Moderator Mafia - Now known as Loli Kawaii no desu forums, scum wins!

[Kantrip]

Because I like how T-Block has responded and how he has defended himself.

He has chosen not to answer things that would help scum (and rightly so), whereas you have continued to ask them. You're better than that, Raziek, which makes me ask myself why you are trying to get T-Block to help scum.

 

[Raziek]

Focus on the first part. "You've already given me a pretext right now, in the form of your claim."

Type as if you were making a case on me. What would the point look like? "T-block is scummy because he claimed VT"? That's pretty weak, and I'm not scared of that at all. I hope you can provide something stronger than that, because I'm clearly missing what you're seeing.

I don't need to provide more than that, and you cherry-picked only one part of my hypothetical argument, and that was the weakest one.

I do think my answer would be more valuable than that of others because I have actually played with the entire playerlist. However, that's not why I refuse to answer.

It's anti-town for ANYONE to answer that question for the reason I already provided: it's information that scum finds much more valuable than town does. You still didn't answer how this information would benefit town.

This isn't really true. It's not all that difficult to skim a few DR or DGames mafia threads to see who's actually a threat and who's a weaker player.

On top of that, it's also not true that scum benefits more in all cases. If such information is public, Town can more heavily scrutinize a wagon on a weaker player. Information is a commodity, and when Scum can find it out with a little work, I don't see issue with providing said information to the ENTIRE Town, instead of letting the most dangerous members find it out themselves.
If you claim we both know the answer to the questions, why are you asking me?

I don't necessarily agree with your evaluation of the players by the way.

Ok.

 

[Raziek]

Focus on the first part. "You've already given me a pretext right now, in the form of your claim."

Type as if you were making a case on me. What would the point look like? "T-block is scummy because he claimed VT"? That's pretty weak, and I'm not scared of that at all. I hope you can provide something stronger than that, because I'm clearly missing what you're seeing.

I don't need to provide more than that, and you cherry-picked only one part of my hypothetical argument, and that was the weakest one.

I do think my answer would be more valuable than that of others because I have actually played with the entire playerlist. However, that's not why I refuse to answer.

It's anti-town for ANYONE to answer that question for the reason I already provided: it's information that scum finds much more valuable than town does. You still didn't answer how this information would benefit town.

This isn't really true. It's not all that difficult to skim a few DR or DGames mafia threads to see who's actually a threat and who's a weaker player.

On top of that, it's also not true that scum benefits more in all cases. If such information is public, Town can more heavily scrutinize a wagon on a weaker player. Information is a commodity, and when Scum can find it out with a little work, I don't see issue with providing said information to the ENTIRE Town, instead of letting the most dangerous members find it out themselves.

If you claim we both know the answer to the questions, why are you asking me?

You should already know the reason people ask questions that don't appear to serve any immediate purpose to the two directly involved.

I don't necessarily agree with your evaluation of the players by the way.

Ok.

 

[Raziek]

Re-posted due to bad formatting.

Kantrip, you're thinking shallow again.

 

[Raziek]

Because I like how T-Block has responded and how he has defended himself.

He has chosen not to answer things that would help scum (and rightly so), whereas you have continued to ask them. You're better than that, Raziek, which makes me ask myself why you are trying to get T-Block to help scum.

What specifically did you like? Quotes please.

This is a weak stance.

 

[Kantrip]

Raziek if a wagon starts on a weaker player and you think town would benefit from realizing it's a weaker player, feel free to inform them then. Listing out players how you would rank them will do nothing for town right now.

Am I thinking shallow? Am I really?

Just because you can only see the surface of the pond, that doesn't make it a puddle.

 

[Raziek]

Vague answers and weak stances does not a deep answer make.

You are thinking shallow.

 

[Kantrip]

I'm not thinking shallow, I am posting shallow. There is a difference. You don't know what I'm thinking.

I will lay it out in due time, but why share what is not complete? Books are published when complete, after all.

 

[Raziek]

So you admit you're posting shallow.

Post deep, then.

 

[Kantrip]

What's there to admit? It is pretty obvious that my posts are pretty surface-level for anyone who can read. If you wanted an admittance, you could have asked for one and I would have been all too willing to oblige.

You're asking a lot of things that are anti-town and saying and asking a lot of obvious things/questions, Raziek. I'll post deep when you do.

 

[Raziek]

You're a funny guy, Kantrip. I've probably provided more content already than TPK will all game.

 

[T-block]

I don't need to provide more than that, and you cherry-picked only one part of my hypothetical argument, and that was the weakest one.

But Raziek, that's the only part I care about -_-

Let me try to lay this out for you:

• You were bothered by my opening post
• You said it bothered you because it allows scum to start a case on me
• I showed that it would be a very weak and easily refuted point. You agreed in your last post
• Therefore, scum will not be able to use my opening post as a pretext for a case on me
• Therefore, you have no reason to be bothered by my opening post

The other two points I did not acknowledge because they are irrelevant to what we are discussing. I didn't even ask for them in the first place. I am trying to understand why you were bothered by my opening post. I don't care whether you were bothered by my refusal to answer your questions. Understand?

This isn't really true. It's not all that difficult to skim a few DR or DGames mafia threads to see who's actually a threat and who's a weaker player.

Yes, the strength of each player is public information. What is NOT public information is my perception of each player. Or Kantrip's perception. Or your perception. How well a player plays is not the only important thing... you need to consider how everyone in the game perceives each player, as that will have a strong influence in who gets lynched and such. What if everyone were to answer your question, and it was noted that everyone is wary of Kantrip as a threat, and considered Vinyl. and easy mislynch? Do you see how scum can use that information? It might discourage a push on Vinyl., and cue scum to look for ways to cast suspicion on Kantrip.

On top of that, it's also not true that scum benefits more in all cases. If such information is public, Town can more heavily scrutinize a wagon on a weaker player. Information is a commodity, and when Scum can find it out with a little work, I don't see issue with providing said information to the ENTIRE Town, instead of letting the most dangerous members find it out themselves.

Agreed, except that I don't see why we need to reveal NOW, instead of when the wagon actually develops. In fact, it is simpler to scrutinize a wagon that has not been declared as an easy mislynch, because we don't need to consider that extra layer of scum knowing that it is an easy mislynch to be pushed.

 

[Kantrip]

Yes Raziek, that may be true.

Why bring up TPK though? Why are you calling me a funny guy and ending the conversation now? I was sure it was going somewhere and I was developing a read on you. I expected you to carry on with your absurd follow-up questions. What made you stop?

 

[Raziek]

Yes Raziek, that may be true.

Why bring up TPK though? Why are you calling me a funny guy and ending the conversation now? I was sure it was going somewhere and I was developing a read on you. I expected you to carry on with your absurd follow-up questions. What made you stop?

Simple. You've accused me of not posting deep, which implies a lack of content. Which is false.

I brought up TPK because I don't think he posted more than 5 sentences in all of Disco 3.

Getting to T-Block's most recent post.

 

[Raziek]

But Raziek, that's the only part I care about -_-

Let me try to lay this out for you:

• You were bothered by my opening post
• You said it bothered you because it allows scum to start a case on me
• I showed that it would be a very weak and easily refuted point. You agreed in your last post
• Therefore, scum will not be able to use my opening post as a pretext for a case on me
• Therefore, you have no reason to be bothered by my opening post

The other two points I did not acknowledge because they are irrelevant to what we are discussing. I didn't even ask for them in the first place. I am trying to understand why you were bothered by my opening post. I don't care whether you were bothered by my refusal to answer your questions. Understand?

I agreed that the VT point ALONE is weak, but that's irrelevant. The point, again, is that it is a PRETEXT. That pretext alone has given me almost 2 full pages of content that I could cherry-pick and make an ACTUAL push with if I wanted to. The VT claim had no pro-Town purpose, and THAT is my reason to be bothered by it.

The strength of the actual case that could be pushed is merely tangent to the central problem of lacking any pro-Town intent behind the claim.

Tell me. Why did you claim, and why do you believe your actions were pro-Town?

 

[Kantrip]

There's a such thing as shallow content. You have posted content, yet you think posting deep and a lack of content are synonymous. Which is false.

So you admit you're changing the subject.

Oh man, now Raziek is trying to back-door out of his argument with T-Block by going into semantics and argue that T-Block's claim was not pro-town.

What you fail to realize, Raziek, is that what you're doing isn't pro-town either.

I do not like his play right now.

Vote: Raziek

 

[Raziek]

There's a such thing as shallow content. You have posted content, yet you think posting deep and a lack of content are synonymous. Which is false.

So you admit you're changing the subject.

Oh man, now Raziek is trying to back-door out of his argument with T-Block by going into semantics and argue that T-Block's claim was not pro-town.

What you fail to realize, Raziek, is that what you're doing isn't pro-town either.

I do not like his play right now.

Vote: Raziek

T-Block's claim not being pro-Town is the entire reason we ended up in this discussion to begin with. It is not a backdoor, and T-Block was the one to suggest such the "thought exercise" to begin with.

The fact that you say what I'm doing is not Pro-Town EITHER suggests you agree that what T-Block is doing is not pro-Town.

Why, then, is T-Block a Town read? Simply because you "Liked his defense"? Still waiting on those quotes, by the way.

 

[T-block]

Maybe I just felt like claiming. Maybe I did have a reason to claim. If I did, then revealing the reason would defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?

This case that you could supposedly make... it's either a bad case or a good case.

If it's a bad case, there's nothing to worry about. It will be easily refuted and we will continue on.

If it's a good case, then it's a collection of convincing arguments pointing me out as scum. If so, and you can actually make this case that you claim to be able to, you have caught me as scum, no?

Given the above, I'm going to make a statement here. I may or may not agree with it: Raziek claims he could make an actual push on me from what has happened so far, but implies that he doesn't want to - this suggests that his play is not focused on hunting scum

John, do you agree with the above statement?

Anyone not named Kantrip or Raziek, feel free to answer that as well.

 

[Kantrip]

What T-Block did by claiming was most likely anti-town, though I could think of scenarios in which it could be pro-town (which I will not share so don't even bother asking ).

The point is, I am analyzing what I'm reading more than just thinking "this is townie" or "this is anti-town". You know, intent? You know, deep?

The point is Raziek, I came to the conclusion that I did. You asking me to quote T-Block's posts and show how I came to the conclusion suggests to me one of two things:

1. You don't believe that I could have (or did) come to this conclusion.
2. You disagree with the conclusion and came to the a different one.

Which one is it, Raz?

 

[John2k4]

I'm nervous to follow you after Housepets , but yes, I agree with that above statement.
I'm going to go try to read your back & forth with him in-depth, so I can hopefully comprehend more of it. :/

 

[Raziek]

Hold the phone.

That statement is based entirely on a false assumption.

I said VERY clearly that the strength of the case had no relevance on whether or not I could or would push it.

By claiming that I should be pushing a case I outright admitted was weak, you're suggesting I'm not hunting scum. Such a claim is false. Why would I push a weak case on you when I do not even believe you're scum?

 

[Kantrip]

You don't believe T-Block is scum? Then what do you think?

 

[Raziek]

Note very clearly that T-Block AGAIN declined to explain why his claim is at all pro-Town.

Kantrip, neither of those is correct. I asked because you have not given me any reasoning to support said conclusion, therefore the statement is meaningless, because you can simply back out of it later by saying "Oh well I just thought so, but I changed my mind."

@Ninja:

I've been given nothing to suggest that T-Block is either Town or Scum. The whole point of this discussion was to discuss the intent of his claim, not whether or not I think he is scum or would actually make a case on him.

I believe I see the intent in his statement, but we'll see where that goes first.

 

[Kantrip]

Ah, so you still have T-Block as null after all this?

After all this activity you coordinated, have you got a single read on anyone?

So your purpose in asking me to lay out quotes was so that I couldn't back out later? That, again, serves no purpose in scum hunting.

 

[T-block]

If you admit it's weak, then whyyyy are you so worried about scum being able to push it? At the very least, the two of us would tear it to shreds, no?

Yes, everyone take note that I refuse to answer. I'll even say it myself: I will not explain why I claimed VT. I will not even acknowledge that there was a reason for doing so.

 

[Raziek]

Dumbtown on John. Nothing else concrete yet.

And yes, preventing you from backing out on a previous stance very CLEARLY serves a purpose in scumhunting. It prevents you from being able to simply go with the flow by taking whatever stance is popular at the time.

If you claim T-Block is Town now and support that reasoning, then change that opinion later without supporting it, then that's a very clear discrepancy I can push later.

 

[Kantrip]

I find it humorous that you were worried I might back out of a town read. Posting some quotes of T-Block is not going to change my ability to do this. All it would do is force me to explain why and give some reasoning as to why the read changed.

It's not like people can't change their reads or anything.

If T-Block's claim was anti-town, then there's that. If it was pro-town, explaining why would only help scum. Leavining it at that because I don't actually know the circumstances of T-Block's claim. You should leave it at that too, because it seems like you're getting nowhere through this.

 

[Kantrip]

If you claim T-Block is Town now and support that reasoning, then change that opinion later without supporting it, then that's a very clear discrepancy I can push later.

Scumslip? Raziek just admitted he has the intent to push my lynch later if he doesn't like how I answer his question.

That's a little bit preemptive.

 

[Raziek]

It's not that I'm worried about scum being able to push it, it's that you've yet to demonstrate any pro-Town motive whatsoever for your claim, other than it happened to move us very quickly out of RVS.

Why do you suggest that we would tear it to shreds together? That would require that I trust you as Town, which is not trust you have yet earned.

@ Kantrip:

That's exactly the point. If you continue to post shallowly, there is very little content by which to form a read on. I need you to support your reasonings because I need to know if you're thinking in a Town mindset.

@Second Kantrip ninja:

That's entirely out of context.

And yes, preventing you from backing out on a previous stance very CLEARLY serves a purpose in scumhunting. It prevents you from being able to simply go with the flow by taking whatever stance is popular at the time.

If you claim T-Block is Town now and support that reasoning, then change that opinion later without supporting it, then that's a very clear discrepancy I can push later.

My statement was based entirely around the fact that you COULD be scum, and thus I would be scum-hunting.

That's not even at ALL a scumslip.

 

[Kantrip]

Raziek, how did you get a read on John from one post? Yet you have no read on either me or T-Block?

 

[Raziek]

He was quick to follow whom he perceived to be in the "right" in the argument, instead of further probing.

Note the "dumb" qualifier means things could change easily. I say that to mean that I'm not concerned with him at this time, but would re-evaluate if the need presented itself.

I have not been able to toss either you or T-Block in any category easily, so you remain null.

 

[T-block]

Scumslip? Raziek just admitted he has the intent to push my lynch later if he doesn't like how I answer his question.

That's a little bit preemptive.

Nah, it's fine.

It's not that I'm worried about scum being able to push it, it's that you've yet to demonstrate any pro-Town motive whatsoever for your claim, other than it happened to move us very quickly out of RVS.

Why do you suggest that we would tear it to shreds together? That would require that I trust you as Town, which is not trust you have yet earned.

Moving us out of RVS may be reason enough, no? In any case, even if I did have a reason to claim, I don't know why you'd expect to see it within 24 hours of D1 starting.

Because we are both logical and will both be able to see through a bad case, regardless of our opinion of the other's alignment?

 

[Raziek]

This is likely a difference in opinion when it comes to play philosophy, but I see no issue in someone else pushing a bad case on someone I think is scum for other reasons.

I'm concerned with the ends, not the means, and seeing how others react to a bad case drastically expands the number of reads I'm able to garner from things, whether it results in a mislynch on someone I thought was scum (in error), or actual scum.

 

[Kantrip]

He was quick to follow whom he perceived to be in the "right" in the argument, instead of further probing.

Note the "dumb" qualifier means things could change easily. I say that to mean that I'm not concerned with him at this time, but would re-evaluate if the need presented itself.

I have not been able to toss either you or T-Block in any category easily, so you remain null.

So basically you have one read that is very shallow and "could easily change" (that just sounds like a scum qualifier for wishy-washiness just looking at it), and you're telling me to push out some deep content?

What did you honestly expect me to have?

 

[Raziek]

Considering you placed him in a category (Town) that I believe requires more evaluation than simply putting someone in the "dumbtown/negligible" pile, yes, actually, I expect more.

Some are more loose with the "Town" honorific than others, which likely explains you wondering why I have nulls, and me wondering why you have T-Block as Town.

I don't call someone "Town" unless I'm sure. Dumbtown I'm more liberal with.

 

[Kantrip]

I call people town when doing so will benefit my scumhunting, regardless of whether or not the statement is true.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Raziek]

I need to go to sleep. Won't be back in the thread tonight.

 

[T-block]

Hang on one sec:

It's not that I'm worried about scum being able to push it, it's that you've yet to demonstrate any pro-Town motive whatsoever for your claim, other than it happened to move us very quickly out of RVS.

You keep changing your reasoning on me. Nothing in your earlier posts suggests that you disliked the lack of pro-town motive for my claim. In fact, everything suggests that you were indeed worried about scum being able to do things with my post. I thought it was cute that you were so concerned about me scum pushing my lynch =(

Take a look:

Spoiler

What makes you say that? I'm bothered by it because now scum CAN leave you alive and we're probably going to have to mislynch you at some point if they don't kill you.

I mean, it's pro-Town if you're a PR, but pro-Scum if you're telling the truth.

So my irritation is a null tell, because all you did was take a big steaming dump of WIFOM in this thread.

You must be deliberately ignoring the implications of my words.

The reason pushing a mislynch is more viable NOW than before you claimed is because you have given scum a pretext on which to push the lynch. There is no longer a reason necessary. They bring this up, include some information that may or may not actually make you scummy as evidence, and bam, you're wagoned.

Again, to make it damn clear what I am saying. You have given scum a PRETEXT by which they can push your mislynch.

On TOP of that, you've also (as already mentioned), precluded any matching of your play with your intent by claiming VT.

Someone plays cautious all game, they get pushed to claim, they claim Doctor. Their intent supports their play.

You have already taken away the means to give support to your eventual ACTUAL claim by claiming VT right away, whether it is a gambit or not.


Did I say that? Am I voting you?

I didn't think so.

Pretext is everything. I'll take your little thought exercise.

You've already given me a pretext right now, in the form of your claim. Following from that is your refusal to answer my questions, and the fact that your claim has no definitively pro-Town purpose.

With those three things, I can form the basis of a weak case on you. From there, all I have to do is cherry-pick a few of your responses to paint you as scummy, band-wagon up a few votes, and then you're forced to claim. If you are VT and have no PR claim to save yourself, you die. If you ARE a PR, you've outed yourself by being forced to claim. Either way, Town loses, Scum gains.


Do you claim that your opinion holds more weight than those of the rest of the playerlist? I can easily ask the rest of the Town who they think are the threats. Withholding your opinion as if it holds crucial value is senseless, because you and I both know the answer to those questions anyway.

You and I are the only real threats in this game. There are multiple easy mislynched that will become apparent, and most of them are the DR players, as opposed to the DGamers like ourselves.

So, if your concern this whole time was about my reason for claiming, how do you explain the quotes in the collapse box?

 

[T-block]

This is likely a difference in opinion when it comes to play philosophy, but I see no issue in someone else pushing a bad case on someone I think is scum for other reasons.

I'm concerned with the ends, not the means, and seeing how others react to a bad case drastically expands the number of reads I'm able to garner from things, whether it results in a mislynch on someone I thought was scum (in error), or actual scum.

I have no issue with that.

However, if I'm null to you, as I supposedly am right now, then you would evaluate any case presented on me logically, no? If you'd let me defend it to try to read me, that's fine - you can rephrase my original question to "you know I'd be able to tear a bad case to shreds, no?"

Anyways, I think a break would be good, just so the other players don't get overwhelmed coming in here.

 

[Vinylic.]

Vote:Raziek

I believe so.