|
On June 25 2012 11:34 dNa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 11:20 Release wrote:
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not. ##FOS: Releasethis seems like very flawed logic to me. You can very well accuse someone of being scum without lying. Saying things like "I 'think' X is scum" ; "i 'suspect' X of being scum" and so forth and giving logical reasons on what led you to this conclusion is in no way come by as a lie. Of course if someone bluntly states "X is scum" without reasoning behind it, it is pretty surely much more suspicious for the poster itself. in my opinion you just try to stir up this whole thing a bit, by directly voting for him, so I'll keep my eye on you. Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said it was lying now did I? I said that they wouldn't be telling the truth.
Hypothetical scenario: BlazingHand is town. Toad is town. BlazingHand says "[insert logical reasoning here], therefore, Toad is scum." Was he telling the truth? Absolutely not, but he was being honest. Lying is intentional false, whereas someone can be honest and false too.
|
EBWOP: i managed to sneak a "lie" in there, (it was more for the idiomatic saying), but i said truth multiple times before. So if you acknowledge this EBWOP and your opinion doesn't change, let me know.
|
On June 25 2012 11:34 dNa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 11:20 Release wrote:
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not. ##FOS: Releasethis seems like very flawed logic to me. You can very well accuse someone of being scum without lying. Saying things like "I 'think' X is scum" ; "i 'suspect' X of being scum" and so forth and giving logical reasons on what led you to this conclusion is in no way come by as a lie. Of course if someone bluntly states "X is scum" without reasoning behind it, it is pretty surely much more suspicious for the poster itself. in my opinion you just try to stir up this whole thing a bit, by directly voting for him, so I'll keep my eye on you. And why do you seem so satisfied to leave the discussion at policy? That's all we have talked about besides formality. What i posted will generate (and it has) discussion which is good for town.
By saying this, you are saying that you would prefer to sit back and talk about nothing/policy all day.
|
How about lynch scum? Esspen put it quite nicely.
I already state my lurker policy so feel free...
And let's drop it doesn't fly with me.
On June 25 2012 12:12 dNa wrote: I'm honestly pretty convinced that the statement you gave as example there can be seen as a "suspicion", not as a statement of a fact. And while blazing in your example states that toad is scum and that's not the case, it should be pretty obvious that that he is just suspecting it, because there is no way of him knowing it for a fact. But that might be just arguing semantics at that point, let's drop it.
Instead I would like to hear what policy you would suggest, since you are obviously not happy with the policy that was originally proposed. Maybe I like it better than the original one too, I am not too familiar with different policies in this game. semantics are important. I ended up lynching a medic once because we couldn't synchronize our semantics.
Of course he doesn't know it for a fact. But he stated it. And that's why, in that hypothetical scenario, he would be being untruthful. Honest, but untruthful.
Why are you trying to avoid me?
|
On June 25 2012 12:22 Keirathi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 11:20 Release wrote: ##vote Hopeless1der
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not. FOS: Release I don't see any situation where our infestation of evil (Mafia) can get out of this situation without lying. They can bend truths and suggest things that seem scummy, but in the end, they know who they are and who we are and will have to tell some lies or, at the very least, half truths. Making a case that someone is scum isn't lying, assuming you are town and you have some kind of reasoning that drew you to that conclusion. Being wrong != lying.Now, with all that said, your flawed logic isn't the reason for my suspicion towards you. Fast voting someone who has an argument with you is no way to catch the perps. If you honestly think someone disagreeing with your initial logic (which in this case was actually a disagreeing logic to *ANOTHER* person), then you're just asking to lynch innocent people because they have different ideas than you. Hence, in theory. It was a hypothetical scenario to show the fault with "lynch those who don't tell the truth."
Response to bold: I never fucking said it was lying. I said it was being untruthful. Get it straight. You can be untruthful and honest at the same time but you can't be lying and honest at the same time.
Look at the activity pre-##vote and compare that to the activity post-##vote Thank me later.
|
On June 25 2012 12:19 dNa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 12:06 Release wrote:On June 25 2012 11:34 dNa wrote:On June 25 2012 11:20 Release wrote:
I think Mafia is a very intricate game, and to say Lynch those who do not tell the truth is retarded. The Mafia knows the truth about the town. Townies know nothing (or very little). So in your scenario, the Mafia would never get lynched because in theory, they could always tell the truth. On the other hand, a honest and earnest townie may be pouring his heart into a case on another townie (calling him scum) and he is not telling the truth. That townie would get caught in a lie and would therefore deserve to die, in your opinion.
I believe that we should be honest, because as a townie, we have no way of knowing if we are telling the truth or not. ##FOS: Releasethis seems like very flawed logic to me. You can very well accuse someone of being scum without lying. Saying things like "I 'think' X is scum" ; "i 'suspect' X of being scum" and so forth and giving logical reasons on what led you to this conclusion is in no way come by as a lie. Of course if someone bluntly states "X is scum" without reasoning behind it, it is pretty surely much more suspicious for the poster itself. in my opinion you just try to stir up this whole thing a bit, by directly voting for him, so I'll keep my eye on you. And why do you seem so satisfied to leave the discussion at policy? That's all we have talked about besides formality. What i posted will generate (and it has) discussion which is good for town. By saying this, you are saying that you would prefer to sit back and talk about nothing/policy all day. That is not what that was trying to say. I was just saying directly voting for him seems a bit severe to me, and like a complete overreaction for what he has done (which is propose a policy). I guess you just wanted to take a shot in the dark, because the reasoning behind that vote seems very thin to me. read what i wrote again and take a hint.
|
On June 25 2012 12:13 Hopeless1der wrote: Any statement preceeded by "I think..." is inherently true until a contradictory "I think.."or similar statement is made. Nevertheless Release's logic should be addressed and I will concede that I committed the same error that he did prior to his EBWOP: equating truth to honesty, which are not the same.
Basically if someone decides to flip flop on a decision without some ironclad reasoning, I'm saying lynch the sucker Honest. Not true.
|
Actually scratch that: One can actually say "i think..." and have the ... be something completely contradictory to what they actually believe. But in general, we have to assume it's honest.
|
Didn't see your post on the second page. Mb.
Absolutely not. I was just pointing out how horrible a lynch people who don't tell the truth policy would be. Esspen said it, and I've repeated it, lynch scum.
Kerithai, have you changed your mind about me yeT?
|
On June 25 2012 12:53 Hopeless1der wrote: To further clarify my response to Release:
I'm saying lynch people that we can collectively agree have been dishonest in something they have said or done.
Further discussions on what constitutes 'dishonesty' may follow at a later time, or right now if whoever is reading this should so happen to desire. in terms of thoughts and what not: Dishonest pretty much = lie (at least the generally accepted definition of lie)
To intentionally mislead. I thought this but typed " i think ..." where ... is "that."
Lynch scum, not dishonest people. If someone's dishonesty contributes to their appearing scummy, then we lynch them (because they appeared scummy).
|
On June 25 2012 13:01 Keirathi wrote: @Release: You completely glossed over the important section of my post. More scum for the scum train.
Getting all read to bandwagon someone who had a policy idea that you didn't agree with less than 2 hours intot he game will when you no friends, no matter how much discussion it spawned. Your post with the ##Vote line = good discussion. Your post with the ##Vote line = mind boggling. when= win i presume?
Clearly, you've chosen not to be my friend but let other people speak for themselves.
Bandwagon? Why we hardly have enough people to constitute a majority. Who am i trying to convince?
Take a hint.
|
On June 25 2012 13:15 Keirathi wrote: Yes I meant win. Sorry my typing was atrocious, its late.
As far as "friends", its way too early to know who I can trust. Need to hear some input from other people, but for now, yes you are my leading candidate. I 100% feel that your vote was too premature and has no reasonable explanation other than "to get the ball rolling", which is a terrible reason to vote. It accomplishes nothing other than to put a vote on someone who has a 75% chance of being a townie for the SOLE REASON that he had a good intentioned, albeit impossible, idea for a lynch policy. You do realize that i can change my vote right?
Shocking... + Show Spoiler +
|
actually, i'm a mental retard. There is a separate voting thread. But i think it's still good to know show our intentions through votes in this thread.
+ Show Spoiler +That makes you a mental retard too.
|
Still on this are we?
Look at the activity pre-##vote and compare that to the activity post-##vote
|
something else that is bothering: If you're in the middle of a conversation and you have to leave for whatever reason, a "night" of "gtg" is helpful in letting us know that you will not be continuing the conversation.
|
So night. I will be less active in the following days (until night 3) for aforementioned reasons.
|
On June 25 2012 20:23 Esspen wrote:I do not get all that "lynch the liar" for several reasons. Townies obviously cannot know whether someone lied or not, only clues they can grasp onto are inconsistencies and vagueness. The only players who know the truth are scums and if the whole game is going to revole around us identifying who lied, mafia is going to win rather easy. Mafia can win just by ereasing their memory that they are mafia and simply playing with a mindset of a townie, leaving townies lyinching each other as they find innocent inconsistencies in their speeches (ie posts). Secondly, even blues have to lie in order to survive. But that also means when I say "I am mafia." you should lynch me no matter whether it is true or not, as if I'm telling the truth, you just lynched mafia, and if it is not true you lynched liar. (breaks my heart ![](/mirror/smilies/frown.gif) ) But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable... maybe it's a joke? In both games i played, i managed to lynch the medic, but it doesn't confuse the mafia. It prevent a save...
|
On June 25 2012 22:27 JieXian wrote:shit I just noticed that this wasn't what i thought it was. This actually means that we have 2 days to vote right? Release's game plan seems to be: 1) Create escape route. (just in case he got mafia) Show nested quote +So night. I will be less active in the following days (until night 3) for aforementioned reasons. 2) Create chaos 3) Claim it leads to more productive posting 4) Hide with aforementioned excuse Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 21:49 Vivax wrote:On June 25 2012 20:23 Esspen wrote:
But I believe we should try to identify and lynch blues first, confusing mafia and leaving them vulnerable...
Wat ![](/mirror/smilies/confused.gif) You crazy? Vivax and I found that confusing = We must be mafia lolololol Take my "game plan" for what you will. I can't decide how you think.
If yourself and vivax found that confusing, doesn't that make him Mafia (as opposed to yourselves)? Townies are trying to avoid confusion while mafia try to cause confusion. If you say his reasoning is the reasoning is your reasoning, that's kind of a catch 22
|
|
##Vote Hopeless1der
No time for a thorough explanation. He seems to have been changing his stance to suit the current opinion of the town.
|
|
|
|