Discussion in 'Normal Games Archive' started by Cow, Jun 22, 2017.
And what's Prada's incentive for telling the truth here?
The game is over and I won. Easy as that. People know what I play like and how react under pressure.
Yes, that would include Rot to some degree as well since I have played in games he hosted.
Just want to pipe in to say Win/Loss isn't a good barometer of skill. I believe I'm currently on a 7 or 8 game losing streak myself, and in about 3/4 of those games I played well enough (for my own standards) to win the game but lost due to massive incompetence/sabotage from my team (have you ever had a townie counter claim a cop by claiming SK?). That is to say, a lot of the time whether you ultimately win or lose is taken out of your hands. Not a golden rule of course, but if winning made a good player then lurkers who tend to float to the end would be amazing scum players. Not so, as it turns out.
Those intangible feelings you get? They're called gut feelings. What you don't seem to get is that everyone experiences gut feelings. The difference between you and them is that most people recognize that, if they can't even ******* articulate why they feel a certain way, it would be ludicrous to demand others to just take them at their ******* word.
Because this is, after all, a ******* game of deception for around 1/4 of the players. You do remember that, right? Because "I just have a feeling, trust me" is probably the easiest shit to fake in the history of debate. So you can't just call everyone stupid for not happening to have the same gut feelings as you, nor for them not just taking you at your ******* word in a game built around deception and the avoidance thereof!
And? As I already said, a broken clock is still right twice a day. I can declare "Frogs are green, therefore the sky is blue!" Just because both of these things happen to be true doesn't mean I've hit upon something deeper than logic.
I didn't ask for basics. I said you aren't even doing the basics. But hey, if you want to argue what constitutes the basics, I'm more than happy to.
Gods, this hurts. You literally tried to apply "people who rage are Town" to Prada based on, honestly not really sure, anecdotal evidence is my assumption, and then admitted that it doesn't really apply to everyone, and you're accusing me of not considering that people are variable?
I mean, holy ****, the irony is palpable. One of us was throwing around a bunch of absolute reads, and it wasn't me.
The fact that you can't articulate what you're looking at, coupled with the fact that almost every read you gave during this game was wrong, shows that you don't understand your methods at all either.
First of all, I'm not judging this site too soon, because i'm not judging this community. I literally spent most of that paragraph explaining how I don't have enough information to judge the site in the first place.
That out of the way, I don't think I'm judging you too soon. I spent a lot of the game interacting with you, and now after the game interacting with you, and it's fairly clear that you believe yourself to be some kind of savant who's tapped into something so deep and complex that not even you understand it. And hey, ignoring how deeply conceited you would have to be to hold such a belief, if you could reliably read people with just intuition, I'd understand treating yourself like the second coming of Anime Jesus-kun. But you can't, and this game proves that you can't. Your "method" is to blindly guess and then cover it up by citing something irrelevant that sounds vaguely meaningful, and you're so full of yourself that you just do some mental gymnastics to ignore the fact that your track records in this game and in the last iteration were statistically worse than using random number generation to decide how to read people.
This one. The one we're talking about right now.
It's telling that, of the two of us, the one that keeps insisting on the importance of experience is also the one with less experience.
And if people say it, it must be true. Argument of the year, 2017.
Frankly, it doesn't matter whether he acted or not.
The core premise, that only Town rage, is inherently flawed, because it is establishing a behavior as pro-Town when that behavior does not in any way contribute to Town. As a result, Scum have no reason not to imitate this behavior. So even if we assume that only Town will experience genuine rage (which is itself terribly flawed), the fact that lying is a thing that exists nullifies this set of behaviors as useful in determining alignment.
Like, what the **** even is your "you just couldn't handle the pressure" argument? What the **** do you think is happening when a Towny rages!? You made an incredibly stupid call. That's the end of the story. Whether Prada was legitimately frustrated with you or was just acting, it was not a reason to completely Town read him, especially if you felt like the frustration was misplaced. It's just another tick on the "Quick has no idea what he's talking about" list.
No, no. The difference between me and them is that I actually make an attempt to articulate what i am seeing.
Quote me where I said I don't have to back up my reads.
Not all frogs are green and not all skies are blue. This is a demonstration of the difference between you and I. I mean, having general tells for people is all fine and well, but IDK why you are arguing that you think it was chance when it wasn't. I mean, my God I can't imagine how delusional you must think I am. I am actually not dumb, I tend to score well on IQ test.
Not my point. You seemed to be under the assumption I didn't know what the basics were so I pointed out that I do, but I think they are kinda weak.
It would be, except given the pretentious person that Prada is, I assumed that they were one of the people who fit this tell. Still not sold that Prada was just acting. I can see that as saving face for them.
You going to argue you have perfect reads now? I look at the likelihood that someone would do X as Y alignment considering the psychology of the person involved. I look at their personality and try to determine whether that makes sense for them doing that as Town or not.
No, you are basing this particular argument on what I recently said, this is not based on your engagement with me. If it was that way, you would see it was a waste of time for you to engage with me here now. But you don't do that either because you just like to argue with people, you like to degrade people, or both.
Also, LOL, you are starting to sound like me. Quite a read there M8. IDK where you are getting that I think I am so good at Mafia even I don't know how good I am is laughable. In most games that get over I tend to ask for advice on how I can improve. Didn't have to in this one, I'll let you think that means I think I am God at this game.
Sample size of 1? OK, I guess if that is your standard for knowing how someone operates.
I think I only brought that up once M8. Where do you see me keep on repeating that I have more experience than you? How the hell am I supposed to know how much experience you have?
And if I said it was people who know me better than you do, do you still hold that position?
LOL. You've misunderstood the tell I have completely. Where did I even slightly imply that rage is Pro-Town? You are arguing that any way to get a Town read is inherently Pro-Town? My God mate, maybe its YOU that is delusional.
I have the tell for people who fit these characteristics:
1.) They play in a way catering their play for specifically not getting lynched. They like to get to endgame.
2.) They are calm when they are not put under pressure.
3.) They typically are a fairly logical type of player.
The tell happens when they feel they have been wrongly accused of being Scum under false pretenses to the point of almost (if not then they are) insulted.
So I just described my tell for you.
I don't really need to save face here since I won lol
Quite the opposite. A reasonable person takes a gut feeling and goes "let me see if I can figure out why I'm getting this feeling, and from there determine if my gut is right or not" and you go "guys, I have a feeling! also look! some bold! therefore I'm right! just trust me!"
This can be summarized as: "I can't back up my read, but it is still valid." I can go back and find more examples, either of you explicitly stating that you don't have to back up a read or just give examples of you refusing to back up a read or citing something completely arbitrary to back up a read, if you'd like. (spoilers: it's all of them)
Sure. One of us gives a simple example to demonstrate how two things being true doesn't mean they are related, and the other nitpicks the example while completely ignoring the point being demonstrated. That's a pretty accurate representation of the difference between you and I.
I'm arguing that it was chance because you've basically proven it was chance. You made a series of predictions based on your "methods" and most of those predictions were inaccurate. Additionally, you have yet to give a reasonable explanation for the rationale behind the ones that weren't.
Let's take your Town read of Ningen last game. You argue that Ningen would only ask for clarification of OGC as Town, but refuse to explain why. Your follow ups have either been to repeat that as if it were a fact, to insist that it's common sense, or to flagrantly strawman by claiming that I was arguing Ningen must be Scum when I'd repeatedly and specifically stated that I did not feel the action was alignment indicative. The fact of the matter, as this game very clearly demonstrated, is that OGC is also utilized by Scum, and so a Scum player who is unfamiliar with OGC would need just as much clarification as a Town player. There is no reason to conclude that a player asking for clarification on a mechanic which impacts both Town and Scum must be Town.
And you probably can't imagine how delusional I think you are. That's one of the side effects of being delusional, after all.
I mean, aside from the basics you describe in the linked post being somewhat vague and unhelpful, and not really a complete look at what forms the core basis of the game, there is a distinction between knowing what the basics are and actually putting them into practice.
Case-in-point, you list extreme WIFOM as a general scumtell, yet made heavy use of WIFOM arguments throughout the game as Town. There was a point during Day 4 where you dismissed someone else's argument as anecdotal, yet you made HEAVY use of anecdotal evidence in your arguments prior to that. Just because you know of the basics doesn't mean you're actually making use of that knowledge.
That is the crux of it. You made a blind assumption about the kind of person Prada was. You tried to fit Prada into a little box because you thought it would let you predict his behavior. In reality, people are incomprehensibly complex to the point where the study of people and their personalities is basically outmoding itself every couple of years.
But again, what would it matter? Whether he was legitimately angry or not, you were wrong. You try and twist the scenario to be an insult of him, but at the end of the day, you were wrong. Whether he was playing you or it was just dumb luck that you made and then relied upon a blind assumption, you were wrong.
No. But, again, the difference is that I didn't try to peddle my gut as absolute. I wasn't going around thread making declarations of alignment willy and nilly, rebuking people for so much as doubting me. I don't have to be perfect, because I didn't pretend to be perfect.
Which would be great if you actually had
A) A good understanding of a player's personality and their psychology.
B) A deep understanding of how that psychology and their understanding of the game would interact.
C) Been up front about the fact that your reads were loose approximations instead of treating them as absolute fact.
But you didn't have any of these things. And if you had studied even a little psychology, you'd understand that trying to make judgments based purely on the psychology of a handful of online posts in a game where some players are actively trying to deceive others would be incredibly unreliable.
This is another perfect example of non sequitor. You make a statement (I am not basing my current argument on my past experience with you), and then support it with another statement (I like to argue and degrade people). The supporting statement is true, but it does not lead to the conclusion it allegedly supports. In fact, it really sort of answers the question you pose. Why would I continue to argue with you, knowing from the past that you're too far up your own ass to even conceive of being wrong? Because I enjoy arguing, and I particularly enjoy degrading people I perceive to be stupid.
But, I mean, come on. How dumb are you? I'm arguing that I think you're grossly incompetent. I've been arguing that I think you're grossly incompetent almost this entire time. My conclusion hasn't really changed. So how could my conclusion now have no basis in or bearing on our previous discussion? Like, seriously. Think shit through.
I mean, it figures. Your tone is filled with contempt, because you think you're the second coming of Christ, and my tone is filled with contempt, because you think you're the second coming of Christ.
You literally stated in your previous post that you'd gone so deep that you couldn't even explain how deep you were. You've repeatedly insinuated that you're so deep that players such as myself can't even begin to understand it. I don't care if you throw in a few "lol im so bad" posts, because they're overtly disingenuous. Your behavior speaks for itself. If you had a single doubt about your skill, you wouldn't have immediately Scum read Ratchet when he dared to disagree with your rambling, inconsistent, incoherent defense during Day 4. No explanation, just "oh, you disagree with me, you must be Scum." If your position is literally that "anyone who disagrees with me must be Scum" then you are clearly full of yourself, no matter how many times you offer empty platitudes about being bad.
I mean, you didn't have to ask for advice because I didn't wait for you to ask. The reason I'm convinced you have a God complex is because you outright dismiss the advice because I "just don't get your brilliance."
I mean, in this case, the sample size is dozens of posts. I'm certainly not absolute on where your skill falls, but the most generous margin of error is still unfavorable, if you understand my meaning. Its not like there are subtle problems with your behavior that need to be corrected. Your core philosophy is so grossly warped that I can only conclude incompetence, because I cannot reconcile it with being competent.
"Based on my experience, we shouldn't bother with inno/guilty."
"Changing your mind without a reason isn't scummy, based on my experience."
"In case I wasn't clear earlier, my experience trumps your logic."
And that's just a five minute search for posts you made with the word "experience" in them. If I plumb this thread for instances where you make an absolute statement and back it up with anecdotal evidence, which is based on your experience, I could probably find several more examples.
I mean, aside from you countermanding me in areas based purely on anecdotal evidence, such as on inno/guilty or the flipflop thing I cited earlier, there's the comment I was responding to. For what purpose was citing your WLR and number of games played intended to serve, other than to speak to your experience? And if I am so very wrong, and experience is evidence that you are so very right, then it would have to stand that I was less experienced, would it not?
Yes. Ignoring that I'd have to just take your word for it that people actually say these things, and that these people know you well enough to be insightful of your character, I'd also have to take your word for it that these people are themselves competent enough to actually judge your own level of competence. If lots of people think you're just the best, it hurts their characters more than helps yours, in my eyes.
Your core argument here is that Prada was legitimately angry, and so decided to take a break from thread, because people generally don't enjoy being angry. You argue that this is Town-indicative because Scum would not be legitimately angry (or rather, would only be "half" as angry). Therefore, the argument is that being this legitimately angry, angry enough to want to take a break, is indicative of being Town. That is to say, in a nutshell, that rage is pro-Town behavior.
The problem with this argument is all of it.
First, it assumes that only Town would get frustrated about being wrongfully accused. Indeed, Scum would probably be angrier at being wrongfully accused. When you're wrongfully accused as Town and flip Town, there is a certain vindication accompanying the mislynch. When you're wrongfully accused as Scum, you flip Scum, and so you know that regardless of how valid your arguments were, the people who lynched you can just point to your being Scum as evidence of them being right.
Second, it confusingly assumes that, even if Scum experience only half as much anger as Town for some reason, that Scum would also never reach the threshold of needing to take a break from the thread. Like, just because something is half as much as something else doesn't mean it can't hit a static threshold. This is doubly true when you consider that the threshold isn't static, but varies person to person, and so is very difficult to predict.
Third, you once again forget that deception is a thing that Scum sometimes do. It's not really that hard to fake anger, especially over text on the Internet. We're all so inundated to toxicity and flaming that I'm sure any one of us could fake anger with relative ease.
I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean. In context, I think what you are saying is that I am arguing that anything that would result in a Town read is inherently pro-Town behavior. If that is the case, then what? No, but seriously, what? You've got it backwards. I am arguing that only pro-Town behavior should lead to a Town read, because Scum can just fake anything else. Being angry is not inherently pro-Town, and so can be faked. If Scum believe that you will assign Town cred to this action which they can fake at no expense to them, they will fake it for that Town cred.
I don't even know how you'd come to that conclusion. Alternatively, I don't even know what you're trying to say with this crime against the English language.
Well, then I can say with supreme confidence that your tell is retardedly off base, because probably the thing that frustrates me most in all of mafia is being Scum and being rightfully accused under false pretenses, because I know shits like yourself who don't understand the difference between guessing the correct outcome and actually forming a valid argument will take my flipping Scum to mean that you were right about whatever stupid false pretenses you used to achieve that lynch. It's why the idiom "even a broken clock is right twice a day" is one of my favorites, because it perfectly describes the situation I loathe most: when a broken clock gets lucky and conflates that luck with skill.
What do you consider Pro-Town, Rot? You're more rigid than I originally thought if you seriously think the only way to get a Town read is because they are playing Pro-Town. If we follow this logic, it would mean that all Anti-Town behavior is Scummy, which is not a bad premise, but Scummy =/= Scum (I don't expect you to understand this no matter how I explain it so I am not going to). I can't begin to start where I disagree with this. You've basically confirmed to me that you don't think Scum know how to play Pro-Town. That is pretty much exactly what you said. So before I go any further with this and act like your pet project, what do you consider to be Pro-Town behavior? Because I am pretty sure you either have a much narrower definition of this than I do or you are just a compulsive arguer and don't actually know what you are talking about. I think we are getting to the core of the matter here. You have a far too rigid view of reality.
Rot, you are prolly an INTJ E1, fwiw. You could be INTP as well, but INTPs really don't care that much typically.
Right because as soon as the game is over, no one ever lies about anything.
Rot I am pretty sure I never said anyone is Lock Town in this game. I don't even know if I said that about Maple...
OK I feel relieved. Rot is just another arrogant atheist who thinks he is smarter than everyone around him. I am glad you admitted that you like to degrade people and argue with them.
In any case, I am blacklisting you.
I would hate to be related to Rot. I cannot imagine the family structure.
Separate names with a comma.