I don't know what I did to aggravate you von though I imagine some of it is due to my personality in how I handle things (I am not always fun to play mafia with, and I think people who have played with me a little will agree with that easily) but I will attempt to go through things with all direct examples and references to as many posts as possible for each point in order to end this discussion because we haven't moved anywhere and in every post you and I are asking the same things of each other. I'm also going to format it your way because it's better than what rssp/myself did last night.
Can someone else give me a hand here when I say that getting a lynch vote put on you, then immediately turning around and scum-hunting that person is reactionary and usually silly? Like it's been talked about in previous games often enough. If you think things through as much as you're forming your platform on, I don't even almost understand how this is so hard a concept to grasp.
In response to this, I had previously mentioned "
you never addressed why the logic presented in the post is incorrect, and as such why the conclusion is incorrect" (bolded segment taken from post #123). In the post I presented a few pages back, I talked about the idea that a mislynch/increased attention from separate users is a sign as to cleanliness for the one being targeted, and a sign as to the increased likelihood of that one of the users targeted is more likely to be bad than a random sample of the game members (post #106)
If the mafia are aware of the stereotypes of past games, without a doubt they are going to act in such a way that they don't fulfill them. Past NOC voting patterns dictate this to be true - of the past 3 NOC games (all of which MISLYNCHED on D1) ~31% of the voters voting against the victim have been mafia (I can post the sample I'm using as well!), which represents 56% of the mafia members involved in these games! That means you're more likely to hit a mafia member by simply voting the voters of the day 1 lynch than you are by randomly voting.
I reiterated these points and how they apply to this scenario in response to Spiffy and you (post #112).
It makes perfect sense for me to proceed in an argument that way, given that the entirety of my previous post discussed the patterns of voting on D1 and the likelihood of mislynch corresponding with increased probability of mafia voting for said mislynch. Given that I am in the process of getting mislynched, and an increasing number of users are targeting me, the statement "jumping to that conclusion places suspicion on yourself and the others who follow that path more so than it does myself." does nothing to disagree with what I ranted on a page ago.
...
(this part was in response to spiffy) You haven't convinced me that approaching the lynch with your method will be more successful than randomly voting (nor do you provide any evidence to the contrary outside of "past discussions"), and I haven't convinced myself of an estimate percentage of "sureness" that we need to have in order for the lynch to be worthwhile (which depends on the estimated numbers of kills in the game, as a slower game can afford more mislynches. The Courier adds a strong wild card to this, imo). I think that randomly selecting a lynch target from my pool of current voters against me will have a much higher probability of being mafia than other voting patterns, I'm still not convinced that this will be high enough such that it is worthwhile (again, I still need to clear up what these definitions "worthwhile" mean to myself, I'm going to look into the numbers). While this course of action will easily be argued as an action of "self-defence" I think the logic I presented previously as well as the past games make this to be a sensible statement.
Based on the logic in the post, if I feel a lot of pressure coming onto me from different sources, I am more than comfortable in saying that among the pool of users pressuring me there must be at least one mafia member, and this does not just include votes. Imagine this from my perspective: Cancerous, fatecrashers, rssp, SeriousBananas, (Celever even posted fun stuff that I didn't notice prior to this post) and yourself have all placed pressure or are/were voting on me at one point in time. Given the source of action dictators in past games and what I addressed in my post, there is a much higher chance that a mafia member will be found by randomly selecting from this group than there is from randomly selecting from the player base. But I bolded an important note in the quote above - I'm not sure whether or not this higher probability will be worthwhile as the risk vs. reward is dependant on what we assume the number of deaths to be per cycle.
Your main point of contention stems from the end of post #103, I imagine
It's quite clear that I am being used as an "easy" target because I wish to address the common though process and why I think it is wrong. Disagreement should not be used as claim for lynching, and jumping to that conclusion places suspicion on yourself and the others who follow that path more so than it does myself.
Perhaps the sentiment in the bolded area is what you disagree with? You disagree with how I described your method of selection? Understandable. The statement that "jumping to that conclusion...." should not be in disagreement. It is in agreement with the logic that has been posted - the more people that are clearly coming against me, the more likely we are to find a mafia member contained within that group.
If you don't agree with that logic, that is the point you may wish to address. I've gone back and referenced it. I am not arguing anything new, just organising the information in a way to make it more clear. I want it to also be clear that I never ignored your concern with respect to this issue - I addressed instantly why I proceeded the way I did. Upon hearing this, you did not address whether or not the conclusion was right or wrong, but proceed to call it childish. Note the following conversation, with vonFiedler (post 120) replying to my post (post 112).
[quote ="moi, post: 6199031, member: 17102"]It makes perfect sense for me to proceed in an argument that way, given that the entirety of my previous post discussed the patterns of voting on D1 and the likelihood of mislynch corresponding with increased probability of mafia voting for said mislynch. Given that I am in the process of getting mislynched, and an increasing number of users are targeting me, the statement "jumping to that conclusion places suspicion on yourself and the others who follow that path more so than it does myself." does nothing to disagree with what I ranted on a page ago.[/quote]
[quote ="vonFiedler, post: 6199031, member: 17102"]
I never said defending yourself was scummy. I just asserted that pointing the finger right back at people who accuse you is childish. Not scummy, mind you readers, pretty neutral in fact, but childish.[/quote]
You blatantly ignored the point of contention and proceeded to attempt to demean my argument - I see no fault in addressing your attempt to invalidate my arguments as ad hominem when the same favour has easily been handed back. This is a minor issue but to pretend that you are innocent of it is silly, and is something worth mentioning considering a surprisingly significant amount of your argument against me has revolved around demeaning me for someone who calls it cute when I call them out on it. I assume you want me to stop acting from what you perceive to be an ass? Stop interpreting it in such a way - I don't think I was being blatantly asinine until you extended the same "curtesy" back to me. I'm not particularly sure why it even matters? Why are you offended that I am attacking your method of selection? That surely isn't the way to approach the issue.
It shouldn't honestly shouldn't be an issue to have to address personal things - I get fired up when I play mafia, but I'm never going to try to personally attack someone or demean someone. If I really offended you, I'm sorry, I don't mean to, but there is a distinction between attacking argument and character and that is not a line I think I crossed.
This next section is to address the following paragraph:
[quote = "vonFiedler, post: 6199031, member: 17102"]What does crier mean in this context? Someone accusing someone of something else? Cause that was you that jumped to that conclusion (and can we sidebar here? you like to use that phrase A LOT. to be clear, we're all going to be making assumptions that aren't backed up by hard evidence in an NOC game. the question is whether those assumptions are more or less likely than the ones that could be made about others and whether or not others feel the same way. calling this a jump to conclusions just seems really touchy).
I'm assuming you're not literally projecting yourself onto me though, so is the crier you when you asked what a busser was? I don't know what sense that makes, just the context here is so fucked and I'm trying to figure it out. But given the paragraph you were replying to, when I said I waited after the first incident to gather more information, well, you can see that a whole hour and multiple topics of conversation passed in between that and me lynching you. That could hardly be called immediate in an NOC game.[/quote]
This is the post you made in which provides the context that you didn't have in this paragraph. There's no point in addressing this as it is made entirely to the wrong point, which is probably my fault for not being clear enough.
Post #91
[quote = "vonFiedler, post: 6199031, member: 17102"]If they start crying they are mafia.[/quote]
Anyway stop handling my accusations by downplaying them. I never said you "seem off". I said that you seem like a player who is very quick to talk but whose head is in the game on the mafia side. I said, and others have echoed, that you had forecast ideas that could have been used reflexively to catch mafia but instead have only made them aware of how not to act. And that this fits a possible profile that some mafia scum might adhere to. Please actually address these points. I do not want to read a third response saying "woah man I'm just thinking here that can't be bad".
[/quote]
What would you like me to say? This is was your first post with respect to my accusation
[quote = "vonFiedler, post: 6199031, member: 17102"]Moi your perspective has come an awful lot from the perspective of a mafioso (i.e. the mafia would do this) in a short amount of time, in spite of not singling out said behavior in anyone. Your head just seems to be on the mafia side to be honest. Looking for tells is good, but forecasting them?
For instance, you didn't know what bussing was. But within two minutes you concluded what years of meta has. So either you were thinking about it really hard from their perspective, or were full of shit in the first place (tee hee, I don't how to be mafia I must be town).[/quote]
I want to point out that quite a decent amount of your initial accusation was founded in the "bussing" issue. While I assume this has been cleared up, I will link the two posts I made specifically on that subject for anyone confused/wanting to catch up.
Post #83
I'm not sure what you mean by bussing. Is this a term I don't understand?
Post #109
vonFiedler - if I say I am afraid of spiders, yet I don't know the word for it, does that mean I do not know what I am afraid of?
likewise - if I say I understand the concept of a mafia sacrificing another mafia, yet I don't know the word for it, does it mean I not know the concept? Talk about jumping to conclusions
I think the main part of your contention with me that you feel insufficiently addressed is that my train of thought seems to mafia esque, but it's unlikely that I'll be able to convince you otherwise. The reason I am at a loss and repeating myself is because this is how I think about games.
But you're pretty singular about it. Now I can't mole here, so I don't mind saying that when I'm mafia moling in a normal game, sometimes I have a tremendous problem with keeping the villager vonFiedler and the mafia vonFiedler separate. Especially if I'm coming up with actions, this can be very mentally taxing. So I think I see you coming at this from a mafia perspective. I didn't say anything earlier, but it keeps building up. You just keep jumping in very quickly saying what the mafia will do rather than calling people out on acting like mafia after they do so. Depending on whether mafia can speak during the day, this could have an added benefit.
In figuring out how the mafia acts, one is able to address them. I pointed out that the mafia are likely to bandwagon, and pointed out that it seemed I was being bandwagoned. While not directly naming names initially, that still seems like calling out people acting like mafia.
[quote ="vonFiedler, post: 6199031, member: 17102"]Anyway stop handling my accusations by downplaying them. I never said you "seem off". I said that you seem like a player who is very quick to talk but whose head is in the game on the mafia side. I said, and others have echoed, that you had forecast ideas that could have been used reflexively to catch mafia but instead have only made them aware of how not to act. And that this fits a
possible profile that some mafia scum might adhere to. Please actually address these points. [/quote]
I posted them publicly as I felt that the profile accurately fit the accusers (which goes rather ignored by most users in the thread). You mention that this is a possible profile, but the qualifier is quite clearly important here. It is nothing more than a possible profile, in so far as any type of interacting can qualify as a "profile". It is quite difficult to argue against what you even claimed yourself to just be a "narrative" (post 120), as obviously a story is subjective. It is curious as to why you'd continue to push on what is a subjective matter.
I appreciate that Celever posts that my defense has been lackluster while offering nothing to the contrary, let alone addressing any of the claims facing her (? Feel free to correct me here but I think this is right). I have seen that Spiffy has posted lynching her, claiming that I am "in too deep with my philosophy" (yet argues nothing to the contrary. I am much less stubborn than has likely been made out to be, but I haven't been convinced. If you want to convince me of an argument, provide ONE. Don't just state that the other person is wrong), so maybe something else will arise from it.
Also entirely unrelated to the game but if anyone is curious moi is characterized with no caps. If you wanted to really troll me you can do it as MoI and type out what the acronym originally stood for 8 years ago (bonus points if you actually know!)
