Jump to content

JLA Mafia Game Thread DAY 4

Blue

By Blue
in This aint sports talk!

 Share

Recommended Posts

MWil23

MWil23

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, The Orca said:

1. Which info was cherry picked to fit my narrative?

You ignored the context of my votes, which was clearly when I was responding to other posters (Forge about Squire/KSJ threatening to take his hammer), Biggio with an angry Tony Stark gif, etc.

37 minutes ago, The Orca said:

2. The conclusion of you are scum lead to the application of said conclusion to develop a read/theory on who would be scum with you based on the information shown in the post as well

That's the part I have an issue with. You came to a conclusion first, THEN chose the information to back your "case" against me. That's the opposite of the scientific theory. You should create a hypothesis, observe and test it, then come to your conclusion. You used inductive reasoning at best. That's the issue I have.

37 minutes ago, The Orca said:

3. Which parts were a contradiction for Xmad?

Aside from the host flavor, clear, and how he believes Ragnarok is actually an indestructible other which would make this game a bastard setup? That's the entire flavor/host setup being contradicted.

 

 

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:

What I'm saying isnt what Matts said. You really are pushing hard complaining about cherry picked info, but you havent pointed out the info you think was cherry picked or what other info should be included

5 hours ago, SwAg said:

Hey man, I didn't say it was great, but that's not really the case.  I knew that would be the weak point of the argument, but Orca already addressed it.  The argument was never that matts made a decent point about the third vote.  Matts point was stupid, which should be no surprise.  Orca's argument was that you attempted to frame the narrative related to that afterward, and seemed to take actions to make light of matts' statement because matts was right for a dumb a reason.

These words are better than mine lol

I already responded to him. Go back and see what I'm saying.

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:
5 hours ago, MWil23 said:

And what I'm saying is this:

I don't take issue with his argument about me attempting to frame the narrative to Matts being right for the wrong reason (except that he's wrong). What I take issue with is a few things that are lost in translation here:

*The timeframe of those votes are so clustered together that my vote came down seconds/minutes after those other two based upon the timeframe of me reading, going back, searching for gifs/Tony Start quotes, etc.

*I pointed out a clear inconsistency with the VC from the host. I have a threefold issue with it because it:

1. As a host, I know how frustrated and monotonous VC's are.

2. I saw it, it needed correcting

3. It directly involves me. If I say nothing, then the Orca narrative reads "Herp, Derp, MWil didn't want to point it out a second time guys!!! He's hiding it guys!!!!"

A lot here 

1. If you dont take issue with the arguement about framing the narrative, why are you complaining about i cherry picked info, in order to attempt to discredit the read I have put forward

I don't take argument with your conclusion, but rather HOW you got there, while ignoring the context of when I posted. I was the third vote because I was busy responding to other posters, going back and rereading some things, and by the time I saw XMad's post (which I quoted when I voted him), two others had already done so.

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:

2. Your issue with the vote count thing is telling. If I was cherry picking info, wouldnt I have left that out

Any time somebody posts a bunch of erroneous information pertaining to me, I'm going to react.

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:

3. Why do you take issue with the vote count fix being in there? If I told you it was there to show the comprehensive totality of posts that led to my read, so you cant say I cherry picked info...what would you say then? How does that change your above complaint about cherry picking info?

What are you even saying here? This doesn't make any sense. You VOTED me first, then went back and used that information to justify your vote, not the other way around, so you're lying.

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:

4. The timeframes of it all is not neccesarily a factor. As long as you saw the votes even for a second it results in the same thing 

It 100% is a factor when I didn't see the votes because I was posting and responding to others and then went back to read.

LOL!!!!

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:
5 hours ago, MWil23 said:

I also think it's funny that Squire and Whicker pointed it out immediately, Orca was there (P. 24 for Squire and P. 25 for Whicker), says nothing (despite two posts on P. 25), and then waits 13 pages to say "Did you see what MWil did there?" as though he went back and reread things.

Wow, so instead of sticking to the issue at hand, that you agreed was a fair argument, you now want to discredit the read due to when I posted it. 

No, I'm discrediting your read because it had already been pointed out by two other people and you waited 12+ pages to say "Did you see what MWil did" when Squire and Whicker already pointed it out.

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:

So you use timing as an excuse for why your 3rd votes went down the way you say they did, but want to discredit the subsequent read by me later, due to timing 

The DIFFERENCE is that I'm saying I DID NOT read or see those other posts, but you CLEARLY DID, with your own admission of your vote of me on Page 26. 

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:

You point out my posts on page 25, but skip my post on page 26 voting you in V style. This also brings back the point I made in my breakdown about that specific post. You played off my vote as being because you hadnt done your list, instead of maybe I had an actual reason for the vote. When you replied to my big post, you never took issue with this

LOL, SEE ABOVE! My rationale was that I didn't see the other post on XMad because I was responding to other posters while those other people were voting it/seeing him and I was playing catchup. It has NOTHING to do with the timeframe and everything to do with context and what was read. You even ADMIT that you saw Matts, Squire, and Whicker make those posts, and yet you waited inexplicably for 12 pages to justify your vote. That's VASTLY different.

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:
2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

 

 

 

lol. The only two things swags has been capable of saying this game:

1. Rags could possibly not be town all game (or sarcasting version)

2. People are stupid/dumb/idiots/etc

 

Is this the level of play we should expect today?

He did semi compliment me, which is very sketchy lol

Yep

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:
2 hours ago, MWil23 said:

I’m insinuating, not accusing, while giving you the benefit of the doubt for running something miniature here. 

Squire jumped me immediately for the “follow” quote (real Tony Stark quote), Whicker jumped on it as well to go along with the second time I was the third vote, you and Orca and Counselor were all there to see it, and yet hours later Orca “did you see what MWil did” to justify his early vote on me.

You acknowledging Orca stands out in general. Counselor jumping on raised an eyebrow. Orca feigning that idea being original to himself when clearly 2-3 other people pointed it out immediately is outright scummy at worst and absurd at best.

So you still want to pound timing after using it as an excuse for yourself. And again skipping my vote on you 

See above

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:

I never proclaimed anything was original to me. I tried to encompass all posts that went into this. Now again you are trying a different means to discredit/demean what I have put forth. 

No, see above on the "timing" argument, as well as justifying HOW you came to that conclusion (first) instead of gathering information first and then coming to the conclusion.

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:

I acknowledged the other people, but it seems you are not grasping the core concept now after shown above you say it is a fair argument

I actually did say that, and said that I understand it even though you/Matts are wrong, but that your process of getting there is also greatly flawed.

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:

Do you understand what read I have vs what read/reason others had?

Yes, I think I cleared that up.

40 minutes ago, The Orca said:

Mwil wants to complain about contradiction with Xmad, but then does explicit contradiction in his posts 

That's 100% false and see above for CONTEXT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whicker

Whicker

Posted
Posted

So random.org is not truly random and is also somehow sentient and also knows which group of text denoting scum is different from another group of text denoting town and knows to always put the ones denoting scum in the same spots because...?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MWil23

MWil23

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, The Orca said:

Honey, would you not be posting this to discredit Pickle, if your name wasnt in there?

If Blue didn't use RANDOM.ORG, then he's a bad host.

11 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

the theory cant be possible with true random

 

YEP

10 minutes ago, Whicker said:

Let it be known that JLA Mafia was the time where I lost all faith in our ability to play mafia. We’re arguing over which numbered signup to lynch hahaha. And giving justification!!

I'm surprised you held out that long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whicker

Whicker

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, The Orca said:

Which is impossible to achieve and soley dependent on the method used and how the roles are entered 

I have a huge gripe in general will randomization methods/sites. They usually suck and leave patterns/sets. That's why I take multiple extra steps when I do it 

I would be willing to bet more often than not more scum appears in the section proposed than others

Though if truley random over a period of games 1/3 should be any "like" segment...never happens imo for the above reasons 

You take multiple steps? You, a human, are not random. You taking extra steps makes it no longer random 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcb1213

bcb1213

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Pickle Rick said:

Really.  The methodology is sound the numbers are soundish (can only increase).  

Of 33 games the average is 2.5 scum in the 7-15 slots.  Round up to 3 we have a 3 in 9 or a  33% chance of lynching scum if we lynch from those spots. 

Now I'm not suggesting lynching from those spots for teh hell of it.  Just using it in conjunction with teh thread, reads, etc.  

But most games are 33% scum 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malfatron

Malfatron

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, bcb1213 said:

But most games are 33% scum 

 

9 minutes ago, The Orca said:

Which is impossible to achieve and soley dependent on the method used and how the roles are entered 

I have a huge gripe in general will randomization methods/sites. They usually suck and leave patterns/sets. That's why I take multiple extra steps when I do it 

I would be willing to bet more often than not more scum appears in the section proposed than others

Though if truley random over a period of games 1/3 should be any "like" segment...never happens imo for the above reasons 

lol to the bolded because pickle did get 1/3

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pickle Rick

Pickle Rick

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Whicker said:

Let it be known that JLA Mafia was the time where I lost all faith in our ability to play mafia. We’re arguing over which numbered signup to lynch hahaha. And giving justification!!

You arguing that, bc I'm not lol.  You should have sad it was the game where whicker loss the ability to read xD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...