WW 19 Game Thread - Mobster Mayhem - GAME OVER

[novice]

Serdoa, your definition of a lie is too strict. Everyone rephrases when stating their cases. You overanalyse posts once you've decided someone is suspicious. You did the same thing to Zak last game IIRC, and he was town.

[Serdoa]

Serdoa, your definition of a lie is too strict. Everyone rephrases when stating their cases. You overanalyse posts once you've decided someone is suspicious. You did the same thing to Zak last game IIRC, and he was town.

I did the same thing with Qgqqq last game and he was scum. And with Rowain, and he was scum. And with Selrahc, and he was scum. And with waterbat, and he was scum. And with Bigger, and he was scum.

What exactly was your point again?

[Serdoa]

It's a house of cards, built on premises that I disagree with and that are objectively unlikely, and he is hammering it again and again and again. So much so that there must be some ulterior motive here.

Is it not a lie when he states that Rowain is hammering his point despite Rowain not having done that? Rowain answered when he was questioned about his vote for you. Thats all he did. No hammering. Therefore Selrahc has not rephrased what Rowain said, he lied.

What are the objectively unlikely bits?
He is basing ideas on specific combinations of items on the wolf teams, which shift to fit his arguments as needed. The crowbar, lockpick, cloak, and all other items are shuffled in and out of his idea of the wolf team in an unending quest to paint Novice bad.

When did Rowain shuffle items in and out of his argument to make it fit? It didn't happen. Again, Selrahc does not rephrase something that Rowain wrote, Selrahc lies about what actually happened.

So, again, is my definition of a lie really to strict? When I simply call out a player who states stuff that is provably wrong? I don't think so.

[novice]

Serdoa, your definition of a lie is too strict. Everyone rephrases when stating their cases. You overanalyse posts once you've decided someone is suspicious. You did the same thing to Zak last game IIRC, and he was town.

I did the same thing with Qgqqq last game and he was scum. And with Rowain, and he was scum. And with Selrahc, and he was scum. And with waterbat, and he was scum. And with Bigger, and he was scum.

What exactly was your point again?

That it applies to villagers and scum equally.

[novice]

It's a house of cards, built on premises that I disagree with and that are objectively unlikely, and he is hammering it again and again and again. So much so that there must be some ulterior motive here.

Is it not a lie when he states that Rowain is hammering his point despite Rowain not having done that? Rowain answered when he was questioned about his vote for you. Thats all he did. No hammering. Therefore Selrahc has not rephrased what Rowain said, he lied.

What are the objectively unlikely bits?
He is basing ideas on specific combinations of items on the wolf teams, which shift to fit his arguments as needed. The crowbar, lockpick, cloak, and all other items are shuffled in and out of his idea of the wolf team in an unending quest to paint Novice bad.

When did Rowain shuffle items in and out of his argument to make it fit? It didn't happen. Again, Selrahc does not rephrase something that Rowain wrote, Selrahc lies about what actually happened.

So, again, is my definition of a lie really to strict? When I simply call out a player who states stuff that is provably wrong? I don't think so.

In these cases he's not rephrasing what someone said, he's using phrases to describe his impression of reality. Which we all do, and have to do, as language is imperfect. Unless you want to state all your arguments using formal logic.

Rowain has been given many reasons why my play is unlikely to be a scum ploy. Every time he refutes these reasons with increasingly unlikely meta theories. To me that's hammering. Selrahc's description of Rowain's item theories is also apt. I don't fond Selrahc's case scummy or misrepresenting, it fits with how I could have chosen to describe Rowain's game, and I'm town.

People use hyperbole to make their point. Get over it.

[zakalwe]

I also think you are being too hard on Selrahc, Serdoa. He has a way with words and is using that skill to strengthen his case. That doesn't necessarily make him scum, though.

Lewwyn, why do you think Rowain is innocent?

[uberfish]

Well yes, I can prove my numbers.

If village has the card they will claim it, the card passing happens at the end of the day after the seer has scanned so there's no chance of getting a false guilty result as the seer won't scan that person.

As for innocents there's probably 4/17 scum, so if a scum has the card there's 14 people who scan as innocent only one of which would give a false result, that's over 90% reliability

and the other PRs might not scan the right people, but if the seer can only hit 3 scum instead of 4 but another PR can catch one as a result so overall we don't lose anything. Oh, if village has the thief he could catch someone out lying about the card, too.

As for wording. If i'm scum I reread my posts and factcheck looking for anything that I might be attacked on. If I'm village I don't because I have nothing to hide. as for what I consider a slip I prefer to look at overall patterns rather than wording. look at Rowain's posts in the tracker, until the move to Selrahc his posts are either trying to justifying the policy lynch on novice by giving various scenarios where novice could be scum, or defence. I don't think Selrahc was seriously misrepresenting Rowain in the quotes Serdoa made in his last post (Yeah I thought Selrahc was voting for rowain and it seems he wansn't actually mentioned in rowain's post, my mistake there.)

*

So look, this day appears to be devolving into rowain + serdoa VS novice + selrahc + myself. Regardless of alignments everyone seems to argue their policy stances with conviction. My main points against rowain is that he never went beyond the policy thing when arguing for novice's lynch, there's no comment at all on what from novice's posting is scummy. I find it hard to believe that Rowain would have no leads at all up until Serdoa voted Selrahc when he's questioned or commented on every single person who voted him to this point.

BTW I'm also willing to lynch Bigger for the string of do-nothing posts where he talks to Ryan.

[Serdoa]

Ok, so your statement is that my overanalyzing applies to villagers and scum equally. Again, what is your point? That my arguments against Selrahc are therefore invalid? If so, why don't you attack my arguments against him, instead of my way to play?

[Ryan]

It's a house of cards, built on premises that I disagree with and that are objectively unlikely, and he is hammering it again and again and again. So much so that there must be some ulterior motive here.

Is it not a lie when he states that Rowain is hammering his point despite Rowain not having done that? Rowain answered when he was questioned about his vote for you. Thats all he did. No hammering. Therefore Selrahc has not rephrased what Rowain said, he lied.

What are the objectively unlikely bits?
He is basing ideas on specific combinations of items on the wolf teams, which shift to fit his arguments as needed. The crowbar, lockpick, cloak, and all other items are shuffled in and out of his idea of the wolf team in an unending quest to paint Novice bad.

When did Rowain shuffle items in and out of his argument to make it fit? It didn't happen. Again, Selrahc does not rephrase something that Rowain wrote, Selrahc lies about what actually happened.

So, again, is my definition of a lie really to strict? When I simply call out a player who states stuff that is provably wrong? I don't think so.

In these cases he's not rephrasing what someone said, he's using phrases to describe his impression of reality. Which we all do, and have to do, as language is imperfect. Unless you want to state all your arguments using formal logic.

Rowain has been given many reasons why my play is unlikely to be a scum ploy. Every time he refutes these reasons with increasingly unlikely meta theories. To me that's hammering. Selrahc's description of Rowain's item theories is also apt. I don't fond Selrahc's case scummy or misrepresenting, it fits with how I could have chosen to describe Rowain's game, and I'm town.

People use hyperbole to make their point. Get over it.

All that Serlachc did was say they were unlikely or wrong and the items that serl mentions are what would happen in each case if the wolves had the item. and all that he was trying to do was proove the point of view that you should be lynched wrong without anything backing him off. The way he is defending you seems like wolves defending each other. Trying to lower the importance of an item inorder to change the topic by throwing it on Tasunke and ending this discussion with claims that are incorrect. Saying our arguments and contradictory without stating how or why as if the words are facts. I dont aim at this with you but I am using the people who tried to remove this argument. By the facts a random lynch on you. would be the most beneficial EVEN IF YOU WERE VILLAGE. I dont see how any other lynch can be as usefull. and the way he is defending you is also showing scum behaviour in trying to remove this argument. Stating that you will just give the item to someone else? You could lie, The person you would give it to would lie. You could never move it and the person you claim to have it would act along with the lie. If you were lying about having the item then you are probably scum. Id lynch you if I thought people would support me.

[novice]

Ok, so your statement is that my overanalyzing applies to villagers and scum equally. Again, what is your point? That my arguments against Selrahc are therefore invalid? If so, why don't you attack my arguments against him, instead of my way to play?

Err... Yes. They're invalid, because they're null tells. Selrahc summarizes the case on Rowain nicely, and adds some rhetoric.