Mafia CXXXVII: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread Town Victory!

Moderators: Zoomzip, Telleo, bkbkbk, condude1, sjg11

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby condude1 » 20 Feb 2015, 19:01

Dodgy56, please stop posting

Alcester has replaced dodgy56. I'm going to extend the deadline 24 hours to give the replacements time to catch up.
Telleo wrote:I don't think I've ever met someone who more perfectly embodied Chaotic Neutral than Condude1.


Moderator of the Mafia Subforums!

Silver member of The Classicists!
User avatar
condude1
 
Posts: 8161
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 03:41
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: (1368)
All-game rating: (1307)
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby shadowface » 20 Feb 2015, 19:10

Harb wrote:@SF, did I miss where you responded to my question regarding your shirt vote?
I posted my whole roster run in response to that, including a justification for why I'm voting shirt.
shadowfriend1 wrote:
Harb wrote:Shadow, since you're here... Is shirt still your best read? Why?

Sorry it took me a few hours to respond, but I wanted to reassess whether shirt really still is my best read.

BS's performance hasn't been stellar, but I'm not convinced he's mafia. He has contributed some good things today IMO. When I think about it more, the way he retreated off of my first post more quickly could be a scum afraid to stick to a 'read'. Perhaps a townie would have stuck around if they really believed in something? I do accept the possibility that this could have been a misunderstanding. Crunkus' big case logically follows as well, so I would be willing to lynch him, but from what I've personally observed of his play, I don't feel like he is the best we can do today.

Ugluk shouldn't be allowed to have a vote. Crunkus says this is normal with him?... it's really annoying. Ugluk is playing so poorly I wouldn't lynch him out of fear he's jester, with a victory condition of getting lynched. Ugluk's play almost makes me want to cry, actually. :cry:

Harb has been playing well, talking, explaining, scumhunting, posing good questions. I appreciate the insight he provides at points. Strong town read.

Dwilt I feel has been making a genuine effort to understand and engage in the game. He's been asking and answering questions, which is better than a lot of people. Town read atm.

Sjg is not the great Sjg I remember. He has contributed little that I would consider important, and while there are others who fall in this category, I expected more from sjg. He has done little scumhunting. I don't know if this makes him scum or just busy/lazy, because I know he said he was trying to catch up a while ago. Not a town read, if anything a bit scum.

anaupr = total fail, is this guy subbing out already?

Crunkus has recently been ignoring all questions not up to his standard, which kind of bugs me because it makes it really hard for me to understand what's going on in that strange head he has. I do understand getting fed up with questions *cough, cough, shirt* but it doesn't mean I like it. FMPOV, this is difficult to work with but I would not lynch Crunkus for atleast a few days. Someone needs to post big cases after all.

Izzmund I have a neutral read for. I don't agree too much with what he says in general, but he explains his perspectives and justifies them to the extent that I would not necessarily attribute them to a mafia.

Keirador has been a town read for me all day. At the start of the day he understood what I was saying and added to it. I didn't like how he talked so much on the miller claim, but he was asked a question or two about this so it might not be active lurking at all. I liked his idea of a partial reveal. I think this guy may just be a good player, not necessarily town, but I can't help reading him that way.

Istott & Dodgy = Nothing. Not a good thing for the town...

Shirt... honestly, I can't think of a single post that shirt has made this game that I've liked. Almost everything he's said has been against me or my ideas. Does this make him scum though? I just can't understand how he could be so perplexed about my very first post of the game to the point that he would spend his whole day on it. The questions he asked me were just too many, too bad, too general and too outdated for me to ever answer. It's easy to ask bad questions, but it's impossible to respond to them. Shirt also put too many words in my mouth and brutally misrepresented my posts, as though the town needed someone to summarize what I had said in a biased manner. This showed me that he was not dedicated to finding the truth about who the mafia really are, as he was spreading false information. Because of much of the involvement I've had with him thus far, I have come to the conclusion that he is my best read and even if lynched, not a huge loss to the town. Thus, my vote stands.

~sf1 8-)
The player formerly known as shadowfriend1
Proud bearer of the Angle of Unnecessary Overshoot
Previously cursed by the Talisman of Greater Scumminess :twisted:, now an innocent, reformed townsperson
User avatar
shadowface
 
Posts: 5524
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 06:26
Location: Toronto
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (892)
All-game rating: (892)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Keirador » 20 Feb 2015, 19:14

condude1 wrote:Dodgy56, please stop posting

Alcester has replaced dodgy56. I'm going to extend the deadline 24 hours to give the replacements time to catch up.

Replacements, plural?


@Crunkus, I'm not supposed to say too much about GM pms, so suffice it to say that in-thread appears to me to be how the GM prefers to communicate.
Did you know there’s a faceless old woman who secretly lives in your home? It’s true. She’s there now. She’s always there, just out of your sight. Always just out of your sight.
User avatar
Keirador
 
Posts: 11217
Joined: 01 Dec 2008, 21:36
Location: Living secretly in the home of every single resident of Night Vale
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (1132)
All-game rating: (1133)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby shirt » 20 Feb 2015, 19:21

Incoming, unpolished spamfest (i really need to run, probably too late already)

sjg11 wrote: Moreover, when myself, Crunk-dog and Harb are all saying SF has some issues with engagement and all provide an alternative explanation to all of your concerns... why aren't you re-evaluating? Why aren't you saying "Yo, sorry dudes, my vote on SF is pretty weak but here's a super cool case/series of questions I have for y'all!" I mean you haven't really asked anyone else questions yet. Should we be taking this personally? I mean I know you have it in you...

Taking for a moment the 'agreeing on a lot of players not even playing yet' doesn't count as asking 'why aren't you playing' nor as a valid reason not to ask them stuff.
I have asked literally everyone why 'the initial statement' is taken as reason enough to completely ignore the reactions that came from it.
dwilts is sofar the only one who asked clarification on a single point. (what do you mean with 'appeal to emotion', still curious about the followup on that one)
But if they so choose anyone who only started playing after my last post may take it personal i haven't addressed them.
If harb and bs take it personally, i called them 'more useful to the town regardless of allignment than most others': you're welcome


And here we have exactly the thing i want to avoid.
A discussion of where on the scale of 'at least as likely to be scum as the current nr2'(which for the first to post would be everyone) to 'i am perfectly fine to place this vote, vote end day next to it and not look at this game until i get the 'night has fallen'-pm' a read needs to be before you make it big and red.
I want to have that discussion, but not at the expense of a game-day.

And where on that scale are you?

(want to avoid)
but yeah, i am on 'at least as likely to be scum as the current nr2'(which for the first to post would be everyone), see the keir-vote
and if crunkus completely misread this thing as me accusing him of being completely on the opposite edge, would make sense (it would still be a misread and if that's not what happened, his reaction still reads genuine)

I'm sorry but this is not out of range for a player who is inexperienced. I know you know that this is not out of the range of behaviour for an inexperienced player whatever their alignment.

And if that would be reason enough not to request a clarification from that player, where would we be now?

sjg11 wrote:
shirt wrote:ugluk:writes in deliberately hard to parse style is pretty clear about what is noteworthy (i need some time to actually parse him, but: yeah, town)

Ugluk? A townread at this point? Really?

He's not hiding what he deems noteworthy. (and with the massive number of 'might show up 48h in' it's not like the bar is set that high)
Yes


sjg11 wrote:
Keirador wrote:
And you believe there is one Aspirant and two Mafia, for three non-town players total?

Yeah, why?

Hmmm......
i find it somewhat hard to buy this 'why?'
Did you really read this, assumed there must be a point (any reason what so ever, there might BE a why) AND didn't bother checking the rules?

sjg11 wrote:
shirt wrote:
This is another example of you misattributing what I've said. Please stop. If you are simply being very liberal in your interpretation, please ask for clarification first next time. I do try to say what I mean...and I haven't said anything of the sort here.

I'm stating that your posts seem to be more about you than they are about anyone else. The entire thing about going in guns blazing is about you. No one else is exhibiting this behaviour. You're talking about yourself. This seems like branding, a way to say...look I'm about the scumhunting...I'm encouraging it...only it's the opposite really. More so than sf2's comment...

boils down to the 'where to vote'-scale: not now

But shirt this is relevant to some players' thought process on you. If you want to remove it as a distraction then answer Crunk and Harb on it... this is literally the least helpful approach you can take. All saying "I'm not discussing it until the AAR" does is piss people off and make it more of a distraction. Talk us through it now.

Very well. clarified mostly for your benefit, crunkus has already responded to this and makes it abundantly clear he refuses to look at it. (which within the game is the correct thing to do. I was pointing out how his decision to focus on this, instead of the actual read is a timesink)
I play with a 'vote because i see an at least as likely scum-motivation while asking for the town motivation'-style.
crunkus wants to discuss why i vote so early instead of asking for the motivation.
My point 'They are not mutually exclusive' stands.
The discussion between 'I'm explicit about my top-scumread regardless of how strong that read is, why aren't you?' and crunkus' 'the vote must mean at least this strong a read' is a massive timesink. Something worth talking about when it is not at the expense of a game in progress, where callbacks to this discussion is what most of this game has been about thusfar.
As for understanding my process:
I don't see how a playstyle:
- that is explicit on top-scumread at all times
- hinders the go-back-and come up with a good-enough response should this be asked later
- opens up the 'why are you NOT voting x'-question, without the 'doesn't meet arbitrary read-strength'-defense(which is rather susceptible to the 'close to deadline'-excuse when a vote is needed without any reason to strengthen the read)

And any calls to defend those points should be taken as an attempt to derail the game completely (steering away from scumhunting).
and before you ask yes i do believe preventing this (going on any further) is more useful, than letting scum try this and jump on it afterwards.
(crunkus was genuine with this, you i don't know)
I'm literally a five headed dragon... Who cares!
User avatar
shirt
 
Posts: 745
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 15:45
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT +1

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby shirt » 20 Feb 2015, 19:22

Izzmund wrote:@Shirt: You seem to have at the very least found BS helpful, and maybe even town.
What do you make of his engagement now later on in the day, and in particular what are your thoughts about the case put against him? What would BS's alignment reveal do to your read of SF1?

Crunkus has a point or 2 (and one crapload of examples for both).
I am very inclined to vote him ATM (currently torn between him and keir)
As for the effect on my read on SF: likely very little, confirm one of the points currently against BS. There was never any real intention there to lynch SF and i'm not going to attack SF over this potential distancing. Not while there is plenty of stuff she CAN actually answer around.

Keirador wrote:Well it's the Aspirant doing the night killing, not the mafia, and the Aspirant doesn't know which player has which power role or which alignment. Add to that the doctor/blocker/whatever will also be looking at the people with claimed roles, so the Aspirant is risking getting blocked if he targets somebody with a role.

changes my point... how?
aspirant will still target powerroles over vanillas (which is a normal reason not to claim), hasn't changed.
The detail it provides scum the option to avoid getting shot simply by claiming vanilla is only an additional reason NOT to do this

shirt wrote:(so are you a power-scum who needs an excuse to tell the aspirant you're vanilla aka not a target?)

But if somebody claims vanilla and isn't, they can be caught by a rolecop, watcher, or tracker.

Because 'goon' aka 'vanilla mafia' can be caught by a rolecop?, because a tracker will target vanillas(only if you assume power-scum doing exactly as i predicted: which would completely undermine your tactic to begin with)?
on watchers this has very little effect (maybe) the catches are somewhat easier, BECAUSE we're telling power-mafia and aspirant who they should target(and watcher should follow suit).

I really don't see why this proposition (and the support for sf's massclaim-request it implies) has drawn LESS attention than the original.

Nice job on the 'oops my bad' on the perversion of the "'dickish move of killing bk'(fresh replacement): slightly 'dickish' :true" in that very AAR post
and implying the thing you were looking for IS out there somewhere
Keirador wrote:Crunkus, shirt, I thought I remembered shirt saying in the Fate of the World AAR that he knew he was talking nonsense to Crunkus and that it was a scumtell. He says the opposite:

Now I can't think where I saw what I'm thinking of.



Keirador wrote:@Crunkus, I'm not supposed to say too much about GM pms, so suffice it to say that in-thread appears to me to be how the GM prefers to communicate.
So taking credit it is then?

Keirador
I'm literally a five headed dragon... Who cares!
User avatar
shirt
 
Posts: 745
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 15:45
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT +1

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby shirt » 20 Feb 2015, 19:22

shadowfriend1 wrote:
shirt wrote:shadow however has asked me (in a non-calm manner) to unvote, based on no other reason than 'the pressure prevents her from hunting'.
Slight difference.
I never asked you to unvote. I don't even know where you're getting this stuff from...

You didn't?
shadowfriend1 wrote:Shirt, can you just put down the red ink for a few minutes

but, in what i actually referred to, you indeed didn't call my vote the reason you couldn't play, you said that about the fact i pushed a case at all(and in this accusation you completely ignore the case btw)
shadowfriend1 wrote:I'd like to do something other than try to explain this to you nonstop in thread. Everyone else gets it, so read all my posts thoroughly before bombarding me with questions I have already answered. You are taking away from my ability to scumhunt because you are sucking my time. Enough.


shirt wrote:
Keirador wrote:Idea: partial reveal. Just whether or not we each actually have roles/abilities at all.

(so are you a power-scum who needs an excuse to tell the aspirant you're vanilla aka not a target?)

Shirt, do you understand why a role reveal has been proposed specific to this game? Read my original post about the role reveal, particularly the italicized part.
~sf1 8-)

you mean
shadowfriend1 wrote: How can he be certain that if he kills a good role, he isn't killing one of his buddies?

Please read the very post you're quoting, or think about the implications of the very line you seem to have written with the intention to make it stand out:
Mafia can just claim vanilla: done (or in your suggestion, a not so powerful one), especially with what i believe to have written in my initial response to YOUR version of the mass-claim(the original): you brought up 'pro-mafia hidden mechanics', which can conveniently be blamed for the consequences of mafia-powers originating from those who claimed vanilla
(aspirant can also choose to claim an unconfirmable powerrole, own choice)

shadowfriend1 wrote:
Harb wrote:Shadow, since you're here... Is shirt still your best read? Why?

Sorry it took me a few hours to respond, but I wanted to reassess whether shirt really still is my best read.

All intended to reassess my as your best read?
Good to know, that said: yeeeah read, finally.

Ugluk: jester: gm-confirmed, there are no other wincons.
Rest, no real surprises. Only read not watered down to 'can still go both ways' being harb.

Shirt... honestly, I can't think of a single post that shirt has made this game that I've liked. Almost everything he's said has been against me or my ideas. Does this make him scum though? I just can't understand how he could be so perplexed about my very first post of the game to the point that he would spend his whole day on it. The questions he asked me were just too many, too bad, too general and too outdated for me to ever answer. It's easy to ask bad questions, but it's impossible to respond to them. Shirt also put too many words in my mouth and brutally misrepresented my posts, as though the town needed someone to summarize what I had said in a biased manner. This showed me that he was not dedicated to finding the truth about who the mafia really are, as he was spreading false information. Because of much of the involvement I've had with him thus far, I have come to the conclusion that he is my best read and even if lynched, not a huge loss to the town. Thus, my vote stands.
So this is your excuse for not answering?
try answering,
you might find out i'm well aware of how hard it is to find a good answer and perfectly willing to settle for 'just an honest one'.
Or as i put to dwilts (in fable 6) i believe "it doesn't have to be good, it needs to be genuine".


shadowfriend1 wrote:
shadowfriend1 wrote:Yes, I do. Blackswimmer also interpreted it differently. The difference is, when I explained it, he considered what I said and acted accordingly. Shirt did not: I'm tired of answering questions when he won't hear what I'm saying. I see his actions as anti-town, because it makes me waste time repeating myself, makes everyone else waste time reading our little quarrel reworded, and frustrates everyone involved.

Is this really your excuse for flat out ignoring:

shirt wrote:
shadow wrote:
shirt wrote:- what is your motivation for your vote? (both at the time you made it and right now)
- why did you shove 'the anti-scumhunting push and the keir-vote' into a single explanation?
- why did you resort to the appeal-to-emotion defense?
- why are you avoiding stances? (e.g. why did you explicitly keep the 'planned' option open when calling my attack on your 'likely impulsive')
- can i expect to get your reads on someone who isn't 'attacking you' any time soon?
- (why) did you consider someone else telling me a possible meaning behind your opening-posts, sufficient reason to which i should have backed off?
- what (do you believe) i should have gone after at that point? (be specific)
- can you provide any insight in why i should assume your statement 'i did not consider, aspirant should back-off when scum is found'-statement, when it was you who said 'This means that scumhunting is not necessarily a town thing to do. The Aspirant will be intensely interested (maybe even more so than townies) in finding out who the mafia are so they can not kill them.' is genuine? (you did talk about scumhunting, it's relation to the aspirant and the aspirant doing it to keep the mafia alive in the same 2-line post)

I was hoping you could infer some of this stuff.

I was hoping you could answer some of this stuff.
-(4) you brushed off your active-lurking accusations of blackswimmer as 'pattern?'
-(4) you answered the 'planned or impulsive' (@crunkus, regarding bs and myself, about your 'aspirant needs scumhunting AT LEAST as much as town'-> being against scumhunting) with 'probably the 'doesn't imply scummy motivations'-option, but the 'does imply scummy motivations'-option remains possible '

-(2) in the 'trying to get into my brain'-part you had option 1: normal, option 2: all about hiding the keir vote, option 3: 'lynch scumhunting'-argument, because trying to hide the keir vote (and 4: the appeal to emotions argument, how my single vote is draining all your patience).
Why did you imply the 'lynch scumhunting'-argument, must come with being insincere about a previous vote?
-(3) option 4 as mentioned above and trying to brush off your lack of content, not involving those who attack you, all because my vote(or not letting go) prevents you from doing so: why?


------------ general play-tips ----------------------------
shadowfriend1 wrote: have all come off as a townie in my mind, maybe because I agreed with most of them

Whether or not you agree with them, doesn't make them town (or the other way around).
Especially, (but not limited to) when it involves people who have different information to go on.(like knowing only one's own role)

shadowfriend1 wrote: don't put a bad vote on one of the only people who's not voting for you.

Whether or not someone is voting you should never be a factor in voting them
I'm literally a five headed dragon... Who cares!
User avatar
shirt
 
Posts: 745
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 15:45
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT +1

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby shirt » 20 Feb 2015, 19:22

Harb wrote:They would know it's not likely to go anywhere. shirt follows up and votes SF, which makes a LOT more sense if there's already a town pushing the same thinking.

Could you state anything better to pursuit at the time?
Could you explain how dropping the issue because someone else is discussing it would be a good thing?
Why would the additional support (which i only noticed after considering this as something to pursuit) be scum-indicative, while the additional pressure would (has) helped with exposing the mindset of said player?

shirt wants us to believe that it's a reasonable assumption that pointing out the lackluster success of scumhunting will make it stop completely, when there's literally nothing else for the town to do in this game.

(Apart from the 'it doesn't matter whether or not i believe it, it matters if she does'-point.)
How many people are actually playing? (or at least, were playing the first 48h, which i must note is substantially longer than the 'scumhunting'-thing, was the actual case)

dwiltseredu wrote:@crunkus okey I went back and read your case on crunkus and while I will say it does make sense I truely do not believe that he is the best lynch candidate for today...

Either way im aware he will probably get lynched but I wont be on that train because I dont feel like it would be a correct lynch... I am sorry...

just 1 question: Then why aren't you trying to fix it? (your post is just as responsible for his lynch as any vote on him, it just conveniently doesn't show up on the tabulator)


keirador wrote:How did you feel about Crunkus explicitly telling the aspirant not to kill him?

Completely character-consistent.
If he hadn't done that, that would have been a reason to look into him. (i would have missed that and i guess i wouldn't be the only one)
it is something town-crunkus and scum-crunkus would be exactly equally likely to say (and aspirant-crunkus, would be well aware of this fact)
I'm literally a five headed dragon... Who cares!
User avatar
shirt
 
Posts: 745
Joined: 06 Apr 2012, 15:45
Class: Diplomat
All-game rating: (1000)
Timezone: GMT +1

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby shadowface » 20 Feb 2015, 19:33

shadowfriend1 wrote: Aside from lurking, what do you think Keirador has done to be a scum read in your mind?
~sf1 8-)

sjg11 wrote:Nothing and I never said he was particularly a scumread... but you seem to have me as a slight scumread and him as a slight townread... and I don't quite follow how you've gotten there.

This is what Keirador has done that I agreed with:
Keirador wrote:Regarding the shirt/shadowfriend kerfuffle, I'm on the side of finding it fairly ridiculous that shirt really believes shadowfriend was making an earnest attempt to stop scumhunting from happening, and I lean scum on shirt because of it. Crunkus has said he's seen townshirt do this before, but I haven't. The only time I've seen really unreasonable shirt was in Fate of the World, in which he started being pretty unreasonable and later claimed it was just because he knew he was caught, twisting scum. I get the desire to want to preserve actively-contributing players, but perhaps me and the rest of the silent gallery could start chiming in more to alleviate that problem.

He was engaged when I suggested a role reveal, and instead of saying, 'no, just no' like others he suggested how it could be improved, which is much more useful:
Keirador wrote:Idea: partial reveal. Just whether or not we each actually have roles/abilities at all. The Aspirant cannot have a role, so revealing who has a role and who doesn't forces the Aspirant to either lie about having a role and risk being caught in that lie later, or to out himself into the pool of people who could potentially be the Aspirant.
I don't think it gives the mafia a lot of information they can work with, either.
He also justifies his actions, like here:
Keirador wrote:@Crunkus, I'm not supposed to say too much about GM pms, so suffice it to say that in-thread appears to me to be how the GM prefers to communicate.

Keirador wrote:
Crunkus wrote:Also, did you answer my earlier question...do you understand why I said what I said earlier to you before you disappeared?

About the miller claims and their specificity or lack thereof? You claimed that I had copied your claim and consciously/purposefully made it more specific, but that level of thought did not actually go into it at all. I don't fully understand why you care about that.

Keirador wrote:Except the Aspirant has no interest in publicly catching scum, remember. The Aspirant wants to publicly appear to scumhunt, but the Aspirant does not want to actually publicly catch scum. Cuz, y'know, we'll lynch them.
I liked this suggestion.
Basically, I feel that Keirador, though he has not posted a huge amount, has been engaged and willing to answer questions and justify his posts.

Sgj, now that I look through what you've posted again, I see you have contributed some stuff. I guess I just expected more for some reason. Upon further review, I realize that you are more of a neutral/town read, particularly from your more recent play.
Q: When you call someone a walrus is that a good thing or a bad thing?
sjg11 wrote:shirt you're a shrewd walrus... I'm guessing if you were Mafia you would have cottoned on that SF was reasonably easy prey pretty early on and would have realized you may have been able to push a mislynch on her. Moreover, when myself, Crunk-dog and Harb are all saying SF has some issues with engagement and all provide an alternative explanation to all of your concerns... why aren't you re-evaluating? Why aren't you saying "Yo, sorry dudes, my vote on SF is pretty weak but here's a super cool case/series of questions I have for y'all!" I mean you haven't really asked anyone else questions yet. Should we be taking this personally? I mean I know you have it in you...

I thought a shrewd walrus meant he was smart and had legitimate points, so I find this post confusing. Are you saying that shirt is smarter than he is acting, or that he had picked up on something important this game?
~sf1 8-)
The player formerly known as shadowfriend1
Proud bearer of the Angle of Unnecessary Overshoot
Previously cursed by the Talisman of Greater Scumminess :twisted:, now an innocent, reformed townsperson
User avatar
shadowface
 
Posts: 5524
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 06:26
Location: Toronto
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: (892)
All-game rating: (892)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Crunkus_old » 20 Feb 2015, 19:34

Blackswimmer wrote:It's half and half, as I said. I totally get a lot of what you're saying about me. Other stuff - the whole argument about Izzmund and his idea, for instance, no, that strikes me as confirmation bias.


This is to me ears a dishonest attempt to misconstrue the argument against Blackswimmer.

To read this, as a casual observer who isn't following the details of this (we appear to have several along for the ride this game) this suggests there is an "whole argument about Izzmund" that has something to do with why I am voting for Blackswimmer. This is not the case. You responded to a post in which I responded to Izzmund and said I did not undertand something. If you understand why I am voting for you, and you've read what I've actually said on the subject...it's completely bonkers to talk about this in the context you are using here. Half and half...the izzmund thing (there isn't an izzmund thing) and...other stuff you're not even mentioning.

This is simply a soft suggestion I'm in confirmation bias without demonstrating how and suggesting the argument against you is based on a long list of invalid ideas.

This is a misrepresentation. You are simultaneously trying mea culpa and to suggest the case is based on air. It's just insincere. Your still communicating very strategically in my view.

Blackswimmer wrote: I am prepared to continue to explain myself, right up till the end of the day. But seriously, is anything I say going to make a difference now? I messed up, I've tried to explain what I was thinking, and why, and I don't think it's making sense to anyone, really. So is there anything you actually want to know, or is this whole conversation going to be you rehashing the same suspicions of me, and me giving the same answers? That's not a criticism, by the way, but a genuine question.


Blackswimmer, here you simply suggest that I am incapable of changing my mind, that I'm unreasonable, and that you just made a mistake that makes you look scummy without really acknowledging why. You then bring up other things I think you know aren't a thing.

I have historically shown a capacity to change my mind when someone honestly engages with me. I don't do it every time, because I'm not persuaded every time. But you're at once saying you'll do whatever it takes while throwing in the towel and blaming me. Your use of your time is in your hands.

I see very strategic communication here aimed at other people. Not someone trying to get through to me and recognizing what's really putting my vote on you and trying to clear up the misunderstanding at the root of that with sincere engagement.

You want to say I can't see any different because I'm confirmation biased...you're starting the conversation from the wrong place and simply saying its impossible because who I am.

My record says otherwise, that's an invalid answer and just an excuse.

You've attempted to say I've voted for you without reason when I clearly had and you'd already begun arguing against those reasons.
You're now attempting the muddy what that argument is based upon.
You're now putting forward a narrative of a town Crunkus stuck in confirmation bias. You seem strangely reluctant to even entertain the possibility I might be scum railroading you. It's not clear why. Perhaps you are signalling to the aspirant.
(sigh)
Crunkus_old
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: A Shot in the Dark Game Thread (Day 1)

Postby Crunkus_old » 20 Feb 2015, 19:35

Keirador wrote:
condude1 wrote:Dodgy56, please stop posting

Alcester has replaced dodgy56. I'm going to extend the deadline 24 hours to give the replacements time to catch up.

Replacements, plural?


@Crunkus, I'm not supposed to say too much about GM pms, so suffice it to say that in-thread appears to me to be how the GM prefers to communicate.


Then I'll in thread remind the GM perhaps his rules should include information on the subject.
(sigh)
Crunkus_old
 
Posts: 17650
Joined: 05 Feb 2009, 23:51
Class: Star Ambassador
All-game rating: (944)
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Game Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

cron