Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[A Drowned Kernel]

The issue isn't that faust made a list of guesses, it's that he claimed that his list "wasn't far off" at a point when it had apparently been confirmed that he had only guessed right on one

[faust]

The issue isn't that faust made a list of guesses, it's that he claimed that his list "wasn't far off" at a point when it had apparently been confirmed that he had only guessed right on one

And why is that an issue?

[A Drowned Kernel]

The issue isn't that faust made a list of guesses, it's that he claimed that his list "wasn't far off" at a point when it had apparently been confirmed that he had only guessed right on one

And why is that an issue?

It's an odd thing to say, given the information you would have had at that point

[Swowl]

Vote Count 2.4:

scolapasta (4): faust, ADK, EFHW, WCD
faust (2): MiX, LaLight
Ashersky (1): Cayvie

Not Voting (7): Glooble, E!, Jimmm, Ashersky, scolapasta, Lekkit, Shraeye


With 14 alive, takes 8 players to lynch.
Deadline for Day 2 is April 2nd at 9:12pm Forum Time. That is a little bit longer than 2 days from now!

[EFHW]

Ok, I'm caught up. The faust lying thing is not scummy, imo, EVEN THOUGH I am 100% against town lying.

[LaLight]

I want to claim a thing that may come up in the game later. The gift I received was a neighbourhood with a player of my choice for the rest of D2 and only D2. I don't want to claim anything else.

[LaLight]

Ok, I'm caught up. The faust lying thing is not scummy, imo, EVEN THOUGH I am 100% against town lying.

How are these two things work together?

[ashersky]

Ok, I'm caught up. The faust lying thing is not scummy, imo, EVEN THOUGH I am 100% against town lying.

How are these two things work together?

This.

100% against doing X.
faust does X is fine, nothing to see here, move along.

What?

[Jimmmmm]

There's a big difference between believing that Town shouldn't do something and believing they wouldn't.

For example I believe we shouldn't spend much if any time on Day 1 talking about different things we might claim, but that doesn't mean I think everyone who did that is scum.

[EFHW]

Ok, I'm caught up. The faust lying thing is not scummy, imo, EVEN THOUGH I am 100% against town lying.

How are these two things work together?

Lying by town is anti-town. By definition, it can't be scummy. In this case, I don't see scum!faust making obvious lies in hopes of misleading. He could be scum doing what he did, but knowing he did it doesn't help me decide.

[ashersky]

Ok, I'm caught up. The faust lying thing is not scummy, imo, EVEN THOUGH I am 100% against town lying.

How are these two things work together?

Lying by town is anti-town. By definition, it can't be scummy. In this case, I don't see scum!faust making obvious lies in hopes of misleading. He could be scum doing what he did, but knowing he did it doesn't help me decide.

How is it that something you think is "anti-town" also "can't be scummy" by definition?

I can see an argument that anti-town =/= scummy.  But to say it can't be scummy at all (that's what my understanding of "by definition" means here) seems flawed.  I feel like you should say "by definition, it can't NOT be scummy" instead.

[ashersky]

There's a big difference between believing that Town shouldn't do something and believing they wouldn't.

For example I believe we shouldn't spend much if any time on Day 1 talking about different things we might claim, but that doesn't mean I think everyone who did that is scum.

This is a strawman argument.  Neither EFHW nor I made either statement.

We are discussion whether it is scummy or not, not whether someone would do it or not.  We know people do it.  EFHW said:

It is scummy to do X.  Faust did X and it is not scummy.

That's an inconsistency.

[ashersky]

I mean, it isn't even a "I believe town shouldn't do X" statement.  It was a "I believe X is scummy" statement.  The first could be followed with "but I understand it happens."  The second could be followed up with "but it is possible for town to do it."

I get the feeling that that is where EFHW ends up, as it gives her an out to best explain her inconsistent statement.

Many player do many scummy things as town all the time.  That doesn't change the fact that the actions themselves were scummy.  That's my point -- if someone things X is scummy, then a player does X, they can't all of a sudden say X isn't scummy anymore.

[scolapasta]

Ok, I'm caught up. The faust lying thing is not scummy, imo, EVEN THOUGH I am 100% against town lying.

How are these two things work together?

Lying by town is anti-town. By definition, it can't be scummy. In this case, I don't see scum!faust making obvious lies in hopes of misleading. He could be scum doing what he did, but knowing he did it doesn't help me decide.

How is it that something you think is "anti-town" also "can't be scummy" by definition?

I can see an argument that anti-town =/= scummy.  But to say it can't be scummy at all (that's what my understanding of "by definition" means here) seems flawed.  I feel like you should say "by definition, it can't NOT be scummy" instead.

She's not saying ant-town can't be scummy, she's saying "Lying by town" can't be scummy.

[ashersky]

She's not saying ant-town can't be scummy, she's saying "Lying by town" can't be scummy.

Do you think that's better?

I guess there's an argument to be made that if a player is town, nothing they do is, "by definition," a scum action, because they are not scum.  But that's pedantic and irrelevant.

I generally use the adjective "scummy" (or fake adverb "scummily") to describe a noun or verb as something mafia-ish/suspicious/anti-town (I use mafia here as a stand-in for "alignment other than town").  I believe other players do the same thing.

As such, a town player may do a scummy thing, or scummily do something, even if they themselves are not mafia.  The action taker's alignment does not impact the adjective I place on the action itself, because I see the action as inherently having the characteristic.

As an illustration, I would say that dayvigging a mafia player is a pro-town move.  That action is towny.  If a mafia player were to take that action, it wouldn't change the towniness of the action itself -- the action is still towny.  Mafia do this all the time on a smaller scale to try to fool town players into believing they are town.

I doubt many would argue with that inverse example.  So why argue with my original statement?

[Jimmmmm]

There's a big difference between believing that Town shouldn't do something and believing they wouldn't.

For example I believe we shouldn't spend much if any time on Day 1 talking about different things we might claim, but that doesn't mean I think everyone who did that is scum.

This is a strawman argument.  Neither EFHW nor I made either statement.

We are discussion whether it is scummy or not, not whether someone would do it or not.  We know people do it.  EFHW said:

It is scummy to do X.  Faust did X and it is not scummy.

That's an inconsistency.

Where did she say it was scummy? Here she said she's "against [it]" and it "is not scummy"...

Ok, I'm caught up. The faust lying thing is not scummy, imo, EVEN THOUGH I am 100% against town lying.

and here she said it's "anti-town", which is different to scummy.

Lying by town is anti-town. By definition, it can't be scummy. In this case, I don't see scum!faust making obvious lies in hopes of misleading. He could be scum doing what he did, but knowing he did it doesn't help me decide.

Are you referring to some other post in which EFHW said lying was scummy?

She said she's against it (in other words she believes Town should not lie), but it's not scummy (as far as I'm concerned, scummy means "more likely to come from scum than Town"). It being scummy would imply that Town would not do it (or at least be less likely to do it than scum).

So yes, EFHW said Town shouldn't lie (ie she's against Town lying), and you implied that she meant Town wouldn't lie (ie it's scummy).

[EFHW]

^^ Thanks Jimmmmm. You saved me a lot of typing.

[ashersky]

You are just making things up, or misunderstanding me.

One -- we clearly work off of different definitions of scummy.  I guess we also need EFHW's.  And probably everyone else's, for the word to be useful.

In your quotes, I believe EFHW's use of "EVEN THOUGH" (in all caps, no less) equates scummy with 100% against.  Again, she can clear this up.  If there were no relation between the two, she wouldn't need it.  I am assuming that "being against" something "100%" means you think it is bad.  Outside of RSP issues, that would seem to make sense.  In a mafia game sense, can we feel something is 100% bad but also feel it is pro-town?  Contradictions exists throughout the world, so I guess so?

*****

Honestly, I don't know how to play this game anymore.  Perhaps I stayed away too long, and the vocabulary has changed so much that I am unable to play.  When did the meaning of words like scummy change?

Scum had always been used as a stand-in for "not town" players.  Hence, "scummy" is the adjectival version of that word, which we attach to nouns to describe them as being "of scum."  That appears to somewhat match Jimmmmm's definition -- more likely to come from scum than town.

In Jimmmmm's world, scummy actions are not anti-town.  I don't recall players calling others out in this fashion:  "hey, that's a scummy thing to do, but definitely pro-town, so keep it up!"  Like, what's the use?

So, if I am the only person who equated scummy with anti-town, who thought scummy meant bad, who thought scummy was something we wanted to catch, I apologize.   I missed that memo, or paradigm shift, or whatever.  If someone could point me to the correct words to be used to describe what I thought scummy meant, that would be much appreciated.

[ashersky]

^^ Thanks Jimmmmm. You saved me a lot of typing.

For me, who everyone finds dumber than anyone else, could you break it down like this?

Is lying as town a good thing or a bad thing?
Is doing a bad thing scummy?
Are scummy things anti-town or pro-town?

[ashersky]

So yes, EFHW said Town shouldn't lie (ie she's against Town lying), and you implied that she meant Town wouldn't lie (ie it's scummy).

The bolded portion is what is so insulting.

How does "town wouldn't lie" = "it's scummy"?

And when did I say/imply that?

Also, if EFHW did say town shouldn't do something, and then town did do that something, what adjective would she use to describe that?

[ashersky]

I really feel like if EFHW had just said something like

"You know, I really think lying as town is never a good thing to do, but the fact that faust lied in his QT doesn't really move me closer to knowing his alignment since I could see him doing that as any alignment"

and left it at that, this wouldn't be a discussion.  But she didn't say that, so I assume she didn't mean that.

[cayvie]

^^ Thanks Jimmmmm. You saved me a lot of typing.

For me, who everyone finds dumber than anyone else, could you break it down like this?

Is lying as town a good thing or a bad thing?
Is doing a bad thing scummy?
Are scummy things anti-town or pro-town?

It's pretty confusing to me too, tbh.

From what I gather, "scummy" means "evidence a person is scum" while "anti town" means "hurts the Town's chances of winning"

Two categories that often overlap but not always

[ashersky]

^^ Thanks Jimmmmm. You saved me a lot of typing.

For me, who everyone finds dumber than anyone else, could you break it down like this?

Is lying as town a good thing or a bad thing?
Is doing a bad thing scummy?
Are scummy things anti-town or pro-town?

It's pretty confusing to me too, tbh.

From what I gather, "scummy" means "evidence a person is scum" while "anti town" means "hurts the Town's chances of winning"

Two categories that often overlap but not always

Your take makes sense.  It is consistent. Is "pro-town" the opposite of "anti-town" in this formulation?  And is "towny" the opposite of "scummy" here?  So we have scummy/towny and anti-town/pro-town.

Action A can be evidence a person is scum and hurt town's chances of winning, so that action is scummy and anti-town.
Action B may not be evidence a person is scum but hurt town's chances of winning, so that action is towny and anti-town.
Action C can be evidence a person is scum but not hurt town's chances of winning, so that action is scummy and pro-town.
Action D may not be evidence a person is scum and does not hurt town's chances of winning, so that action is towny and pro-town.

Are those the four basic formulations possible here?

[A Drowned Kernel]

Here's what I would like to know: Glooble, why did you bring this up if you weren't going to vote for faust or major a case on him?

[scolapasta]

I really feel like if EFHW had just said something like

"You know, I really think lying as town is never a good thing to do, but the fact that faust lied in his QT doesn't really move me closer to knowing his alignment since I could see him doing that as any alignment"

and left it at that, this wouldn't be a discussion.  But she didn't say that, so I assume she didn't mean that.

That's how I interpreted what she said, just not in so many words. Please don't ask me to explain why I interpreted that way, I wasn't trying to parse exact semantic meaning.

FYI, my definition for scummy was doing something scum would do. You're right that that could be anti-town or deceptive pro-town.