have time to make a post that I have planned tomorrow, though.

These past couple of pages have been stodgily unappetising and difficult to digest. I feel the best way to increase the illumination is to build on the pressure being applied, and to that end,

to add weight to this wagon.

AurorusVox wrote:

lord_hur wrote:I meant that I do not suspect Sir inHimshallibe substantially more than the rest.

And this is regardless of your point about him seeming to "know" that you are a true gentleman, or what you have referred to as "alignment knowledge"?

This was a minor point, and I only brought it up to answer your question.

AurorusVox wrote:Also, I hate to be impertinent here and yet I feel it is my duty to point out that Lord Toasty was saying that your point stuck out as scandalous, not mine, ergo his communique and stated opinions are quite in line. Perhaps you can reread the message in question, and tell me if you still think he is acting in your defence?

He pointed out a mistake, thus encouraged me not to do it again. This is help. Your ability to ask questions about the most obvious things never ceases to amaze me. The worst part is, I cannot peg it as scummy. No one, scum or town, would logically do this.

imaginality wrote:These past couple of pages have been stodgily unappetising and difficult to digest. I feel the best way to increase the illumination is to build on the pressure being applied, and to that end,

Vote: lord hur

to add weight to this wagon.

This is the second time imaginality hops on a wagon for no reason at all. At least this time, it wasn't a hammer... Well, I guess he won't be challenged about it again, except by me, so I metaed him.

I have read his last three games, and, besides his amazing ability to not catch scum (14 days total, no scum caught at all, and he had a town-aligned investigation role every time, though once it was one-shot), I noticed his votes are quite often unbacked-up at all.

So again, terrible play, but no reason to vote him. This is very frustrating.

Hoppster wrote:lord_hur: Is TT's 'inconsistency' villainous?

I was waiting for :
1. rereading him and his predecessor
2. his reaction or explanation

1 is done, 2 is pending.

ToastyToast wrote:

lord_hur wrote:In this post, I think you are guilty of appeal to emotion and bullshit logic. A reread of your predecessor is in order.

its stuff like this that isn't helping at all. Incredibly antagonistic and attempting to undermine arguments with this. Vezok brings up the point that only you and AV are reading the walls. Its true, I'm only skimming, and stuff like this stick out. I don't see AV's arguments as emotional. I'm not voting you for answering a question, I'm voting you because of your defensive attitude and my earlier suspicions of caboose.

1. I find Caboose's intervention very logical and on point (even about Hoppster, town vs town fight was my first reaction). Please tell me an example or two of his sayings that you find worthy of a vote.
2. Explain "defensive attitude", please. Especially with regards to the wall of death I have been subjected to.

lord_hur wrote:He pointed out a mistake, thus encouraged me not to do it again. This is help.

Dear lord! This would mean that any time one would make a case on another, he is helping them!

Incidentally, does this mean that you accept the accusation as a highlighting a valid mistake that you have made? That it was indeed you who were being "Incredibly antagonistic" and "attempting to undermine [my] arguments with this"?

AurorusVox wrote:

lord_hur wrote:He pointed out a mistake, thus encouraged me not to do it again. This is help.

Dear lord! This would mean that any time one would make a case on another, he is helping them!

Incidentally, does this mean that you accept the accusation as a highlighting a valid mistake that you have made? That it was indeed you who were being "Incredibly antagonistic" and "attempting to undermine [my] arguments with this"?

That part sounded like advice to me, not like part of a case.

Yes, I am antagonistic, mafiascum is not fairy land, and of course, I'm asserting that your arguments are devoid of logic, depriving your attacks of any value. Anything else?

But to undermine an argument does not necessarily disprove it. It is merely here an to make something look weak when it may in fact not be. Moreover, you have admitted that your doing so was a mistake.

AurorusVox wrote:But to undermine an argument does not necessarily disprove it. It is merely here an

attempt

to make something look weak when it may in fact not be. Moreover, you have admitted that your doing so was a mistake.

Yes, I knew that it would make me look scummy, but I posted it anyway because it represented what I felt.

But why, sir, would it make you look rougish if it was, in fact, a correct proposition?

---

imaginality wrote:These past couple of pages have been stodgily unappetising and difficult to digest.

I apologise for my hand in that, sir. I am ordinarily verbose, and this most gentlemanly tongue is exacerbating that to perhaps overwhelming degrees.

imaginality wrote:I feel the best way to increase the illumination is to build on the pressure being applied, and to that end,

Vote: lord hur

to add weight to this wagon.

Do you currently find lord_hur to be of a scandalous nature, or is discovering your feelings as regards his allegiance that the aim of your ballot?

AurorusVox wrote:But why, sir, would it make you look rougish if it was, in fact, a correct proposition?

It can be viewed as OMGUS.

Good sir, that isn't the accusation that TT has levelled at you. He has found a different reason for recoiling from your post.

AurorusVox wrote:Good sir, that isn't the accusation that TT has levelled at you. He has found a different reason for recoiling from your post.

Dear lord...
This is what you asked me :

AurorusVox wrote:But why, sir, would it make you look rougish if it was, in fact, a correct proposition?

You didn't ask me what was the accusation was, you asked me what I thought would make me look bad.

It sure looks like you're not taking much care whether your attacks have a purpose or not. As if you're flinging mud around and seeing what sticks.

Good lord indeed. You -initially- said that you would look rougish in the context of your attempt to undermine me, which was the accusation TT levelled at you. And since then you have changed your story to say that you would look rougish due to OMGUS.

And my point thus has the additional purpose of conveying how you look scandalous not due to reactionary "OMGUS" attacks as you claim to have feared, but to something else entirely.

Ergo, you have turned the "mistake" that you accept into something the "mistake" that was first expressed.

lord_hur wrote:Yes, I knew that it would make me look scummy, but I posted it anyway because it represented what I felt.

Notice "I posted it"? "It" can only refer to what I have posted in the first place, not to that accusation of undermining.

And with this, I stop answering your bullshit questions (unless, again, someone else expresses an interest in one of them). Rereading with this constant yapping in the background would try a tibetan monk's patience.

(but, sir, what you posted in the first place the undermining, from which the accusation was drawn)

I will remain silent in the matter from here on out, sir. We are at an impasse, with two irrevocably opposing views.

Alright, here is the situation of my reflexions :

I am quite concerned by the lack of logic behind all reasons used to lynch Twistedspoon, making it quite difficult to discern bad play from scumminess. It forces me to make complete rereads of the persons I suspect to glean meager information.

I am first going to assess the persons that were on his wagon, as they always are my first suspects.

- Hoppster : the more I think about it, the less Hoppster as scum makes sense. His aggressiveness against someone he would know is town, would be like painting a big, red target on his forehead. It takes a lot of guts to do this. Or stupidity, but Hoppster sure is not. Also, the things I noticed against him can be weighted against his largely more-than-average activity. 50% scum (and yes, vote me for backtracking or anything else, I don't care).

- kpaca/AurorusVox :

kpaca : Lots of fencesitting. He voted Twistedspoon for a lousy reason. Does not scumhunt, as he is focused nearly entirely on Twistedspoon. The only smart thing he says is in his post #11 (last before inactivity), and it was in his own defence. He is definitely a lurker, so inherently hard to evaluate.
Conclusion : below average reasoning, lurking, uncertain experience make for a difficult evaluation. His lynching vote looks quite bad, but it can also be explained by the aforementioned tendencies (especially tunnelling).

AurorusRex :

Meta - list of all games in which he used walls of doom :

Scum :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

Town, 100% mislynch rate :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

Town, 66% mislynch rate :
http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... er_sort=Go

I'm surprised, as it is not that often. There are more games as scum than as town, but only marginally so. He seems to have a very bad mislynch rate, though, largely caused by the fact that in all these games as town, he's always been on *every* wagon. That he was on Twistedspoon's can then also be explained by his below-par town play, not only by him being scum.

From his meta, he looks quite smart, so I have trouble making sense of these walls of nonsense, except as an overconfident scum. Judging from his posts when he wins as scum, he looks quite smug about his abilities as scum (with reason, it seems), so I can picture him jumping on my wagon and never letting go, confident in his ability to grind me with his walls of text despite his arguments wearing thin.

Overall : 70% scum.

- vezokpiraka : VI. There is nothing to learn from him, and we will never know his alignment until he's lynched, since if he's town, he'll never be NKed.

- Apokalyptika/Reya Cookiebringer :

Apokalyptika : her vote is inherently the one that looks the less bad of the bunch, looking rather sincere though the reasons are still quite weak, as she herself said for part of it (which gets her some townish points). She vote hops quite a bit, but I could not detect any scummy intent behind it. Her posts are rather logical. She also voiced her doubts about Twistedspoon before, so it doesn't look that opportunistic.

Reya Cookiebringer : lurker.

Overall : 30% scum.

- imaginality : he asked for vezokpiraka's policy lynch. Since it's a rather frowned upon practice, and that he's experienced enough to know this, it strikes me as rather townish. #10 strike me as bullshit logic. kr0b's answer was perfectly logical and understandable (and how I understood his use of perhaps in the first place), but imaginality deformed it and showed it as illogical.

But the real shock comes from his vote on Twistedspoon. He defended Twistedspoon in #11 and #12, but then hammers him, for no reason at all and without any warning. The only logical motivations I can find are all anti-town :
1. it is a mislynch, which is an important goal for scum
2. the ending of day 1 deprives town of useful information

And yet, it is so illogical for scum AND town to play like this! Or maybe not so illogical, since no one but myself confronted him about it, and he could think he would get away with it, given the quality of the other votes on Twistedspoon.



I will cast my vote after he answers.

Oh yes, I see some people (ToastyToast comes to mind) linking me with other persons as alleged scumbuddies. I'll be happy to make an analysis about them next, if they want.