Okay, let's do this. What are the accusations?
Hey silver,
Just wanted to say I hope there's no hard feelings about this last game, now that we're both dead. At the time, I did feel that some of the statements you made were out of line, but time and distance help put them in perspective. At any rate, it should be a given that players are not attacking each other on a personal level--so posts should not be made or interpreted to that effect unless it is glaringly obvious that they are intended to offend.
I don't harbor any ill will against you, and I have confidence that we can get along well in future games.
Basically, the argument is that I stepped out of line of the civility pledge. Well, as I said before in the thread, I'm not that interested in the civility pledge, because I feel like how much a comment hurts someone (and that's what it's about, right?) has very little to do with whether or not it's fine according to the pledge. The post that hurt me most in mafia so far was teproc saying somthing like "you're good at rereading, good job", which is nowhere near overstepping the pledge.
Still, let's look at it:
-- That said, all players are required to treat each other in a civil manner. What does this mean? Your criticisms of other players should not rise to the level of personal attacks. At the same time, you should assume other players' criticisms of you are not intended as personal attacks. In practice, remember that it is just a game, and though a player may be lying to you and distorting every word you say, that player is not an evil person outside of the context of the game. By the same token, if someone accuses you of lying and distorting every word he says, you should not assume that that player is accusing you of being evil outside of the context of this game.
-- In this spirit, choose your words considerately. Strong language may be required to express strong arguments--and no one wants to limit the strategic landscape of the game by policing speech--but please be reasonable. Everyone who is a member of this community can provide examples of debates that were appropriately colorful and heated, as well as a few instances that went over the line. We don't want anyone to sour on playing games with us because the language and the tone became personal, offensive, aggressive, etc. Don't do that.
This is very loosely formulated, so you could easily make arguments for both sides. e doesn't seem to think that I stepped over the pledge, because he modded it and didn't interfere (and he made
this post, which to me sounds more like he thought your behavior was inappropriate).
So, because the pledge is so vague, I'm not going to dig more into that. I have no idea if I overstepped the pledge, I don't think there
is a clear answer, and I don't really care anyway.
What I do care about is whether or not my posts where morally justified, so I'll try to figure that out. This was the first conversation:
I guess I'll wait and see what others whom I find townier think. Letting silver get away with this is simply unbelievable. I'm sure you'll lynch him after my flip, but you'll be down town a strong town PR (admittedly less strong later in the game). Also, now that you've decided that either me or silver is scum, who do you think each of our partner's would be?
Oh man, suck it up. I made a strategic decision to fake a non-PR. This argument is not even good if you accept that it's policy. If you can't handle this kind of thing, don't play mafia.
I find the tone of this post unnecessarily hostile.
Considering that you lied, it's pretty obvious that you don't understand how that is a horrible thing to do as town. It doesn't matter that you think it worked out for you. I guessed correctly what you were doing right away, and if I was scum, I would have killed you N1.
if you think I'm scum, you can vote for me. but if I'm town, then I have kept a PR hidden until day3, and I've stopped possibly 3 of 4 kills. If you think that's a "horrible thing to do as town", then I can only repeat what I said in my last post. Ash said a similar thing, I gave him a similar response. I'm not being any more nice to you, and I don't know why you expected that.
Honestly, I think you were just making an incredibly weak argument. What you were saying is, "I don't like the way he plays, we should lynch him for playing like that". This argument... dunno, it's just really, really weak. It's hard for me to even explain why it's weak, because you just say "A so B" when there is no reason why B should follow out of A. You didn't say why me lying is a bad thing.
So, my response was very harsh, mostly because we were playing a game of mafia and appearing confident was what gave people a town read on me, because I'm not that confident as scum. But I think such a weak argument deserves a hostile response, so again, I think it was justified. I could have dropped the introduction "Oh man, suck it up." and leave the rest of the post as is (but again, I wanted to act confident). This is certainly the closest-to-the-edge post that I've made.
Your reply was, in my opinion, even weaker. Specifically with this line: "Considering that you
lied, it's pretty obvious that you don't understand how that is a horrible thing to do as town.
It doesn't matter that you think it worked out for you."
This is like saying "I don't care about facts, I have norms." Actually, that's exactly what you're saying.
So, let me make this very clear, because I honestly think you still think otherwise: lying as town is not objectively bad. It is
impossible to argue that a certain style of playing is objectively bad, because there is no objective measurement. And because it is impossible, all you have as a basis is this game, where it worked perfectly. So... yeah. If you want to argue against lying, you could say things like "it usually turns out bad for town" or "most good players agree that it's bad." In fact, this is exactly what Eevee did. I have a response for that too, but I don't need it, because you didn't make that argument.
Oh and in addition to all of that, ash already attacked me for lying, and I already gave him a hostile response. You do the exact same thing. Attacking me for that
again is like
begging for a hostile response.
so tl;dr the only regret there is the "suck it up". aside from that, I think I answered your posts just fine. I would do it very similarly if it happened again.
Unfortunately, I think the next part is even more one sided.
There was this:
Could you elaborate on the bolded part?
it basically means, I really dislike what jimmm is doing, and everything in me says "LYNCH HIM!", but that should not be what my decision is based on.
What have I done that you dislike?
a lot. man, it starts with the fact that you're painting yourself as the innocent one, which, in my opinion, is just absurd after your discussion with ash. but it really wouldn't be a good idea if i list every reason now. I don't like you. it's best to leave it at that. I'm trying not to let that influence my vote.
You know what, it's so, so unfair to say that you don't like how I play and you don't like me, but you won't tell me why. I'm guilty for what? Quoting ash without keeping the whole quote in? Not being okay with him accusing me of personally attacking him?
phone posting. no one hammer right away please. I'll be home and at my computer within the hour.
EVERYONE CHILL OUT!
seriously, there has definitely been some stuff that I think violates civility--and not from Jimmmmm either. it looks like he and ash are good now, but now silver's starting in again.
it's OK not to try and have the last word guys.
Let me summarize that.
someone: could you explain in detail about what you meant here?
silver: I meant that I don't like Jimmm, and I'm trying to not let that influence my vote
jimmm: why don't you like me
silver: for example because X and Y but I shouldn't explain this in more detail
jimmm: not explaining it in detail is very unfair towards me
silver: *long post explaining it in detail*
Ichi: everything was okay and now silver thinks he has to start an argument again, because he wants to have the last word
what I did there was complying with an implicit request from Jimmm. honestly, I think your respose was more inappropriate than anything I have posted this whole game. Why were you saying "now silver's
starting it again" when all I did was comply with a request. that's... ... !!
After I made the post, even Jimmm said: "I really appreciate it. We disagree on a fair bit, but that is so much better than simply saying you don't like me and leaving it at that." so it's obvious that he didn't have a problem with it, noone else had a problem with it, there is really no reason why anyone would, so I don't get why you did.
the only thing I think was bad about my post there was that I basically said "you shouldn't ask me to do this." That was stupid, he has the right to ask for that. but, you didn't complain about that part, so I guess it doesn't even matter.
you then continued to drop little hints at how BM you think I was this game which I'm not going to list, and as if that wasn't enough already, you even thought it was necessary to say again that you really think I was BM after your flip, and didn't just argue for alignment reasons.
overall, from the perspective of the civil pledge, you certainly had cleaner posts, but from a moral perspective, I think I had better posts. I'm not sure if that really answers your question or if your question was more like "do you think we can get along in future games," but because I think I acted fine, the answer to these kinds of questions is pretty trivial. I have no idea if we will get along, but I have no intentions of altering my playstyle regarding mannerism in any way, and I think that a lot of stuff you said was not okay, but heh whatever, I think a lot of stuff that a lot of people are doing is not okay, like eating meat every day, and I just have to live with that. I'll be able to live with you too. Generally, I even enjoy heated arguments in mafia.
Author
Topic: Mafia 51: Silo (Wool) Mafia - Serial Killer (ashersky) wins! (Read 172925 times)