|
ugh I am definitely not feeling like playing tonight
this deadline is much better though so that's good
|
Yeah Haru just said most of the things I wanted to say. jabber, why did you purposefully lie about who was scum last game? You had an opportunity to explain yourself and you took this angle instead.
On May 27 2014 11:38 jabberwockzerg wrote:
I don't quite follow your logic. You put me on mafia last game, and I screwed up about if that was posted or not, but that makes me mafia this game? No comprende
Saying you "screwed up about if that was posted" isn't true, you did purposefully try to lie about the team. Why?
|
Also, read this whole page again: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451317-detention-mafia?page=5
bunnies starts by (presumably) joking about me being scum, not a serious push as evidenced by not voting.
On May 27 2014 11:19 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Both of you make a fair point, but I agree with bunnies.
If he's lurking (he probably is) he'll be quick to post something, which we can further use as more information comes to light
This is jabber's passive-agressive response. "he probably is" heavily implies that jabber has a strong scumread on me, which clearly doesn't make sense given that I've made one completely non-alignment indicative post. From a scum perspective, it makes sense for jabber to try to go with the flow of the thread and throw suspicion on me, but accidentally take it too far.
On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town.
On May 27 2014 11:21 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Definitely leaving towards scum though
Again, here he makes it seem as if he strongly thinks I'm scum, which just doesn't make sense unless he has a preset idea of what he wants to push my alignment as.
|
On May 27 2014 11:56 HaruRH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 11:54 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Delicately, must I awkwardly introduce all of my posts and then just get on with them I think that doing anything else other than leaving the subject as it is will make you an even likelier target for scrumm. Change the topic quickly
I don't like this choice of words so soon after you voted him, though. This makes it seem like you know he is town.
On May 27 2014 15:31 fuba wrote:
But the last game was Classroom, the game that got remade. And since jabber was scum in that game, he knew that Chrom wasn't. Which means that he knew chrom wasn't scum, but suggested that possibility anyway. While I can't give an exact reason for scum|jabber to lie, I don't see any reason for town|jabber to.
...Though now that I think of it, unless the scumteam is the exact three people it was last time, then jabber would be incredibly unlikely to intentionally lie about who was on it, since at least one scum from last game would be town this game and would point out that he's lying. So either this was just a mistake on his part or I'm misunderstanding some part of the interaction. Either way, I'm pretty sure I've talked myself out of this...
##Unvote
I disagree with this because it doesn't make sense as either alignment. It's clearly a bad move for town, and also for scum because it serves no purpose other than to make yourself look suspicious. However, it's more likely to come from scum because scum has factors like nervousness, wanting to look good/push something, artificial reads, etc that would cause them to slip up and lie for no reason.
|
jabber can you go through all the posts I pointed out and explain your thought process through them? Particularly your read on me at that point and bringing up something you knew wasn't true.
|
On May 27 2014 11:50 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 11:44 27ninjabunnies wrote:On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. So let me spell it out. It has to do with this post here. You were a squirrel eating nuts last game, were you not? Yet here, you say he could have been super into the last game because he was also sniffing the maple. Yet, he wasnt. You were. And you didnt know that that knowledge was made public to us. So either you are defending Chrom/slightly bussing here because he is your partner in crime, or you are again down among the badgers as you said chrom was leading more towards being a grim reaper in a town full of sickness, and you want to get him lynched. Clearing this up, I didn't mean mafia specifically, just non vanilla. Was this bad wording? Yes. Stupid of me? Yes. Learning experience, definitely
That doesn't sound like this. Here you claim that you meant to say I was a role last game. Now you say that you were saying I was mafia and were just concealing information.
What was your read on me at that time?
|
Finally back at a computer. I'm totally fine lynching jabber for obvious reasons, but I still would like to hear him answer the things I asked him.
Here's the points I've had against him (partially stuff I've already said):
-He deliberately lied this game. As town, he would have had no reason to even think about lying. As scum, he could have felt like he should add something to the conversation/was nervous/a number of other explanations for a mistake. Yes, it's bad play as either alignment. But imagine yourself as town in his situation: there's no way you would lie about it.
-His explanations are inconsistent:
+ Show Spoiler +On May 27 2014 11:50 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 11:44 27ninjabunnies wrote:On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. So let me spell it out. It has to do with this post here. You were a squirrel eating nuts last game, were you not? Yet here, you say he could have been super into the last game because he was also sniffing the maple. Yet, he wasnt. You were. And you didnt know that that knowledge was made public to us. So either you are defending Chrom/slightly bussing here because he is your partner in crime, or you are again down among the badgers as you said chrom was leading more towards being a grim reaper in a town full of sickness, and you want to get him lynched. Clearing this up, I didn't mean mafia specifically, just non vanilla. Was this bad wording? Yes. Stupid of me? Yes. Learning experience, definitely "I didn't mean mafia, I just meant non-vanilla. Bad wording." On May 28 2014 00:21 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:50 gobbledydook wrote:
Palmar I think there is actually a good motivation for him to say those words. If he had not read the last mafia qt to find out who was mafia and only relied on his memory and impressions, he would logically make that comment about differing playstyles. Sure what he said is factually incorrect but I believe it was an honest mistake.
Just like this I mean, I know this looks bad but this really is a case of Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" Here he agrees with gobble, who's saying that jabber didn't read the last mafia QT or didn't remember who was mafia (obviously not true)..? And also that it was an honest mistake. On May 28 2014 00:36 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 00:26 Palmar wrote:On May 27 2014 23:50 gobbledydook wrote:
Palmar I think there is actually a good motivation for him to say those words. If he had not read the last mafia qt to find out who was mafia and only relied on his memory and impressions, he would logically make that comment about differing playstyles. Sure what he said is factually incorrect but I believe it was an honest mistake.
He even posted in that QT, so he read it. On May 28 2014 00:21 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Just like this
I mean, I know this looks bad
but this really is a case of Hanlon's razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" Well explain to me what your point was meant to accomplish? I'm all ears buddy. Keenly, I was trying to think of everything, leaving no stone upturned. I guess I got trapped under one of these stones "I was trying to think of every possible scenario." On May 28 2014 01:14 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 20:59 Chromatically wrote:Also, read this whole page again: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451317-detention-mafia?page=5bunnies starts by (presumably) joking about me being scum, not a serious push as evidenced by not voting. On May 27 2014 11:19 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Both of you make a fair point, but I agree with bunnies.
If he's lurking (he probably is) he'll be quick to post something, which we can further use as more information comes to light This is jabber's passive-agressive response. "he probably is" heavily implies that jabber has a strong scumread on me, which clearly doesn't make sense given that I've made one completely non-alignment indicative post. From a scum perspective, it makes sense for jabber to try to go with the flow of the thread and throw suspicion on me, but accidentally take it too far. On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. On May 27 2014 11:21 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Definitely leaving towards scum though Again, here he makes it seem as if he strongly thinks I'm scum, which just doesn't make sense unless he has a preset idea of what he wants to push my alignment as. Lovely. I was trying to get the game moving along, I was pretty pumped to start interrogating and scum reading, which isn't how I acted last game, when I was scum. Lying about who was scum last game, I was trying to conceal information. I didn't realize that last game's roles were known, it would be beneficial for me if no one knew I was Mafia, just because there would be no real patterns of my play, and I could remain a wild card, which I thought could help me later. "I was trying to conceal information to help me in this game."
These are all inconsistent with each other: it cannot be an "honest mistake" if he was deliberately concealing information, he clearly didn't mean that I could have been "non-vanilla", not necessarily mafia, if he was concealing information, etc. He's changing his explanation because he's just making them up: he doesn't have a real reason.
-His last explanation is scummy in and of itself, town has no reason to make themselves harder to read.
-He didn't explain himself earlier when he had the opportunity. Town would have explained themselves as soon as they were called out.
##Vote: jabberwockzerg
|
On May 28 2014 04:00 sqrtofneg1 wrote:
Assume jwz is town. Why would he push a case on chromatically that makes no sense? He knows that chrom wasn't mafia.
His case is invalid.
I think this is scummy given that sqrt had access to this information all the time (he was in the thread when jabber "slipped").
Here was his reaction at that time:
On May 27 2014 11:22 sqrtofneg1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. Nope. Last game, you, amiko, and epi was mafia. Zat counter point is invalid.
Doesn't call him scum for it at all. Even later, he only once calls him scum, but just for being thrown off his alphabet game.
Now, however, when the jabber lynch has a lot of traction, he jumps on without any reasoning for changing his mind. There are plenty of additional points against jabber concerning his reaction, but that's not the justification sqrt gave. sqrt's explanation for his vote is inconsistent with how he originally reacted to jabber's post.
|
On May 28 2014 05:15 Amiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:11 Chromatically wrote:On May 28 2014 04:00 sqrtofneg1 wrote:
Assume jwz is town. Why would he push a case on chromatically that makes no sense? He knows that chrom wasn't mafia.
His case is invalid. I think this is scummy given that sqrt had access to this information all the time (he was in the thread when jabber "slipped"). Here was his reaction at that time: On May 27 2014 11:22 sqrtofneg1 wrote:On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. Nope. Last game, you, amiko, and epi was mafia. Zat counter point is invalid. Doesn't call him scum for it at all. Even later, he only once calls him scum, but just for being thrown off his alphabet game. Now, however, when the jabber lynch has a lot of traction, he jumps on without any reasoning for changing his mind. There are plenty of additional points against jabber concerning his reaction, but that's not the justification sqrt gave. sqrt's explanation for his vote is inconsistent with how he originally reacted to jabber's post. Could you clarify - are you suggesting that (1) sqrt changed his mind from town to scum? or (2) that sqrt changed his mind from neutral to scum? Please also clarify if you feel sqrt would be a good lynch alternative to jabberwockzerg
My point was that sqrt previously did not have a scumread from that post, and now he wants to lynch jabber for that post with no additional justification, meaning that he's fabricating his read (I guess this is option 2). But, it is possible that he just reread it and changed his mind, as he says.
This was just one sqrt post I had a problem with, still want to lynch jabber by a long shot.
sqrt, is that jabber post the main reason why you are voting him? Like that's the best piece of evidence in your opinion?
|
On May 28 2014 05:26 sqrtofneg1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:23 Chromatically wrote:On May 28 2014 05:15 Amiko wrote:On May 28 2014 05:11 Chromatically wrote:On May 28 2014 04:00 sqrtofneg1 wrote:
Assume jwz is town. Why would he push a case on chromatically that makes no sense? He knows that chrom wasn't mafia.
His case is invalid. I think this is scummy given that sqrt had access to this information all the time (he was in the thread when jabber "slipped"). Here was his reaction at that time: On May 27 2014 11:22 sqrtofneg1 wrote:On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. Nope. Last game, you, amiko, and epi was mafia. Zat counter point is invalid. Doesn't call him scum for it at all. Even later, he only once calls him scum, but just for being thrown off his alphabet game. Now, however, when the jabber lynch has a lot of traction, he jumps on without any reasoning for changing his mind. There are plenty of additional points against jabber concerning his reaction, but that's not the justification sqrt gave. sqrt's explanation for his vote is inconsistent with how he originally reacted to jabber's post. Could you clarify - are you suggesting that (1) sqrt changed his mind from town to scum? or (2) that sqrt changed his mind from neutral to scum? Please also clarify if you feel sqrt would be a good lynch alternative to jabberwockzerg My point was that sqrt previously did not have a scumread from that post, and now he wants to lynch jabber for that post with no additional justification, meaning that he's fabricating his read (I guess this is option 2). But, it is possible that he just reread it and changed his mind, as he says. This was just one sqrt post I had a problem with, still want to lynch jabber by a long shot. sqrt, is that jabber post the main reason why you are voting him? Like that's the best piece of evidence in your opinion? The fact that his post here: Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. Doesn't make any sense from a town perspective.
You think that's stronger than his explanations (or his failure to explain it)? I think that that his slip is a far weaker point against him than the way he explained it.
|
On May 28 2014 05:27 27ninjabunnies wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:23 Chromatically wrote:On May 28 2014 05:15 Amiko wrote:On May 28 2014 05:11 Chromatically wrote:On May 28 2014 04:00 sqrtofneg1 wrote:
Assume jwz is town. Why would he push a case on chromatically that makes no sense? He knows that chrom wasn't mafia.
His case is invalid. I think this is scummy given that sqrt had access to this information all the time (he was in the thread when jabber "slipped"). Here was his reaction at that time: On May 27 2014 11:22 sqrtofneg1 wrote:On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. Nope. Last game, you, amiko, and epi was mafia. Zat counter point is invalid. Doesn't call him scum for it at all. Even later, he only once calls him scum, but just for being thrown off his alphabet game. Now, however, when the jabber lynch has a lot of traction, he jumps on without any reasoning for changing his mind. There are plenty of additional points against jabber concerning his reaction, but that's not the justification sqrt gave. sqrt's explanation for his vote is inconsistent with how he originally reacted to jabber's post. Could you clarify - are you suggesting that (1) sqrt changed his mind from town to scum? or (2) that sqrt changed his mind from neutral to scum? Please also clarify if you feel sqrt would be a good lynch alternative to jabberwockzerg My point was that sqrt previously did not have a scumread from that post, and now he wants to lynch jabber for that post with no additional justification, meaning that he's fabricating his read (I guess this is option 2). But, it is possible that he just reread it and changed his mind, as he says. This was just one sqrt post I had a problem with, still want to lynch jabber by a long shot. sqrt, is that jabber post the main reason why you are voting him? Like that's the best piece of evidence in your opinion? So the thing about sqrt, is he does this a lot in the games I have played with him, which he has been town in all of them. He'll vote on someone with very little justification, and will only give his read on a person when asked for it. I found it super scummy within the first games, but now ive kinda just gone with it.
I thought you were against using meta...
I'm not pushing him for a lack of explanation anyway, it's that his justification wasn't consistent with earlier. Do you think he's town?
|
|
|
On May 28 2014 05:53 27ninjabunnies wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:40 Chromatically wrote:On May 28 2014 05:27 27ninjabunnies wrote:On May 28 2014 05:23 Chromatically wrote:On May 28 2014 05:15 Amiko wrote:On May 28 2014 05:11 Chromatically wrote:On May 28 2014 04:00 sqrtofneg1 wrote:
Assume jwz is town. Why would he push a case on chromatically that makes no sense? He knows that chrom wasn't mafia.
His case is invalid. I think this is scummy given that sqrt had access to this information all the time (he was in the thread when jabber "slipped"). Here was his reaction at that time: On May 27 2014 11:22 sqrtofneg1 wrote:On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. Nope. Last game, you, amiko, and epi was mafia. Zat counter point is invalid. Doesn't call him scum for it at all. Even later, he only once calls him scum, but just for being thrown off his alphabet game. Now, however, when the jabber lynch has a lot of traction, he jumps on without any reasoning for changing his mind. There are plenty of additional points against jabber concerning his reaction, but that's not the justification sqrt gave. sqrt's explanation for his vote is inconsistent with how he originally reacted to jabber's post. Could you clarify - are you suggesting that (1) sqrt changed his mind from town to scum? or (2) that sqrt changed his mind from neutral to scum? Please also clarify if you feel sqrt would be a good lynch alternative to jabberwockzerg My point was that sqrt previously did not have a scumread from that post, and now he wants to lynch jabber for that post with no additional justification, meaning that he's fabricating his read (I guess this is option 2). But, it is possible that he just reread it and changed his mind, as he says. This was just one sqrt post I had a problem with, still want to lynch jabber by a long shot. sqrt, is that jabber post the main reason why you are voting him? Like that's the best piece of evidence in your opinion? So the thing about sqrt, is he does this a lot in the games I have played with him, which he has been town in all of them. He'll vote on someone with very little justification, and will only give his read on a person when asked for it. I found it super scummy within the first games, but now ive kinda just gone with it. I thought you were against using meta... I'm not pushing him for a lack of explanation anyway, it's that his justification wasn't consistent with earlier. Do you think he's town? Im not against meta. When have I said I was against meta? I notice things in games Ive played with people, but I don't necessarily agree with the things I notice. Sqrt hasn't done anything to make me think he's not town. Im not sure what you mean about his justification not being consistent, do you mind pointing this out?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/450802-classroom-mafia-new-newish-players-welcome?page=7#122
The meta thing doesn't really matter, but it doesn't really make sense that you would look at some players' meta and not others to me. That's a playstyle disagreement though, not an alignment-based one so whatever.
On May 28 2014 05:11 Chromatically wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 04:00 sqrtofneg1 wrote:
Assume jwz is town. Why would he push a case on chromatically that makes no sense? He knows that chrom wasn't mafia.
His case is invalid. I think this is scummy given that sqrt had access to this information all the time (he was in the thread when jabber "slipped"). Here was his reaction at that time: Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 11:22 sqrtofneg1 wrote:On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. Nope. Last game, you, amiko, and epi was mafia. Zat counter point is invalid. Doesn't call him scum for it at all. Even later, he only once calls him scum, but just for being thrown off his alphabet game. Now, however, when the jabber lynch has a lot of traction, he jumps on without any reasoning for changing his mind. There are plenty of additional points against jabber concerning his reaction, but that's not the justification sqrt gave. sqrt's explanation for his vote is inconsistent with how he originally reacted to jabber's post.
On May 28 2014 05:23 Chromatically wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 05:15 Amiko wrote:On May 28 2014 05:11 Chromatically wrote:On May 28 2014 04:00 sqrtofneg1 wrote:
Assume jwz is town. Why would he push a case on chromatically that makes no sense? He knows that chrom wasn't mafia.
His case is invalid. I think this is scummy given that sqrt had access to this information all the time (he was in the thread when jabber "slipped"). Here was his reaction at that time: On May 27 2014 11:22 sqrtofneg1 wrote:On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. Nope. Last game, you, amiko, and epi was mafia. Zat counter point is invalid. Doesn't call him scum for it at all. Even later, he only once calls him scum, but just for being thrown off his alphabet game. Now, however, when the jabber lynch has a lot of traction, he jumps on without any reasoning for changing his mind. There are plenty of additional points against jabber concerning his reaction, but that's not the justification sqrt gave. sqrt's explanation for his vote is inconsistent with how he originally reacted to jabber's post. Could you clarify - are you suggesting that (1) sqrt changed his mind from town to scum? or (2) that sqrt changed his mind from neutral to scum? Please also clarify if you feel sqrt would be a good lynch alternative to jabberwockzerg My point was that sqrt previously did not have a scumread from that post, and now he wants to lynch jabber for that post with no additional justification, meaning that he's fabricating his read (I guess this is option 2). But, it is possible that he just reread it and changed his mind, as he says. This was just one sqrt post I had a problem with, still want to lynch jabber by a long shot. sqrt, is that jabber post the main reason why you are voting him? Like that's the best piece of evidence in your opinion?
The inconsistent thing is what I have been posting about this whole time.
|
mderg did you not read what I posted? His explanations contradict each other. The two posts you quoted contradict each other (how could he be purposefully concealing the scumteam from last game if he didn't actually mean to say I could have been mafia in the first place). Do you disagree with this?
|
|
|
jabber, if you're town you should definitely get in here and defend yourself
|
jabber can you address here please
On May 28 2014 05:05 Chromatically wrote:Finally back at a computer. I'm totally fine lynching jabber for obvious reasons, but I still would like to hear him answer the things I asked him. Here's the points I've had against him (partially stuff I've already said): -He deliberately lied this game. As town, he would have had no reason to even think about lying. As scum, he could have felt like he should add something to the conversation/was nervous/a number of other explanations for a mistake. Yes, it's bad play as either alignment. But imagine yourself as town in his situation: there's no way you would lie about it. -His explanations are inconsistent: + Show Spoiler +On May 27 2014 11:50 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 11:44 27ninjabunnies wrote:On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. So let me spell it out. It has to do with this post here. You were a squirrel eating nuts last game, were you not? Yet here, you say he could have been super into the last game because he was also sniffing the maple. Yet, he wasnt. You were. And you didnt know that that knowledge was made public to us. So either you are defending Chrom/slightly bussing here because he is your partner in crime, or you are again down among the badgers as you said chrom was leading more towards being a grim reaper in a town full of sickness, and you want to get him lynched. Clearing this up, I didn't mean mafia specifically, just non vanilla. Was this bad wording? Yes. Stupid of me? Yes. Learning experience, definitely "I didn't mean mafia, I just meant non-vanilla. Bad wording." On May 28 2014 00:21 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:50 gobbledydook wrote:
Palmar I think there is actually a good motivation for him to say those words. If he had not read the last mafia qt to find out who was mafia and only relied on his memory and impressions, he would logically make that comment about differing playstyles. Sure what he said is factually incorrect but I believe it was an honest mistake.
Just like this I mean, I know this looks bad but this really is a case of Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" Here he agrees with gobble, who's saying that jabber didn't read the last mafia QT or didn't remember who was mafia (obviously not true)..? And also that it was an honest mistake. On May 28 2014 00:36 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 00:26 Palmar wrote:On May 27 2014 23:50 gobbledydook wrote:
Palmar I think there is actually a good motivation for him to say those words. If he had not read the last mafia qt to find out who was mafia and only relied on his memory and impressions, he would logically make that comment about differing playstyles. Sure what he said is factually incorrect but I believe it was an honest mistake.
He even posted in that QT, so he read it. On May 28 2014 00:21 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Just like this
I mean, I know this looks bad
but this really is a case of Hanlon's razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" Well explain to me what your point was meant to accomplish? I'm all ears buddy. Keenly, I was trying to think of everything, leaving no stone upturned. I guess I got trapped under one of these stones "I was trying to think of every possible scenario." On May 28 2014 01:14 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 20:59 Chromatically wrote:Also, read this whole page again: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451317-detention-mafia?page=5bunnies starts by (presumably) joking about me being scum, not a serious push as evidenced by not voting. On May 27 2014 11:19 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Both of you make a fair point, but I agree with bunnies.
If he's lurking (he probably is) he'll be quick to post something, which we can further use as more information comes to light This is jabber's passive-agressive response. "he probably is" heavily implies that jabber has a strong scumread on me, which clearly doesn't make sense given that I've made one completely non-alignment indicative post. From a scum perspective, it makes sense for jabber to try to go with the flow of the thread and throw suspicion on me, but accidentally take it too far. On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. On May 27 2014 11:21 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Definitely leaving towards scum though Again, here he makes it seem as if he strongly thinks I'm scum, which just doesn't make sense unless he has a preset idea of what he wants to push my alignment as. Lovely. I was trying to get the game moving along, I was pretty pumped to start interrogating and scum reading, which isn't how I acted last game, when I was scum. Lying about who was scum last game, I was trying to conceal information. I didn't realize that last game's roles were known, it would be beneficial for me if no one knew I was Mafia, just because there would be no real patterns of my play, and I could remain a wild card, which I thought could help me later. "I was trying to conceal information to help me in this game." These are all inconsistent with each other: it cannot be an "honest mistake" if he was deliberately concealing information, he clearly didn't mean that I could have been "non-vanilla", not necessarily mafia, if he was concealing information, etc. He's changing his explanation because he's just making them up: he doesn't have a real reason. -His last explanation is scummy in and of itself, town has no reason to make themselves harder to read. -He didn't explain himself earlier when he had the opportunity. Town would have explained themselves as soon as they were called out. ##Vote: jabberwockzerg
|
On May 28 2014 09:40 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 09:23 Chromatically wrote:jabber can you address here please On May 28 2014 05:05 Chromatically wrote:Finally back at a computer. I'm totally fine lynching jabber for obvious reasons, but I still would like to hear him answer the things I asked him. Here's the points I've had against him (partially stuff I've already said): -He deliberately lied this game. As town, he would have had no reason to even think about lying. As scum, he could have felt like he should add something to the conversation/was nervous/a number of other explanations for a mistake. Yes, it's bad play as either alignment. But imagine yourself as town in his situation: there's no way you would lie about it. -His explanations are inconsistent: + Show Spoiler +On May 27 2014 11:50 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 11:44 27ninjabunnies wrote:On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. So let me spell it out. It has to do with this post here. You were a squirrel eating nuts last game, were you not? Yet here, you say he could have been super into the last game because he was also sniffing the maple. Yet, he wasnt. You were. And you didnt know that that knowledge was made public to us. So either you are defending Chrom/slightly bussing here because he is your partner in crime, or you are again down among the badgers as you said chrom was leading more towards being a grim reaper in a town full of sickness, and you want to get him lynched. Clearing this up, I didn't mean mafia specifically, just non vanilla. Was this bad wording? Yes. Stupid of me? Yes. Learning experience, definitely "I didn't mean mafia, I just meant non-vanilla. Bad wording." On May 28 2014 00:21 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 23:50 gobbledydook wrote:
Palmar I think there is actually a good motivation for him to say those words. If he had not read the last mafia qt to find out who was mafia and only relied on his memory and impressions, he would logically make that comment about differing playstyles. Sure what he said is factually incorrect but I believe it was an honest mistake.
Just like this I mean, I know this looks bad but this really is a case of Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" Here he agrees with gobble, who's saying that jabber didn't read the last mafia QT or didn't remember who was mafia (obviously not true)..? And also that it was an honest mistake. On May 28 2014 00:36 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2014 00:26 Palmar wrote:On May 27 2014 23:50 gobbledydook wrote:
Palmar I think there is actually a good motivation for him to say those words. If he had not read the last mafia qt to find out who was mafia and only relied on his memory and impressions, he would logically make that comment about differing playstyles. Sure what he said is factually incorrect but I believe it was an honest mistake.
He even posted in that QT, so he read it. On May 28 2014 00:21 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Just like this
I mean, I know this looks bad
but this really is a case of Hanlon's razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" Well explain to me what your point was meant to accomplish? I'm all ears buddy. Keenly, I was trying to think of everything, leaving no stone upturned. I guess I got trapped under one of these stones "I was trying to think of every possible scenario." On May 28 2014 01:14 jabberwockzerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2014 20:59 Chromatically wrote:Also, read this whole page again: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/mafia/451317-detention-mafia?page=5bunnies starts by (presumably) joking about me being scum, not a serious push as evidenced by not voting. On May 27 2014 11:19 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Both of you make a fair point, but I agree with bunnies.
If he's lurking (he probably is) he'll be quick to post something, which we can further use as more information comes to light This is jabber's passive-agressive response. "he probably is" heavily implies that jabber has a strong scumread on me, which clearly doesn't make sense given that I've made one completely non-alignment indicative post. From a scum perspective, it makes sense for jabber to try to go with the flow of the thread and throw suspicion on me, but accidentally take it too far. On May 27 2014 11:20 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Counter point: he could have been super into last game because he was mafia, and isn't as into being vanilla town. On May 27 2014 11:21 jabberwockzerg wrote:
Definitely leaving towards scum though Again, here he makes it seem as if he strongly thinks I'm scum, which just doesn't make sense unless he has a preset idea of what he wants to push my alignment as. Lovely. I was trying to get the game moving along, I was pretty pumped to start interrogating and scum reading, which isn't how I acted last game, when I was scum. Lying about who was scum last game, I was trying to conceal information. I didn't realize that last game's roles were known, it would be beneficial for me if no one knew I was Mafia, just because there would be no real patterns of my play, and I could remain a wild card, which I thought could help me later. "I was trying to conceal information to help me in this game." These are all inconsistent with each other: it cannot be an "honest mistake" if he was deliberately concealing information, he clearly didn't mean that I could have been "non-vanilla", not necessarily mafia, if he was concealing information, etc. He's changing his explanation because he's just making them up: he doesn't have a real reason. -His last explanation is scummy in and of itself, town has no reason to make themselves harder to read. -He didn't explain himself earlier when he had the opportunity. Town would have explained themselves as soon as they were called out. ##Vote: jabberwockzerg Certainly Basically, I thought concealing information about myself would help me out in the long run. This belief, and the later admission of it, came from a fundamental misunderstanding of how this game is really played. This is what caused my initial post, and my explanations. Now, I'm learning more about what goes down and that as town, especially as town, the most important thing is to just be clear and honest and try to find the real scum. This game is a lot more fun and layered than I first thought, and I can't wait to sink my teeth in. It's really looking like a lynch at this point, so I'm grateful this shitstorm happened because I learned so much from it.
So, to clarify, why did you post the other explanations for your post? It sounds like you're saying the "conceal information" explanation is the only one that's true and the other ones were not, is that correct?
|
Why is palmar scum please
|
I'm trying to read through jabber's posts and see if this explanation is possible from a town perspective. The problem I'm reaching is that it would have to be really really bad town play, like completely bullshitting and making stuff up for no reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
