Print

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

[ashersky]

I'm not saying it's a good argument, I'm just saying the whole "this is a lie" thing is silly.

Like his argument.  I'm making a point.

Also, I'm arguing that he's scummy by misrepresenting himself.

[Haddock]

OK I'm here.

My promised explanation of a thought might have to wait though.  The more I think about it the more tenuous it gets, and so I'd rather wait until the promised info from igu.

Any chance igu could actually lay that info down for us though?  I know you're busy buddy, but if you have useful infos then saying so now might be nice so we can discuss it while you're gone.

Course you may well have reasons not to, in which case yeah fair enough.  

[silverspawn]

Okay. Let me tell you something, and the exact same thing is true for Awaclus. You both do this thing were you only ever concede points when they are about an extremely limited objective fact, something that is impossible to argue against. As soon as there is space to argue, no matter how narrow, you will keep arguing and never be convinced irregardless of how clearly you are wrong.

This current situation demonstrates just how true this is. Look at this quote:

See ash, the occurrence that requires an explanation is the fact that both scum claimed VT. You accidentally claimed early, and Joseph also claimed early and is the least experienced player.

It is crystal clear that in saying 'the least experienced player' I was talking about the least experienced among the people who claimed VT. I just talked about those people in the previous sentence. The post is about those people. The others are irrelevant for this point. The post doesn't make sense anymore if I included all people. It is as if I said 'Sanders is the oldest candidate' and you said that it is a lie because there is an older candidate in an election for the president of an animal farm in North-east Asia.

In human interaction, there has to be a minimum of contextual understanding to make communication possible. Without it, 'the least experienced player' could mean the least experienced person of all humans who have ever played a game. Without it, 'early' could mean in regards to the creation of earth, which would make it roughly 5 billion years in and thus not early at all.

The above quote, it is within that minimum of contextual understanding which everyone playing this game has, and I am convinced that you do, too. Were you an observer, and I wrote this quote, and someone asked you what it meant, you would know it.

The fact that you are defending stances such as this one is either the result of an amount of confirmation the likes of which are rarely seen, or of you being scum.

[silverspawn]

^confirmation bias

[Awaclus]

Okay. Let me tell you something, and the exact same thing is true for Awaclus. You both do this thing were you only ever concede points when they are about an extremely limited objective fact, something that is impossible to argue against. As soon as there is space to argue, no matter how narrow, you will keep arguing and never be convinced irregardless of how clearly you are wrong.

Pot calling the kettle black there. You can't just blame someone else of "arguing and never [being] convinced irregardless of how clearly [they] are wrong" while you're as unwilling to accept the opposing position yourself. Just because ash and me might sometimes have groundbreaking opinions while other people might have more traditional opinions it doesn't mean that the traditional opinions are at all more likely to be right when judged based on just the merits of the argument itself, which is how you should always judge arguments.

[silverspawn]

Pot calling the kettle black there. You can't just blame someone else of "arguing and never [being] convinced irregardless of how clearly [they] are wrong" while you're as unwilling to accept the opposing position yourself.

I... just conceded to having been wrong about something. Five posts ago. Here:

Yeah, that's not an explanation at all. Only Joseph claimed VT before ash, so ash being drunk and claiming early, regardless of his alignment, doesn't explain why there were two scum VT claims.

It makes it easier, because now we need 1 scum screwing up and not two.

We only ever needed 1 scum screwing up (the one who claimed VT after the first one already had). It sounds like a pretty reasonable play for scum to claim PR and VT, respectively.

mh. Okay, I have to agree. That makes the case on ashersky a lot weaker.

[Haddock]

Yeah, I take no stand on this particular point, but there is no doubt, Awa, that out of you/ash/SS, the order of stubbornness of people definitely has you as the stubbornest.

[Haddock]

And by "this particular point", I mean I'm not taking a stand on the current discussion about the game.

[silverspawn]

And by "this particular point", I mean I'm not taking a stand on the current discussion about the game.

I thought you were going to say that you aren't taking a stance on the confirmation bias discussion. Isn't the game exactly what you should have a stance on? As in, who do you want to lynch and why?

[Haddock]

No I AM taking a stance on the confirmation bias discussion.

I have a few thoughts about the game, I'm still trying to sort out which I want to share and which I don't.
I'm new to this IC thing.

[silverspawn]

hm, okay.

I'll give you an advise that'll make it easier: vote for someone who isn't me, and you already have 2/3 chance of hitting scum.

[Awaclus]

I... just conceded to having been wrong about something. Five posts ago. Here:

I conceded to having been wrong about something five posts ago as well. Here:

No wait, it still requires his partner screwing up as well.

It's a funny coincidence how it was the exact same thing that you were also wrong about. Might have had something to do with the fact that the position was objectively wrong and it was not even particularly difficult to realize that.

Yeah, I take no stand on this particular point, but there is no doubt, Awa, that out of you/ash/SS, the order of stubbornness of people definitely has you as the stubbornest.

I might be more inclined to speak out when I disagree with someone, and I might also be more likely to have unconventional views, but when I disagree with someone and he disagrees with me back, how, from that, can you conclude that I'm more stubborn than that other person?

[Haddock]

I actually don't think you're more likely to have unconventional views.  I've seen you boldly championing the cause of the established enough times.

In terms of you final question, I conclude it based on the fact that I've never seen a discussion involving you where you decided something more than, say, 5 or 6 posts in and then changed that conclusion ever.

[Haddock]

Let us not have this discussion.

[ashersky]

Why couldn't a PR just caught someone?  That would make this much easier.

[silverspawn]

Correcting something you said 2 seconds ago is not the same as conceding an argument.

[silverspawn]

Okay. So. 2 scum in 4 people, and 3 ICs. 3 is  good number - you each choose someone you want to lynch, that has to have a majority, and then that guy gets lynched. You hit scum, and we win. Easy.

[ashersky]

Okay. So. 2 scum in 4 people, and 3 ICs. 3 is  good number - you each choose someone you want to lynch, that has to have a majority, and then that guy gets lynched. You hit scum, and we win. Easy.

Well, if they each choose someone different, there won't be a majority without a scum bus.

Two ICs work, though.

[2.71828.....]

Yeah, I will reread over the weekend

[Awaclus]

I actually don't think you're more likely to have unconventional views.  I've seen you boldly championing the cause of the established enough times.

When it's sensible. I don't choose my views based on how popular they are, whether it means they are going to be obscure or super mainstream.

In terms of you final question, I conclude it based on the fact that I've never seen a discussion involving you where you decided something more than, say, 5 or 6 posts in and then changed that conclusion ever.

In most cases, I don't write the first post without carefully considering all of the possible aspects of the argument first. Just now there was an exception to that rule — the post made sense to me at the time, but two minutes later, I realized that it was complete nonsense. Usually I wait at least those two minutes before posting the first post, but today was different because I was tired and so I didn't feel as reserved as I usually do. 5 or 6 posts in, there's no way I'm at all uncertain about any of the conclusions that I'm drawing from the premises, and when that is the case, my reasoning is also very solid, so what you would need to do to change my mind at that stage is to have evidence that suggests that the premises are wrong, but people hardly ever do that.

Let us not have this discussion.

Don't start discussions you're not willing to have.

[silverspawn]

err... right, 3 picks of 4 choices does of course not always amount to a majority. but still.

[Haddock]

5 or 6 posts in, there's no way I'm at all uncertain about any of the conclusions that I'm drawing from the premises,

Do you honestly not see how people see this as stubbornness?

my reasoning is also very solid,

Noone's reasoning is immune to error.

Don't start discussions you're not willing to have.

In fairness, I did not start this discussion, I added to it.  It's a discussion I'm willing to have, but in a different thread.  I AM a bit conscious that I don't want to get to the point where I end up insulting you - I think you're quite resilient to such things but nonetheless.

[Awaclus]

5 or 6 posts in, there's no way I'm at all uncertain about any of the conclusions that I'm drawing from the premises,

Do you honestly not see how people see this as stubbornness?

I see that they do, and I see that they shouldn't. If you have to solve the exact same math problem 5 times, it becomes easier and easier to solve it every time, and if you get the same solution every time, at some point you're going to be pretty convinced that your solution must be right, especially when all the alternative solutions have blatant flaws in them that you can just point out.

my reasoning is also very solid,

Noone's reasoning is immune to error.

That is true, and unfortunately it's rarely possible to prove that errors don't exist. I do actively try to search for them, and occasionally I find some internal inconsistencies and then I fix them. That happens sometimes when I'm having a discussion, although it might not be immediately visible to other people, since it's usually minor, and still doesn't make me agree with the completely opposing viewpoint so there's probably no reason to point out the fact that I've changed my view regarding something minor. But in general, I'm pretty confident in my ability to reason, especially for the kinds of topics that I have been considering and reconsidering for years, and I also don't think that said confidence is entirely baseless, either.

Don't start discussions you're not willing to have.

In fairness, I did not start this discussion, I added to it.  It's a discussion I'm willing to have, but in a different thread.  I AM a bit conscious that I don't want to get to the point where I end up insulting you - I think you're quite resilient to such things but nonetheless.

You know, I am not completely devoid of agency. If I feel insulted, it is 100% my own fault, not something you have inflicted upon me.

[iguanaiguana]

OK I'm here.

My promised explanation of a thought might have to wait though.  The more I think about it the more tenuous it gets, and so I'd rather wait until the promised info from igu.

Any chance igu could actually lay that info down for us though?  I know you're busy buddy, but if you have useful infos then saying so now might be nice so we can discuss it while you're gone.

Course you may well have reasons not to, in which case yeah fair enough.

I'm a witness rolecop. I can cop someone at night. If they are a PR, it gives me their role. If they are mafia goon or VT, it gives a vanilla result. So if I can find the JoAT I can cop him.

I copped Witherweaver last night and got the vanilla result for him. So he could still be the mafia goon, but can't be JoAT. That makes him less likely to be scum than Awaclus/silver/Ash.

I think we should lynch silver or Ash today but again please wait until Sunday night. No reason to make this day super short.

[iguanaiguana]

I haven't read anything, sorry.