Mafiascum.net

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:35 pm**

In post 522, PenguinPower wrote:Thanks for saying that it's NAI in a lot of words.

Congratulations, you made it to Step 1 of why I don't like Pooky's argument and refuse to dialogue with him further.

I strongly doubt 523 but I'm not doing this tonight. Enjoy my absence and use it to further a presumably mutual win condition.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:40 pm**

In post 515, Faker wrote:"Lukewarm has said previously out of game that he'd like to lock in Sillyposting as town" -> "Lukewarm locking Sillyposting isn't a scumclaim [as Pooky says]"

Too many words for Penguin

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:43 pm**

You....you realize that your arguement is NAI...right? I mean....right?

Here's what I see - two players, one of which has to be scum, saying they are both going to vote me as town. You then step in saying to slow roll it, and then that if we aren't going to slow roll it to vote Luke. You yell at pooky, say not so nice things, and storm off only to storm back in before getting angry again at pooky doing the same thing you are doing (except pooky reads me really well which should be taken into consideration), insult my understanding of site ruleset, and then get mad and storm off when I actually have a purpose and engage your Luke read.

You admittedly don't have a good read on me. You assumedly thing pooky is townier, but insist on yelling at him despite his experience. You townread Luke for NAI reason outsdie of his "reactionary read" on you (since you haven't explained further. Basically, imo, you appear to be trying to scum an out from voting me.

Else, you are just acting really egotistical and think you

have

to be right despite a lack of actual expressed reasoning to be so.

Pooky, you sure Faker is town?

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:44 pm**

In post 528, PenguinPower wrote:you have to be right

On one specific thing: That Lukewarm locking Sillyposting is not a scumclaim.

I have readily acknowledged I can be wrong on literally everything else.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:45 pm**

In post 527, Faker wrote:
In post 515, Faker wrote:"Lukewarm has said previously out of game that he'd like to lock in Sillyposting as town" -> "Lukewarm locking Sillyposting isn't a scumclaim [as Pooky says]"
Too many words for Penguin

No, you are using it as one of two reasons to launch him to the top of your townreads in Sillyposting.

In post 467, Faker wrote:I pulled out the receipts showing not only that Luke wanted Sillyposting before marcistar even posted, but posts another game showing Luke has always wanted to quickly lock Sillyposting as town.

While secondary, his reactionary read on me was also extremely clean.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:46 pm**

Is this what an absence looks like?

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:47 pm**

I wonder what the start of 467 was.

Your assertion that I, personally, am using it as a reason to townread Luke is not wrong:

In post 505, Faker wrote:I am not making a claim that Luke is town beyond a doubt simply for going to Sillyposting. I am making a primary claim that playing inline with a stated town preference (tucked away in a forgotten part of a scum PT that he knows from a prior discussion that I did not read) is not +scum, which is what you are asserting. I am making a secondary claim that playing in line with a stated town preference is +town and that the clean read on me is +town.

Lukewarm being actively +town for following that preference is up for debate. You can call it NAI, and I actually didn't dispute you doing so just now. I take issue with Pooky's assertion that it was +scum, and pulled out the receipts for it.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:48 pm**

In post 531, PenguinPower wrote:Is this what an absence looks like?

Unfortunately, yes, I am bad at sticking to my word on this when I mald.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:49 pm**

Note that the terms "primary claim" and "secondary claim" are not arbitrary in 505. They are in fact symbols of an order of importance to me.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:50 pm**

Sorry - but, "making a...claim" whether primarily or secondarily is making a claim using that as the basis of the arguement. If you don't dispute me calling that argument NAI then...how is it not NAI?

I don't really care about pooky's assertion that it was +scum at this point...way beyond that. You should probably move past it too.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:50 pm**

In post 533, Faker wrote:
In post 531, PenguinPower wrote:Is this what an absence looks like?
Unfortunately, yes, I am bad at sticking to my word on this when I mald.

I'm the same way

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:53 pm**

In post 528, PenguinPower wrote:You....you realize that your arguement is NAI...right? I mean....right?

The issue is that Pooky is still trying to argue from a position as though it makes me scum, not that it is NAI. Like the conversation between Pooky and Faker felt like:

"Luke is 100% scum for going to silly posting"

"Luke would go to silly posting as town"

"But why wouldn't luke go to silly posting as scum????"

"Maybe he would, but it does not make him scum, because he would do it as town"

"So you admit that he would possibly do it as scum? Good, then I was right, and Luke is 100% scum"

So yeah, I agree that it feels like Pooky is not arguing in good faith.

It feels to me that Faker is getting wrapped up in trying to make you see how bad pooky's argument is, and you are reading it like she is town casing me. Two different conversations happening past one another.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:54 pm**

In post 535, PenguinPower wrote:Sorry - but, "making a...claim" whether primarily or secondarily is making a claim using that as the basis of the arguement. If you don't dispute me calling that argument NAI then...how is it not NAI?

Understanding why someone holds a belief is not the same as sharing it. I

can

debate that it's +town, and in the strictest sense it is: Lukewarm followed a single known town preference. Perhaps the increased chance of him being town is near-zero negligible, perhaps it is substantial.

If you don't believe him doing so makes a difference, then I'm not likely to change your view.

In post 535, PenguinPower wrote:I don't really care about pooky's assertion that it was +scum at this point...way beyond that. You should probably move past it too.

I'm happy to.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:56 pm**

In post 537, Lukewarm wrote:
In post 528, PenguinPower wrote:You....you realize that your arguement is NAI...right? I mean....right?
The issue is that Pooky is still trying to argue from a position as though it makes me scum, not that it is NAI. Like the conversation between Pooky and Faker felt like:

"Luke is 100% scum for going to silly posting"

"Luke would go to silly posting as town"

"But why wouldn't luke go to silly posting as scum????"

"Maybe he would, but it does not make him scum, because he would do it as town"

"So you admit that he would possibly do it as scum? Good, then I was right, and Luke is 100% scum"

So yeah, I agree that it feels like Pooky is not arguing in good faith.

It feels to me that Faker is getting wrapped up in trying to make you see how bad pooky's argument is, and you are reading it like she is town casing me. Two different conversations happening past one another.

I don't see why it matters if I think Pooky's argument is bad. If I'm scum, as she believes based on her list, then I'm not going to alienate pooky by suddenly agreeing; and, if I'm town then the fact that one of you being scum expressly wanting to vote for me is an L for scum so it doesn't really matter at all. So, beyond arguing for pride, it makes little sense to do so.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:57 pm**

In post 538, Faker wrote:
In post 535, PenguinPower wrote:Sorry - but, "making a...claim" whether primarily or secondarily is making a claim using that as the basis of the arguement. If you don't dispute me calling that argument NAI then...how is it not NAI?
Understanding why someone holds a belief is not the same as sharing it. I
can
debate that it's +town, and in the strictest sense it is: Lukewarm followed a single known town preference. Perhaps the increased chance of him being town is near-zero negligible, perhaps it is substantial.

If you don't believe him doing so makes a difference, then I'm not likely to change your view.
In post 535, PenguinPower wrote:I don't really care about pooky's assertion that it was +scum at this point...way beyond that. You should probably move past it too.
I'm happy to.

Seems we're agreed on both accounts then.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:58 pm**

In post 539, PenguinPower wrote:So, beyond arguing for pride, it makes little sense to do so.

It feels exactly why Faker is engaging so much with this argument lol

Imo, it is probably +town for her too

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 2:59 pm**

I again cannot emphasize enough that my reads are extremely fallible, and my reasoning often is too. Where you got this vehemence was the rejection and dismissiveness to a line of reasoning where I put a great deal of effort into the receipts and doublechecking it. There was a concrete post showing the exact opposite. I didn't just pull that quote out of my stomach from the Taco Bell I ate this day.

It did matter

substantially

if the argument is bad and you are scum. Since you are informed to yourself as not being scum, it may no longer be important to you that Pooky revisit his argument. It should be obvious why a third party would be concerned over him tunneling over something either +town or null. Not really looking to get into the weeds of it again, but responding to 539.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:00 pm**

Eh, looking deeper I see you're saying about talking to

you

here.

I think process is important, and understanding that Pooky was pushing a bad line might in fact be relevant for his alignment if you are town. If you decide it's not, then OK.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:03 pm**

In post 539, PenguinPower wrote:I don't see why it matters if I think Pooky's argument is bad. If I'm scum, as she believes based on her list, then I'm not going to alienate pooky by suddenly agreeing; and, if I'm town then the fact that one of you being scum expressly wanting to vote for me is an L for scum so it doesn't really matter at all. So, beyond arguing for pride, it makes little sense to do so.

The reason why it should matter to you, is because this minigame should end with me voting for a player.

The optimal way to play this minigame is to first chose the player that is more scum read in the mini game (you and pooky both say me) and then forcing me to cast the vote.

I am less sold on voting you then I was when I was upset last game and just wanted to get out, so if you are town, and I am scum, it doesn't matter. You have won. But I am town, so if you are town your win condition atp is convincing me that you are town over pooky. And engaging with debates will help me sort you.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:04 pm**

Right, but if I'm town he already said he was voting me so why does that matter?

Anyway, I appreciate the dialogue and I understand better now what you meant and where you are coming from.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:04 pm**

(Some of your reasoning seems to be based off of specific votes that get placed down; I have not viewed any vote as inevitable, though I have spent a disproportionate amount of time worrying about yours/Pooky's specifically.)

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:04 pm**

^
That was at Faker.

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:04 pm**

oh boy - that just got all sorts of screwed up

Posted: **Mon Jun 20, 2022 3:05 pm**

In post 544, Lukewarm wrote:I was upset last
game
night

Mafiascum.net

Micro 1056: Moderators of the Discord Server [game over]