Mafiascum.net

In post 773, tictac wrote:u mean the revere reads thing?
I dunno how he's exploring that when I'm not gonna be lynched and am currently sleeping so can't react to it.

i'm not sure what you mean by this

In post 773, tictac wrote:Inflated? yes, but this point does resonate with me. ref 352.
Skitt: if this is something ya been accused of as town, a link would be appreciated.

i'm not sure what you're asking for here

In post 773, tictac wrote:I actually don't see ya doing that w vork, but I do think ya did that w my Jam-push.

ok, where do you think i'm doing that?

In post 773, tictac wrote:pmuch zero actual danger on skitt slot at the time.

*sighs*
Just do this thought experiment with me: put yourself in the shoes of a newbie with an AWOL scumpartner.

In post 773, tictac wrote:Wasn't implied for me.

In post 773, tictac wrote:yes

also
My experience tells me that most """plays""" are rarely "conscious and optimal decisions with well thought out implications" and more "hey bro let's do this!"

In post 773, tictac wrote:but this point does resonate with me

<3

In post 773, tictac wrote:sry for wall. had i more time I would have made it more readable.

+1

In post 774, Vorkuta wrote:As of recent your focus has shifted towards my delivery, not my core points.

because i feel like:

a) many of the points are bs, which you've admitted
b) i've refuted the important ones already

i'm not sure why i should keep refuting the same points you're bringing up when i've already done so and half of them are overinflated anyways

In post 774, Vorkuta wrote:Once again- it's not "directly" your play, but your play "by proxy" which I'm bringing into question.

ok, it's more accurate to say that i don't interact with my partners this way, better?

In post 774, Vorkuta wrote:Scum!skitter is more interested in redirecting the gameflow and SUBTLY shutting down uncomfortable lines of inquiry and one of the more effective ways I've seen her do it is by inflating the level of proof/evidence necessary for her to acknowledge a claim to a level that is much higher than what town!skitter would require to join along on the journey.

i don't think i play this way as scum. or, more accurately, i don't consciously play this way as scum, and i can't think of any examples where i've done this offhand
where do you think i do this?

In post 774, Vorkuta wrote:LIKE your Dunn quote just now.
I could dig up the ~5 quotes from that game where I explicitly and quite successfully IMHO shut down that line of nonsense from dunn and the relevant back-and-forth necessary to undestand what's up.
I could also waste even more time trying to recall my thought process as I was making said miller push and clearly explain why and how "that 1 miller push I did in that game" is different from "this skitter push I'm doing right now".

i don't think this is clogging up the thread, i think it's *imminently* relevant to what you're doing right now
i brought a parallel where you've done something similar as scum
don't sidestep it by saying you dont' want to talk about it
explain how it's different

explain how i'm looking at this wrong.

you're making up reasons to push me, which other people (i.e. january) acknowledge. and when you've been called out on it, you've admitted it.
january thinks you wouldn't make up stuff as scum to push someone

i provided an instance where you did just that (and where other players in that game accused you of doing just that)
now don't tell me to do ignore it, or that i'm pulling quotes out of context.
if you think i am show me i am, don't just handwave it away because you don't want to answer it

In post 776, Vorkuta wrote:Just do this thought experiment with me: put yourself in the shoes of a newbie with an AWOL scumpartner.

january's indignant response to this accusation indicates that she wouldn't have the mindset you're giving her if she was in this situation

^ @tictac these are things i liked from zenith at eod

Lynching

With 7 votes in play, it takes 4 to lynch.

Vorkuta

(2): skitter30, Zenith

skitter30

(2): Vorkuta, january

Zenith

(1): tictac

Not Voting

(2): DrDolittle, Suspicious

Deadline:

(expired on 2019-11-05 07:45:00).

[/area]

In post 777, skitter30 wrote:half of them are overinflated anyways

It's funny because you're quite more willing to cut through the flowery rhetoric and address the spirit of my argument when you're town.

In post 777, skitter30 wrote:b) i've refuted the important ones already

"scumPT levels of evidence demanded" is kind of the kicker and it still stands uncontested (fmv).
*reads a bit more*
Oh the irony of you demanding more evidence from me

In post 777, skitter30 wrote:ok, it's more accurate to say that i don't interact with my partners this way, better?

*scratches head*
shelved for now

In post 777, skitter30 wrote:where do you think i do this?

in

In post 767, Vorkuta wrote:*cracks knuckles*
Time to revisit TwofoldC9++ and EMM again for me

In post 777, skitter30 wrote:you're making up reasons to push me

OK

I think I understand what's up.
You guys seem to think what I perceive to be a minor detail (that are just cherries on the cake to me) are my main points, and I'm getting slightly annoyed at the amount of time/effort you're spending attacking things I added as an "afterthought".
Case in point: bailey's dying declaration. It was never the "core" point.
It was always a "hey, IF (insert main point here) THEN it would also maybe explain (casual detail that may or may not fit into the story)"

And you guys are attacking the antecedent.
And I'm like
And as a result you guys seem to have the impression that "oh vork was just BSing the whole time"

this is slightly insightful

In post 777, skitter30 wrote:don't sidestep it by saying you dont' want to talk about it

I'll play ball even thought I think it's a 1 way road.
Present your best quotes from whatever game.

Or was dunn's the only one?
Because that one sucked.

In post 777, skitter30 wrote:explain how it's different

*sighs*
Fine I'll be explicit

-The miller push in that game was (1) slightly tailored to curry favor w/ buj and esp. NC, (2) a play to dumb!town myself on a (3) simple target with (4) "0 repercussions" and provide a rocksolid reason to (5) be on a miller wagon in perpetuity
-The push on skitter in this game is clearly (1) not designed to impress anyone, (2) not a way for me to pass as dumb!town, is clearly (3) not on a 'simple target', clearly (4) has repercussions if godforbid I'm wrong about it, and if you succeed in knocking down the crux of my case with this exchange, then (5) I will have no valid grounds upon which to scum read you.
I can be even more explicit if need be

In post 778, skitter30 wrote:january's indignant response to this accusation

I read it as 30% tongue-in-cheek, 30% defensive, 30% 'lawl you got me, now let me try brushing it off with sarcasm' and 10% slightly forced

In post 781, Vorkuta wrote:"scumPT levels of evidence demanded" is kind of the kicker and it still stands uncontested (fmv).
*reads a bit more*
Oh the irony of you demanding more evidence from me

because i don't understand what this means or where i'm doing it
i don't think i'm demanding that level of evidence
i don't understand how what i'm asking is demanding this level of evidence

if i understood what this meant or where you think i'm doing this i could respond to it better but as of right now i can't respond to this because i still don't know what this means or how this encapsulates my play

can you like quote something of mine and explain exactly why/where/how you think i'm doing this ? that might help

In post 781, Vorkuta wrote:It's funny because you're quite more willing to cut through the flowery rhetoric and address the spirit of my argument when you're town.

i feel like i am ...

In post 767, Vorkuta wrote:Time to revisit TwofoldC9++ and EMM

i understand that you think i did this in these games
i'm saying that i don't think this categorizes my play in either

can you refer to a specific incident in either where you think i've done this or ...

vork i feel like it's hard to respond to you because you're making up things and i can't prove negatives

In post 781, Vorkuta wrote:It was always a "hey, IF (insert main point here) THEN it would also maybe explain (casual detail that may or may not fit into the story)"

And you guys are attacking the antecedent.
And I'm like
And as a result you guys seem to have the impression that "oh vork was just BSing the whole time"

ok ?

it might help if you presented the 'minor afterthought details' as such then, don't get annoyed with other people for not understanding you when you're not communicating clearly

In post 781, Vorkuta wrote:Present your best quotes from whatever game.

Or was dunn's the only one?
Because that one sucked.

a) i will when i can take a bit more of a break at work
b) no, that quote didn't, it encapsulates you making a similar play there as you did here so

In post 781, Vorkuta wrote:-The push on skitter in this game is clearly (1) not designed to impress anyone, (2) not a way for me to pass as dumb!town, is clearly (3) not on a 'simple target', clearly

(4) has repercussions if godforbid I'm wrong about it,

and if you succeed in knocking down the crux of my case with this exchange, then (5) I will have no valid grounds upon which to scum read you.

my good man, if you do succeed in getting me lynched today i'm going to do everything in my ability to make sure you're next, just letting you know

i don't think that these points are particularly relevant. the particularly reasons for *why* you did what you're doing i don't think matter really

you're utlizing the same tactic: make up bs to push people
*why* you're doing it i don't think is relevant
you haven't really shown that i've taken it out of context either

now if you can show me you making up bs to push people as town i'd view that as a reason to view your current push on me as being less scummy
god-awful, sure, but less ai

as of right now i only have examples of scum!you doing it

In post 781, Vorkuta wrote:I read it as 30% tongue-in-cheek, 30% defensive, 30% 'lawl you got me, now let me try brushing it off with sarcasm' and 10% slightly forced

no

In post 782, skitter30 wrote:

In post 781, Vorkuta wrote:"scumPT levels of evidence demanded" is kind of the kicker and it still stands uncontested (fmv).
*reads a bit more*
Oh the irony of you demanding more evidence from me

because i don't understand what this means or where i'm doing it
i don't think i'm demanding that level of evidence
i don't understand how what i'm asking is demanding this level of evidence

if i understood what this meant or where you think i'm doing this i could respond to it better but as of right now i can't respond to this because i still don't know what this means or how this encapsulates my play

can you like quote something of mine and explain exactly why/where/how you think i'm doing this ? that might help

like you're repeatedly accusing me of doing something that you admit is hyper-inflated rhetoric, and then get mad at me that i can't adequately disprove something that you admit you overinflated to make a point

i don't know what you expect of me here exactly. i can't disprove that i'm doing it to this level when you keep calling everything i'm doing this because you like the phrase and think it sounds colorful

In post 716, Vorkuta wrote:And who knows what plan of action they've decided on in their scumPT but "hey lets distance and stir up a bit of drama for show" sounds alright, especially considering bailey's "dying remark" was "its skitter- vork u suk btw"

like i obviously can't disprove this accusation by showing you screenshots of the scum pt

but i've argued it the way i can, by explaining why: a) i don't play like this, b) the association doesn't make sense c) there's no motivation for me to do this anyways

there's nothing much else i can do given that i don't actually have the proof you want from me
and the fact that i can't provide this doesn't mean that my response isn't valid
if it meant my response isn't valid it would be impossible to play mafia

In post 728, Vorkuta wrote:Whereas you're basically demanding "screenshots of their scumPT" levels of evidence necessary for my points to have any validity in your eyes.

what exactly am i demanding 'screenshots of their scum PT' levels of evidence for even.
like you keep bandying about this statement but i don't know what you're applying it to, or what it means.

if you're talkinig about why i dislike your push on me/january, as stated above, i've given multiple reasons why it doesn't make sense. to me i feel like i've refuted the push. i don't know what i'm demanding this level of evidence for.

like yes, i'm shutting down your arguments because i think they're ridiculous and largely rhetorical and that you don't believe them
like should i not expect you to make sense when you make arguments ...

In post 782, skitter30 wrote:i don't think i'm demanding that level of evidence

I think you are.
Back several pages ago when you were pushing the "this play is not mechanically perfect or optimal thus you need to demonstrate that..." point very hard. That's what stuck with me.

In post 782, skitter30 wrote:i still don't know what this means or how this encapsulates my play

this even resonated with tictac so I might be onto something.
I'll dig up quotes later (screen is too small)

In post 783, skitter30 wrote:i feel like i am ...

yet you were the one dismissing most of my case due to "overdone rhetoric"

In post 784, skitter30 wrote:or ...

So it's settled then?
We're going to spend most of our time digging up material from old games.
Got it.

In post 785, skitter30 wrote:because you're making up things and i can't prove negatives

*handwavey dismissal is handwavey*

In post 786, skitter30 wrote:'minor afterthought details' as such then

I thought it was heavily implied that my minor afterthought details are afterthought, but noted.

In post 788, skitter30 wrote:i don't think that these points are particularly relevant. the particularly reasons for *why* you did what you're doing i don't think matter really

oh boooooooy. you literally just asked for

In post 777, skitter30 wrote:i brought a parallel where you've done something similar as scum
don't sidestep it by saying you dont' want to talk about it
explain how it's different

and I'm obliging.

>skitter: *brings up vork's past meta*
>vork: "said past meta is inapplicable in this game"
>skitter: "explain how it's different"
>vork: *explains*
>skitter: "I don't think it really matters"

Please tell me how I'm misrepping you in this little TL;DR

In post 788, skitter30 wrote:my good man, if you do succeed in getting me lynched today i'm going to do everything in my ability to make sure you're next, just letting you know

itsk because I'll be conf!town'd with the other mason when you flip red

In post 788, skitter30 wrote:you haven't really shown that i've taken it out of context either

I literally gave you numbers to help you keep track

In post 790, skitter30 wrote:what exactly am i demanding 'screenshots of their scum PT' levels of evidence for even.

I've explained this WITHOUT flowery language already. We should be on the same page by now with this. Come on.

In post 774, Vorkuta wrote:*Disclaimer: the following below is my personal read, based on my experience, and impressions (based on a grand total of 2 completed games 'against' scum!skitter, 1 completed game with IC!skitter, and 1 game against town/skitter)" The following theory is a "work-in-progress" and is undergoing revisions and constantly evolving. It could be BS. Or it could be something. I'd like it to be something.
This has to be said because I foresee myself having to quote this in the near future.

I think one of the ways scum!skitter plays is by shutting down lines of questioning.
Town!skitter is much more openminded, willing to make the logical assumptions/leaps to see where a train of thought would lead for the sake of scumhunting- ie "talk to me more about XXX", and deals with disagreements pleasantly in the form of "I'm not sure that...." or "I don't think...."
Scum!skitter is more interested in redirecting the gameflow and SUBTLY shutting down uncomfortable lines of inquiry and one of the more effective ways I've seen her do it is by inflating the level of proof/evidence necessary for her to acknowledge a claim to a level that is much higher than what town!skitter would require to join along on the journey.
This distinction is what I mean when I say that skitter is shutting down my points/arguments by demanding that I do so much legwork to demonstrate the validity of my case, that it's almost akin to "taking screenshots of the scumPT to demonstrate that this is in fact what's going on".

In post 790, skitter30 wrote:but i've argued it the way i can, by explaining why

Ok we're fine up until now. However- that's not all you did.
You provided a defense/explanation. Sure. Great. Might even be valid/relevant. Don't care anymore- point is moot, ship has sailed.
Then you're all like "substantiate your assertions beyond a reasonable doubt".

Which is my beef with you.

Repeating myself- it's no longer about the specific/concrete responses to my line of inquiry.
It's evolved into the fact that your defense has been 30% {a), b), c) as you mentioned ^} and 70% "do more legwork"
a)- not "I don't play like this", but "prove that I play like this. because I don't"
b)- not "the association doesn't make sense" but "prove that this is optimal play coming from both of us. which it isn't"
c)- not "no motivation for me to do this" but "demonstrate that scum!skitter does this. which I don't"

In post 790, skitter30 wrote:and that you don't believe them

You have amazing insight into my beliefs

In post 788, skitter30 wrote:if you can show me you making up bs to push people as town

1- burden of proof is burdeny
2- i'm too embarassed because those were not my best moments
3- too many walls for even ME to parse through
4- I resent your "making up bs" wording. I like how you're adopting my flowery language, but if you're going to take a page out of my book, I'll take a page out of yours.

Kindly demonstrate how any "bs" I have "made up" was "made up" and not "lying around waiting for vork to find it and present it"

you know what, i don't think this is a fruitful conversation
we're either communicating horrifically or you're scum

i don't think this is going anywhere

@ everyone not named vork, if you'd like to talk to me about my play, please let me know

In post 754, DrDolittle wrote:I defended zen because his posts pinged me as town during my catchup. Although I didn't really like his eod posts, and today's skirting around.

@Zen

what's your read on the game state and who is scum?

I only glanced at vork vs skitter, but I'll give it another in depth read later. I'm really not sure how to think about it since I've never seen vork so aggresive and im scared.

But I'm trying to figure out how does january play a role in all this. I don't see vork's (jan, skit) pair, both independently from jan and the partnership doesn't make sense. Plus 734 is very town.

hi, let's talk about your reads and who you want to lynch today:

- i'm p sure sus has siteflaked and will be prodded shortly
- i think january and zenith are probably town, january stronger than zenith. tictac is just north of the null line. i don't have a reason to townread you
- i think you need to form an opinion on me/vork

- currently i would like to lynch vork, and you're where i'm looking at next
- i noted teh same associtiatives as tictac between you/zenith, and it makes me slightly wary

In post 249, tictac wrote:vork also basically zero impact.

In post 257, Suspicious wrote:I would like more from Vork at this juncture as well.

In post 481, skitter30 wrote:@vork it would be nice if you like contributed tho

*ahem*
Those aren't my "skitter demands for an unreasonable amount of proof while defending" quotes
These are

and if you want more from other games then
also skitter's progression in her ISO is quite interesting to read

Again if anyone else would like to have a discussion with me about that lmk ^

In post 775, skitter30 wrote:

In post 773, tictac wrote:u mean the revere reads thing?
I dunno how he's exploring that when I'm not gonna be lynched and am currently sleeping so can't react to it.

i'm not sure what you mean by this

I meant post 690

In post 773, tictac wrote:Inflated? yes, but this point does resonate with me. ref 352.
Skitt: if this is something ya been accused of as town, a link would be appreciated.

i'm not sure what you're asking for here

I feel like even if ya disagreed w my Jam-read it would fall into 'i can see why he thinks that' category.
Your tone when talking w me was 'that is wrong and ya have no reason to think that', which I feel was unreasonable, especially w ya gutreading me as town.
I think this might be AI for ya, but I'm not sure, so I asked for a self-meta counterexample to disprove it. I'll take that as a defense if ya got a good one.

In post 773, tictac wrote:I actually don't see ya doing that w vork, but I do think ya did that w my Jam-push.

ok, where do you think i'm doing that?

see prev point.

in case I wasn't clear previously: if it's down to lynching skitt or vork, I currently prefer lynching skitt.
it does occur to me tho, that with nightkills being tied up with getting rid of the masons, lynching town!skitt is 100% what scum!vork would need to do if doesn't want to be at lylo w her, which he would not want.
so i guess what I'm trying to say is: skitt & vork. If ya guys are in a tvt, ya need to work it out cause it's fairly disasturous to gamestate if that's the case.

In post 788, skitter30 wrote:my good man, if you do succeed in getting me lynched today i'm going to do everything in my ability to make sure you're next, just letting you know

I'll add that I don't think threats like this are constructive if ya town.
Ya in a category of players whose reads I actually would listen to postmortem if ya flip town.
I need them to accurately represent your view on what is true.

In post 797, tictac wrote:I meant post 690

ya i realized and acknowledged that later

In post 797, tictac wrote:I feel like even if ya disagreed w my Jam-read it would fall into 'i can see why he thinks that' category.
Your tone when talking w me was 'that is wrong and ya have no reason to think that', which I feel was unreasonable, especially w ya gutreading me as town.
I think this might be AI for ya, but I'm not sure, so I asked for a self-meta counterexample to disprove it. I'll take that as a defense if ya got a good one.

i have like ~ethical~ issues with people using things like 'last time seen on site' timestamps to form reads
i feel like it's out of the bounds of the game and is only available as a method to read people at all as a limitation of the medium that we're playing the game in
if we could ban this sort of read i would be very happy to do so

sometimes people just check the site without checking all their games
he was in another game that has since ended that was in lylo (ep's newbie), and i find it viable that he may have checked the site to check in with the more urgent lylo situation he was dealing with instead of this game
i don't find this to be ai and i don't like that you were using this as a basis for the read at all, which is why i objected to it

like i can definitely understand where the read stems from but i disagree with using timestamp-based tells like this to form reads; it also feels semi-stalker-y to me
and in general i believe it when people mention irl situations as a reason for why they didn't post, i kinda want to believe that people won't lie about this sort of thing

you want an example of where my tone was 'that is wrong and you have no reason to think that' while gutreading someone as town?
i had that tone because i fundementally object to these sorts of tells in an abstract/ethical sense

In post 797, tictac wrote:it does occur to me tho, that with nightkills being tied up with getting rid of the masons, lynching town!skitt is 100% what scum!vork would need to do if doesn't want to be at lylo w her, which he would not want.
so i guess what I'm trying to say is: skitt & vork. If ya guys are in a tvt, ya need to work it out cause it's fairly disasturous to gamestate if that's the case.

why would you prefer to lynch me over vork?
i don't think the back-and-forth i've had with vork is beneficial anymore at this point; i think he's arguing word salad and nonsense and that the back-and-forth is fucking with the gamestate, which is why i've stopped it. if people want me to i could, but i think the as-is arguing makes it hard for other people to follow

In post 797, tictac wrote:I'll add that I don't think threats like this are constructive if ya town.
Ya in a category of players whose reads I actually would listen to postmortem if ya flip town.
I need them to accurately represent your view on what is true.

i know, i'm usually an exception to the 'dead people don't get listened to' rule
i very strongly believe he's scum
if you lot want to lynch me first it's my job to make sure you understand what you need to do when i flip town.
(this wasn't like a ~vengeful~ type thing, if you read it that way. i'm saying that if i go i want everyone to understand where i believe scum to be, and i'm going to do my best to secure that lynch for after my greenflip when i can't actively work towards it anymore)

In post 798, skitter30 wrote:i had that tone because i fundementally object to these sorts of tells in an abstract/ethical sense

So gimme an example where ya did that as town.
I need something to check/compare here.

In post 798, skitter30 wrote:why would you prefer to lynch me over vork?

I TR vork day1 scumread on me and his flip on Bailey.
I don't have a reason to TR ya and I think the tone-thing might be AI, I'll think over yer response to that tho.
I'm also not sure I buy ya nullreading me here, but that part might be BoP.