Mafiascum.net

In post 747, fireisredsir wrote:

In post 645, Noraa wrote:i have an idea. it's slightly dumb but think about it. If we leave me, dunn and datisi unpaired, then me dying would confscum dunn. it's clear dunn is a greater asset to town than me.

if dunn dies, well that would mean i was wrong on them.

and datisi cannot die since datisi is the only lady.

i know ze already nvm'd this post, but the bolded sentence is making me really want to leave noraa behind

actually kinda the whole thing

maybe im dumb but i don't understand how this is looking at things from the perspective of zir being uninformed town

This just looks like clumsy wording to me. The whole structure of Zir sentences is broken and missing pieces/contextual clues.

In post 748, Bell wrote:I have a cop guilty on you Dunnstral.
Dunnstral: “prove it” :facepalm:

Like, do you really think that Noraa’s observation requires Zir to go out and quote however many posts is acceptable and then break out a pie chart. Few players do that, and the one time I’ve seen it done recently was by Pooky and he was scum arguing for Mastina town who was town.

What Noraa is arguing is something provable by them, cop actions aren't, and that's a fallacious comparison

To be clear, I am saying they are either lying or misinformed, and that what they are claiming is untrue

Your argument is that Noraa shouldn't have to back up their accusations because they're lazy, but the town should still believe them even when it is contested.

Note that I didn't contest what you said about me earlier and ask for proof, because I think it is partially the truth:

In post 719, Bell wrote:I said you counter with more dismissive arguments when you’re town instead of going into “I will quote every post I can see to bury this argument into the ground because it’s wrongo and this person is wrong and I must stop them because it is my mission to correct every person of every misstatement may this world remain pure and holy and free of contradiction. “ -Dunnstrall scum.

In post 749, Bell wrote:Also, I’ve never seen you try to prove anything in a game of mafia

This is simply untrue

In post 750, Bell wrote:This just looks like clumsy wording to me. The whole structure of Zir sentences is broken and missing pieces/contextual clues.

probably, yeah. im usually pretty forgiving of that sort of thing but maybe im not in the forgiving mood right now

I find it immaterial because I care more about what Noraa feels than what they say. As I think they just rationalize the end result.
I think you’d just accuse them of cheery picking if they actually went out and did it and you’d bring up a million arguments through context. You’ve lived through those game and can easily muddy the waters even if ze bothered.

Yes, I noticed you didn’t argue my specific points, but I figured you were just doing that because the goal isn’t to get me dead, it’s for you not to get dead and also, it would be awkward for you to argue every point I make, especially after making that point which would demonstrate a live example of you quibbling over everything. Instead you say it’s true now, so, uh, I was wrong there. Or you repositioned yourself. I don’t know which. *shrug*

I feel like I’m arguing just for the sake of arguing.

In post 752, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 749, Bell wrote:Also, I’ve never seen you try to prove anything in a game of mafia

This is simply untrue

I could’ve forgotten but I really did try to think of when you tried to prove something and came up empty. Sometimes you’d make mechanical arguments that made the attempt to demonstrate why something was more or less likely, but you were almost always wrong and there was always a lot of guesswork in there.

Outside of that, yeah. I can’t remember an example.

Subject: Open 789: Two-Fold 2d3 [Game Over]

Dunnstral wrote:

In post 1229, Gamma Emerald wrote:Why would we not

keep in mind I still need to read

You're going to need to prove a positive rather than waiting for someone to prove a negative when trying to eliminate someone

Saying "why not eliminate x" isn't how things really work

This is what I think of bell's argument

Subject: Yggdrasil - Stratum FINAL -

Bell wrote:Dunnstrall tends to snap at people that push him. I think his vote is just that. A request for white fire to back up.
I might be oversimplifying a more complex behavior tho.

I regret the MC wagon, not because I think it’s wrong but because I wish we’d done it later in the day so that the game didn’t stall.

Dang, meta is fun

And I mean real meta, the stuff you can link to, not the stuff that is true because you said so.

Incidentally, Bell, can you explain why you are scumreading me here again? I don't understand what is your issue with my questions or why you are continuing to push me here.

In post 754, Bell wrote:I find it immaterial because I care more about what Noraa feels than what they say. As I think they just rationalize the end result.
I think you’d just accuse them of cheery picking if they actually went out and did it and you’d bring up a million arguments through context. You’ve lived through those game and can easily muddy the waters even if ze bothered.

"Muddy the waters"

Either it's true or not. I don't think it is reasonable to be this against Noraa trying to share something that you believe is true.

Or you don't think it's true and you don't care. So you want to eliminate me because of your feelies. OK, well how am I supposed to argue against that?

I just read over that and don’t get it because:
1. Mathblade wasn’t a traitor.
2. You didn’t substantiate that” thou who has smelt it dealteth it” with any proof whatsoever.
3. You tried to substantiate that they were “reactive” by choosing a bunch of quotes and were arguing that actually “they were the desperate ones” but didn’t substantiate that either.
4. You argued that you were writing all of that to show what you were paying attention to these posts and that this was your internal process going forward. But you don’t actually prove that this is what you were thinking at the time. You just quoted them and asserted it was and explains your mentioned behavior.

In post 754, Bell wrote:I find it immaterial because I care more about what Noraa feels than what they say. As I think they just rationalize the end result.
I think you’d just accuse them of cheery picking if they actually went out and did it and you’d bring up a million arguments through context. You’ve lived through those game and can easily muddy the waters even if ze bothered.

Yes, I noticed you didn’t argue my specific points, but I figured you were just doing that because the goal isn’t to get me dead, it’s for you not to get dead and also, it would be awkward for you to argue every point I make, especially after making that point which would demonstrate a live example of you quibbling over everything. Instead you say it’s true now, so, uh, I was wrong there. Or you repositioned yourself. I don’t know which. *shrug*

I feel like I’m arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Bruh you're so confbiased you're preflipping his arguments.

I don’t get how I’m conf biasing by including counter arguments to my arguments.
That’s basic writing.

You're accusing me of something I haven't done

In post 760, Bell wrote:3. You tried to substantiate that

Yeah, I did. And I'm asking Noraa to their claims too

Changing the word from prove to substantiate doesn't change what is going on here. I think substantiate is a better word, your complaints here seem to be that I didn't have mechanical proof a la cop guilty or similar in that game but it's clear that what I did there is what I am asking noraa to do here

You attacking my actual argument or how it was lacking from a different game isn't really interesting to me

In post 760, Bell wrote:I just read over that and don’t get it because:
1. Mathblade wasn’t a traitor.
2. You didn’t substantiate that” thou who has smelt it dealteth it” with any proof whatsoever.
3. You tried to substantiate that they were “reactive” by choosing a bunch of quotes and were arguing that actually “they were the desperate ones” but didn’t substantiate that either.
4. You argued that you were writing all of that to show what you were paying attention to these posts and that this was your internal process going forward. But you don’t actually prove that this is what you were thinking at the time. You just quoted them and asserted it was and explains your mentioned behavior.

This post is definitely arguing for the sake of arguing

Well duh, I’m just pointing out that you didn’t prove anything. Of course it’s not interesting. It’s not interesting to me either. I only engaged with it because you quoted it and brought it here. Real proof is a pain in the ass to generate and you didn’t prove anything in the post you said you tried to prove stuff in. You just asserted that this was your view point.

I genuinely don’t follow Yggdrasil one. I said what I said there because of my experience with you in guns and roses. And I was wrong because, actually you weren’t pushing back you just thought white rose was scum. But that’s with the benefit of hindsight and knowing your alignment which I didn’t know then and even if I did I’d probably have misinterpreted you there anyway.

I feel as either alignment you would try to muddy the waters on an argument that you probably actually disagree with. So, I don’t know what to say to that. You’re asking zir for proof, but even if ze presented it you’d just argue it down. *shrug* you seem to think I’m calling you scum for it, when I’m actually just saying it would be pointless either way.

I apologize to anyone this may have confused

Actually a cop guilty isn’t proof either because you can’t share the mod communication. That was the joke. You could only prove it legally by flipping the person. But you couldn’t prove it to others. Even if you flipped them and they flipped scum. You still could have faked a cop guilty because nobody but you knows your role because, again, only you know your role per the rules.

Okay. Whew. I’m glad I won the pedantry pageant. You may proceed.

In post 207, Bell wrote:I don’t know what to make of Dunnstral’s new level of stoicness.
They were always stoic, but this is brick stoic.

What is a joke? Who is rob? What is life? Error error. Beep. BOOP.

In post 769, Bell wrote:Actually a cop guilty isn’t proof either because you can’t share the mod communication.

dunn do you think im scum for pushing you

In post 764, Dunnstral wrote:

In post 760, Bell wrote:3. You tried to substantiate that

Yeah, I did. And I'm asking Noraa to

substantiate

their claims too

Changing the word from prove to substantiate doesn't change what is going on here. I think substantiate is a better word, your complaints here seem to be that I didn't have mechanical proof a la cop guilty or similar in that game but it's clear that what I did there is what I am asking noraa to do here

This doesn’t sound like a joke to me? But, it’s midnight. I’ll ignore it.

In post 772, Noraa wrote:dunn do you think im scum for pushing you

You could be, but there's a reason I'm pushing Lukewarm to be left out of the dance.

Your bemoaning about how you would drag datisi down but not being willing to swap your partner or even comment on it is minus points