Midnight Mass Mafia Game Thread — Game ended.

[Nostradamus]

On the topic, how do you feel about the (1) size and (2) contents of Pendex's wagon?

Feelin' like I'm about to get (back) all up on that thicc juicy wagon. Pendex isn't making too much sense, is being very wordy and over the top.

 

[Pendex]

You were in the gimmick. Why else would I have asked you to stop gimmick posting? If it were a different gimmick, I would have reacted differently.

What I posted in the sign up thread:

"/in"​

What I posted in the previous game:

Book of Michael - Chapter 0, Verse ???: "Your proposition is acceptable".

Which is to say, the sign up thread gimmick was a far more low-effort affair than what I had maintained in the actual game.

 

[Pendex]

Shitpost , like last game when I said talking about someone's wagon was making think they had a dumptruck of an ass *shrugs*

I see.

 

[Sky]

Poyser - In his discussions with me, he has proceeded to employ fallacies (one of the metrics I use in scum hunting) several times, some of which I've labelled, and in other cases has responsed to them vitriolically without actually responding to them. My strongest conclusion from this is he's scum and he's upset that he is being pressured for what he considers to be weak reasoning.

Argument from fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you're into fallacies, try this one: just because you think Poyser has committed a fallacy doesn't mean he's wrong.

Jonny - Jonny jumped on to my wagon by using the language as a point against me, somehow - apparently I wasn't keeping up with the gimmick enough for him despite entirely dropping the gimmick. This initially felt like he was looking to avoid parroting or plainly sheeping while doing exactly that. When called out on his vote, he immediately retracted it, and then has merely offered sideline commentary around it while the thread seems to be heading back to more votes upon me. Seems very preoccupied with how he will be perceived with what he posts, and is playing to the vocal voices that have the most backing.

Jonny acted like that last game, backing down easily. I get the feeling it's just natural for him.

 

[Pendex]

Feelin' like I'm about to get (back) all up on that thicc juicy wagon. Pendex isn't making too much sense, is being very wordy and over the top.

Are you going to keep threatening it, or are you going to do it?

 

[Pendex]

If you're into fallacies, try this one: just because you think Poyser has committed a fallacy doesn't mean he's wrong.

Correct. When I call out fallacies, I don't use them to say that the arguments made within them are wrong. I establish that by breaking down the reasoning within. I call out and look for fallacies because scum, by necessity, have to employ fallacies on some level, whereas townies should be less inclined to do so. It is not the be all and end all to scum hunting, nor have I suggested as much.

Jonny acted like that last game, backing down easily. I get the feeling it's just natural for him.

That's nice. Still doesn't change my read though.

 

[Nostradamus]

Are you going to keep threatening it, or are you going to do it?

"Your wish has been granted"

Vote Pendex

 

[Sky]

Correct. When I call out fallacies, I don't use them to say that the arguments made within them are wrong. I establish that by breaking down the reasoning within. I call out and look for fallacies because scum, by necessity, have to employ fallacies on some level, whereas townies should be less inclined to do so. It is not the be all and end all to scum hunting, nor have I suggested as much.

I wouldn't say that's necessarily true at all. Scum can make entirely correct arguments, even if they are for the wrong reasons. For example, a scum player can defend a town player who's under pressure but hasn't actually been scummy. They could do this to pocket that town player, or to reduce the negative impact on themselves / their team members when the troubled townie flips.

 

[Pendex]

I wouldn't say that's necessarily true at all. Scum can make entirely correct arguments, even if they are for the wrong reasons. For example, a scum player can defend a town player who's under pressure but hasn't actually been scummy. They could do this to pocket that town player, or to reduce the negative impact on themselves / their team members when the troubled townie flips.

I mean, I'm not asking for your Mafia philosophy lectures here. It has served me pretty well in my time playing. I never claimed there were no false positives to it, but the liklihood of scum getting to go through a whole game defending under pressure townies only is a pretty slim one, so at some point they'll probably have to defend themselves or defend scum. This is not to say townies cannot commit fallacies either.

 

[Sky]

I mean, I'm not asking for your Mafia philosophy lectures here. It has served me pretty well in my time playing. I never claimed there were no false positives to it, but the liklihood of scum getting to go through a whole game defending under pressure townies only is a pretty slim one, so at some point they'll probably have to defend themselves or defend scum. This is not to say townies cannot commit fallacies either.

If you're going to come at me with Mafia philosophy, don't be surprised if I fire back with the same

 

[Sky]

Also I never said that scum only do that. I used that as an example, hence "for example"

 

[Sky]

Particularly interested to know @CraigPelton 's thoughts on this as he seems to have stopped posting just when it was getting good

 

[Pendex]

If you're going to come at me with Mafia philosophy, don't be surprised if I fire back with the same

I didn't. I explained my scum read of Poyser, which included him employing fallacies. You retorted with "argument from fallacy" fallacy, to which I defended by saying I never claimed the arguments Poyser was making was wrong due to employing a fallacy, but that I believe scum have to use them, and townies are generally less inclined. You then decided I needed to be made aware of specific scenarios where that method would result in a false positive reading. I'm quite aware of all of this, hence why I've never sold it as an absolute sure-fire method.

 

[Pendex]

Also I never said that scum only do that. I used that as an example, hence "for example"

Right, I was pointing out that there are more examples wherein looking for a use of fallacy would not result in finding scum, to demonstrate that I was aware of the false positives with that approach, which you appeared to believe I wasn't.

 

[Sky]

A couple of things to unpack here:

but that I believe scum have to use them, and townies are generally less inclined.

What is this, if not explaining Mafia philosophy?

You then decided I needed to be made aware of specific scenarios where that method would result in a false positive reading. I'm quite aware of all of this, hence why I've never sold it as an absolute sure-fire method.

The argument you say you're making is the opposite of what you're making. You say that "scum commit fallacies", yet by sussing Poyser the point you're actually making is "anyone who commits fallacies is scum", which is wrong.