Mafia Mini a la surprise

[Whiskeyjack]

Mexal, I'm curious. What do you think of my case against Harlot? You somehow failed to comment on it. Which is strange, given that it was the first serious case/vote in the game.

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='Mexal der Mann' post='1376926' date='May 30 2008, 10.12']You first turned around a joke statement from Kat on her and now you're turning my attacks on you onto me. You do this ALL THE FUCKING TIME, especially when you're evil.[/quote]

1) It's not true that I am more likely to do that when I'm evil.

2) When somebody says something, I seek to understand the reasoning behind their statement/question/theory. If the person is evil, their bullshit statements will often be revealed as such when they fail to provide the logical reasoning necessary to explain [i]why[/i] they were pursuing that particular line of thought.

In Kat's case, I wanted to know why she thought it was suspicious that we both voted for AE and then both voted for Harlot. Did she think we were partners? Would partners do that? Did she think I was symping you? Did she think I was attacking players who you had made into easy targets? If so, why? If she really did feel it was suspicious, then I wanted her to explain the logic that established that suspicion.

In your case, you claimed that you were not yet ready to conclude that I was 'evil WJ' and that you were 'evaluating' my responses. I wanted to know your criteria for evaluation. What would have triggered the 'evil WJ' conclusion? What would have triggered the 'innocent WJ' conclusion? If you're asking questions with the express purpose of evaluating my responses, then you should be working off of some set of expectations. If you can't explain what your criteria is, then your claim is suspicious.

[Whiskeyjack]

Mods, does Gert even know that she is playing in this game and that we have started?

Also, a question that may or may not be related to the above.....are we allowed to discuss if/when we have seen other players posting/lurking on other parts of the board? I know we can't in an alted game, but I'm unclear on the rules in an unalted game.

[Mexal]

[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1376964' date='May 30 2008, 11.31']Mexal, I'm curious. What do you think of my case against Harlot? You somehow failed to comment on it. Which is strange, given that it was the first serious case/vote in the game.[/quote]

Well, I did comment on it. I just didn't have anything particularly interesting to say since I was too busy declaring us friend finders before I went to work and then dealing with you since I've been at work.

I don't buy the case. It looks like a case of taking two statements and throwing hidden meaning behind it.

[quote name='WJ']1) It's not true that I am more likely to do that when I'm evil.[/quote]

I never said it was more likely you'd do it as evil. I said you do it, especially as evil.

[quote name='WJ']In your case, you claimed that you were not yet ready to conclude that I was 'evil WJ' and that you were 'evaluating' my responses. I wanted to know your criteria for evaluation. What would have triggered the 'evil WJ' conclusion? What would have triggered the 'innocent WJ' conclusion? If you're asking questions with the express purpose of evaluating my responses, then you should be working off of some set of expectations. If you can't explain what your criteria is, then your claim is suspicious.[/quote]

As I said, there is no magic criteria. I don't have a rubric in front of me that says "if WJ writes 5 sentences of defense compared to his normal 3, then he must be evil." I take things as they come. I ask questions and I judge their responses. I look to see if there is another agenda to them. I seek to understand what's the point of getting defensive. I look to see if I think you're genuine in your defense or if you're just annoyed that someone might suspect you for shit reasoning. I then look to see if you're trying to manipulate the situation to cast the attacker in poor light. I then seek to understand why. All of these things help me judge but none of them are so clear cut that I can give you a list of things that make you evil or innocent because that list simply does not exist.

It's not a criteria just like I highly doubt you have a criteria for judging statements. It's about understanding the reasoning, just like you said and then trying to determine if that person's reasoning matches up with their actions.

[Piper of Chaos]

[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1376993' date='May 30 2008, 17.50']Mods, does Gert even know that she is playing in this game and that we have started?

Also, a question that may or may not be related to the above.....are we allowed to discuss if/when we have seen other players posting/lurking on other parts of the board? I know we can't in an alted game, but I'm unclear on the rules in an unalted game.[/quote]

[i]She should know both.[/i] :unsure:

[Ser Spidey]

Mex, please don't type so fast. I always end up seeming to parrot you.

[Mexal]

[quote name='Ser Spidutch' post='1377013' date='May 30 2008, 11.58']Mex, please don't type so fast. I always end up seeming to parrot you.[/quote]

I can't help it. Arguing with WJ always seems to bring out the speed in my fingers.

[Piper of Chaos]

It is day 1.

9 players remain: AutumnEvenings, Gertrude, Harlot, Kat, Mexal, Ser Spider, VerySmallMonster, West, Whiskeyjack.

5 votes are needed for a conviction or to go to night.

2 votes for Whiskeyjack (AutumnEvenings, Mexal)
1 vote for Mexal (Kat)
1 vote for Harlot (Whiskeyjack)
1 vote for Ser Spider (Harlot)

4 players have not voted: Gertrude, Ser Spider, VerySmallMonster, West.



9 hours remain

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='Mexal der Mann' post='1377002' date='May 30 2008, 10.53']I never said it was more likely you'd do it as evil. I said you do it, especially as evil.[/quote]

I don't see the difference.


[quote]As I said, there is no magic criteria. I don't have a rubric in front of me that says "if WJ writes 5 sentences of defense compared to his normal 3, then he must be evil."[/quote]

I asked for your expectations and criteria, not a Magic Rule of Absolute Truth.


[quote]I seek to understand what's the point of getting defensive. I look to see if I think you're genuine in your defense or if you're just annoyed that someone might suspect you for shit reasoning. I then look to see if you're trying to manipulate the situation to cast the attacker in poor light. I then seek to understand why. All of these things help me judge but none of them are so clear cut that I can give you a list of things that make you evil or innocent because that list simply does not exist.[/quote]

So your eventual conclusion was that I'm evil. Using the above criteria, please explain your position. Connect the dots for me.

[Ser Spidey]

[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1376873' date='May 30 2008, 16.53']I think you answered your own question there. :P[/quote]
Ok. If there isn't another reason, it means that you're just deliberately trying to make people who suspect you look dumb for suspecting you. Completely unnecessary, yet a useful little way to make people think twice before coming after you again.
[quote]I'd ask 'why not?', but I don't really see it leading to any sort of useful discussion. Instead, I'll just say that if you feel that way, then you obviously don't know me well enough to meta-analyze my gameplay.[/quote]
I'm curious. How many games am I required to play with you to do this?
[quote]So, I'm wondering....Mexal says he doesn't necessarily find my 'over-defensiveness' suspicious. He's evaluating my answers. Is it the same for you? Or are you ready to conclude 'evil WJ' (as indicated by your statement "I wouldn't expect you to act this way if innocent")?[/quote]
Well, I do find you suspicious. That does not equal guilty.

I also believe that you're [i]more likely [/i]to do this as evil. I do agree that it's not an especially strong point though.

[Ser Spidey]

[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1377027' date='May 30 2008, 18.02']I don't see the difference.[/quote]
Honestly, neither do I.
[quote]So your eventual conclusion was that I'm evil. Using the above criteria, please explain your position. Connect the dots for me.[/quote]
I believe he has already done that. Also, he [i]thinks [/i]you're evil, he has not reached the final conclusion. Once again, you're twisting his words.

[s]I expect[/s] I know you're able to work it out yourself. You know Mex's logic well enough. You've seen him post an explanation. Why are you stirring the pot if his viewpoint is abdundantly clear?

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='Ser Spidutch' post='1377031' date='May 30 2008, 11.04']I'm curious. How many games am I required to play with you to do this?[/quote]

There isn't a requisite number of games. There's a requisite level of comprehension. Based on your evaluation of my gameplay, it's clear that you don't understand me very well yet. Which is fine. I'm not trying to criticize you. I'm just saying that maybe you should hold off on trying to meta-analyze my gameplay before you have me all figured out.

[quote]I also believe that you're [i]more likely [/i]to do this as evil.[/quote]

Based on what evidence?

[Mexal]

[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1377027' date='May 30 2008, 12.02']I don't see the difference.[/quote]

I do.

[quote name='WJ']So your eventual conclusion was that I'm evil. Using the above criteria, please explain your position. Connect the dots for me.[/quote]

Sure.

Dot #1 - You took a statement about your that was sandwiched between jokes and ripped it apart. You then asked a rhetorical question, used the word "really" several times to show how you can't possibly understand why the statement was made and then turned it around on Kat.

Now the question is why did you react the way you did? Well, my ultimate conclusion is that your ego couldn't handle the fact that Kat could possibly consider you a suspect based on such poor logic that you had to go after her.

Dot #2 - I called you out for being over defensive on a statement that didn't call for defensiveness.

Dot #3 - You then react strongly to being called over defensive, once again not believing that you're being called on that.

During this time, you take some of my statements, give new meaning to them and then ask questions based on the meaning that you gave to those statements. An example would be when I said "I haven't decided if your actions suggest evil WJ or innocent WJ" and then you turned around and said to Spidey that "I said I wasn't suspicious of you."

Dot #4 - From then on, you've taken my arguments against you and twisted them to be arguments against me. You're asking for a magic criteria on what determines the difference between evil WJ and innocent WJ even though you know there is no criteria. You then attack me for it when the magic answer isn't provided for you.

The final conclusion stems from the fact that the focus went from being about your actions to then being about mine and that you're trying to trap me into saying exactly what you want me to say so you can go "Ahah, you're evil!" Statements like "if you don't give me your criteria for judging innocent WJ vs evil WJ, I'll have to assume that you're a middle of the road poster and making suspicious claims" which then completely overshadows any point I've made against you.

It's manipulative and I see that it's in your best interests to make me look as bad as possible since I'm the one attacking you. It's something you've done before and it's exactly what I'd expect you as evil to do in this situation, especially when it seems like you can't believe you're being called evil based on what you would consider "poor logic" since to you, your responses don't indicate one way or another your alignment.

Anyway, I'm off to lunch.

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='Ser Spidutch' post='1377051' date='May 30 2008, 11.11']I believe he has already done that. Also, he [i]thinks [/i]you're evil, he has not reached the final conclusion. Once again, you're twisting his words.[/quote]

Umm...no. I'm not twisting anything. He said he thinks I'm evil, and he voted for me. What more do you want in this game? That's a conclusion that I'm evil. Obviously, he's not certain of it. Nobody is ever going to be certain of anything in mafia. Definitively saying "I think you are evil" and voting for a player is about as far as anybody is ever going to go.

[quote][s]I expect[/s] I know you're able to work it out yourself. You know Mex's logic well enough. You've seen him post an explanation. Why are you stirring the pot if his viewpoint is abdundantly clear?[/quote]

I don't want his viewpoint, and I don't want my interpretation of his logic. I want [u]his[/u] logic. I now know the criteria he's using, and I know the conclusion. I want to know the specific behavior he is citing to reach that conclusion.

[Ser Spidey]

[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1377062' date='May 30 2008, 18.15']Based on what evidence?[/quote]
Based on my incomplete experience of playing with you.

[Ser Spidey]

[quote name='Mexal der Mann' post='1377073' date='May 30 2008, 18.19']It's manipulative and I see that it's in your best interests to make me look as bad as possible since I'm the one attacking you. It's something you've done before and it's exactly what I'd expect you as evil to do in this situation, especially when it seems like you can't believe you're being called evil based on what you would consider "poor logic" since to you, your responses don't indicate one way or another your alignment.[/quote]
Damn you, Mex, and your fast fingers! ;)

I completely agree with this. WJ, see also my point about you trying to maker us both look dumb with no real neccessity. You haven't responded to that yet.

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='Mexal der Mann' post='1377073' date='May 30 2008, 11.19']I do.[/quote]

Then go ahead and explain the difference. Apparently, I'm not the only one who's missing something there.


[quote]Sure.

Dot #1 - You took a statement about your that was sandwiched between jokes and ripped it apart. You then asked a rhetorical question, used the word "really" several times to show how you can't possibly understand why the statement was made and then turned it around on Kat.

Now the question is why did you react the way you did? Well, my ultimate conclusion is that your ego couldn't handle the fact that Kat could possibly consider you a suspect based on such poor logic that you had to go after her.[/quote]

Okay, for the sake of argument, assume that you are correct. How does this indicate that I am evil? Your 'ultimate conclusion' is that my ego couldn't handle the fact that Kat could suspect me based on poor logic. How does that indicate an evil WJ instead of an innocent WJ?

[quote]Dot #2 - I called you out for being over defensive on a statement that didn't call for defensiveness.

Dot #3 - You then react strongly to being called over defensive, once again not believing that you're being called on that.[/quote]

Same question as above.

[quote]During this time, you take some of my statements, give new meaning to them and then ask questions based on the meaning that you gave to those statements. An example would be when I said "I haven't decided if your actions suggest evil WJ or innocent WJ" and then you turned around and said to Spidey that "I said I wasn't suspicious of you."

Dot #4 - From then on, you've taken my arguments against you and twisted them to be arguments against me. You're asking for a magic criteria on what determines the difference between evil WJ and innocent WJ even though you know there is no criteria. You then attack me for it when the magic answer isn't provided for you.[/quote]

So you're the only one playing the game? If you're innocent, you're the only one who is trying to figure out who is evil? Exactly what would you expect from an 'innocent WJ'? Would you expect him to [u]not[/u] use an argument brought against him as an opportunity to evaluate the person pushing the argument?

I'm figuring things out here, just like every other innocent player. I'm not just going to sit back and defend...that's a waste of time to me. I'm going to do what I can to get information about you.

[quote]The final conclusion stems from the fact that the focus went from being about your actions to then being about mine and that you're trying to trap me into saying exactly what you want me to say so you can go "Ahah, you're evil!" Statements like "if you don't give me your criteria for judging innocent WJ vs evil WJ, I'll have to assume that you're a middle of the road poster and making suspicious claims" which then completely overshadows any point I've made against you.

It's manipulative and I see that it's in your best interests to make me look as bad as possible since I'm the one attacking you. It's something you've done before and it's exactly what I'd expect you as evil to do in this situation, especially when it seems like you can't believe you're being called evil based on what you would consider "poor logic" since to you, your responses don't indicate one way or another your alignment.[/quote]

Oh really? Thats what you expect from me when I'm evil? Didn't you make nearly the exact same accusation against me in Game 48? That I was 'twisting your words' and 'being manipulative' and 'trying to trap you'? What was my alignment in that game? Innocent. Yet now you claim that its what you'd expect from me when I'm evil? Bullshit.

[Ser Spidey]

[quote name='Whiskeydracul' post='1377108' date='May 30 2008, 18.33']Oh really? Thats what you expect from me when I'm evil? Didn't you make nearly the exact same accusation against me in Game 48? That I was 'twisting your words' and 'being manipulative' and 'trying to trap you'? What was my alignment in that game? Innocent. Yet now you claim that its what you'd expect from me when I'm evil? Bullshit.[/quote]
In that game, you were leading the attack. Now he is. A clear difference.

[i]Gotta go. Will return before the night. Would vote WJ now if that wouldn't put him at L-2.
[/i]

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='Ser Spidutch' post='1377093' date='May 30 2008, 11.29']Damn you, Mex, and your fast fingers! ;)

I completely agree with this.[/quote]

If you agree with him, then please explain Game 48.


[quote]WJ, see also my point about you trying to maker us both look dumb with no real neccessity. You haven't responded to that yet.[/quote]

I haven't responded because it isn't a point that indicates guilt or innocence in any way. I tried to make you look dumb? Assuming that's true*, how is it out of the ordinary for me? Do I not do the same thing when I'm innocent?

---------

*For the record, I don't actually try to make anybody look dumb. It's just the way I write. It's not a conscious decision. If anybody is offended, [s]get over it[/s] I apologize.

[Whiskeyjack]

[quote name='Ser Spidutch' post='1377114' date='May 30 2008, 11.36']In that game, you were leading the attack. Now he is. A clear difference.[/quote]

I don't see why that would matter. Either way, I'm leading an attack against him. Doesn't matter what prompted that attack. Either way, he's accusing me of being evil because I'm 'twisting his words' and 'trying to trap him'. And he claims that I do that when I'm evil.

Well, he made those same accusations in Game 48, and I was innocent. And by the way, take a wild guess at who was evil. The person who was making those accusations - Mexal.