I feel like you need to specify more concretely what you find suspicious, as accusing KoD of being abstractly vacuous and/or vengeful is ultimately not so helpful for our pursuit of scum. It is, for instance, explicitly not the case that KoD's argument lack substance, even if they failed to refute the point I believe you were making; nor is it unreasonable for him to counter-vote a player that, in his view, has accused him unreasonably and without evidence of engaging in (future) homicidal mania.

Hold up my former mentor.

At the start of this I showed by my "rhetorical hyperbole" that what Neo was doing applied to everyone prior to you joining the conversation. The moment you popped it was to expressly tell me that what he was essentially doing was valid because psychology and that my response to him warranted some suspicion (despite the fact you could read the same posts you and I can read, from Neo, contained nothing in the way of supporting his claim).

You may say you were not backing Neo, but your prior post's tone gives a different impression by virtue of mentioning the suspicion. This is a 180 on your part.

Unvote, Vote: Skystone

While I typically tunnel over stuff like what Neo has done, I feel in this instance that Sky is fanning the flames. That is, you have a situation between Neo and I that he inserted a loaded opinion into (loaded in the sense he's mentioned suspicion on my part) the conversation before receiving feedback that points out what is obvious (that the burden of proof has not been met by Neo to which he actively addressed in his last post).

As a side note Sky, Neo's entire premise was given without anything to draw on, yet, as per your post, you assert I have to refute it in some satisfactory way despite him lacking. I don't. I'll illustrate this with a simple example. Neo says I'm scum. He offers no proof. There is nothing sound or logical about that without something more.

The same is true for Neo saying I'm scum because I would tend towards roles with more points. Me responding by saying it applies to everyone illustrates a lack of Neo being able to apply it to me specifically. After all it was obvious he didn't offer anything else to support his claim. If anything my response was proper until such time as something more reasonable is offered by Neo. In short, his argument was not sound in anyway, and you saying I am suspicious for how I reacted to Neo's faulted approach is erroneous.

I just deleted two posts before I came to a realization.

I'm trying to fight Sky.

This escalated quickly.

Again, I never said that his particular instance of the claim was valid. The class of argument itself, however, is a worthwhile and potentially interesting direction of pursuit insofar as, in a game that allows people to statistically manipulate their alignment, personal game-play preferences have a (potentially) statistically consequential influence on alignment outcomes. My concern was specifically that you chose to deflect an attack on yourself rather than pursue the underlying avenues of truth that Neo's (admittedly factually lacking) suggestion implied.




I think it is reasonably clear that Neo was throwing out opinions in order to garner a reaction. This might be suspicious; it might also not. I suspect that a different sorts of player would use such a strategy, regardless of alignment - especially at the beginning of the game when there is no concrete evidence for or against anyone - to elicit responses and establish profiles for the gamer's various participants.

And again, I was never addressing the burden of proof issue, but the argument-as-form issue. I actually suspect that we are talking past one another.





Technically, that argument is sound. It is the premise (that you are inclined to choose mafia roles) that is suspect.

Also, I would accept not responding.




It does illustrate the fact that he didn't provide evidence, but there are more useful and practical ways to make the same claim. Consider, for instance, that scum might not even want us to consider the line of argument that psychology might influence alignment - for such a player, it might be an optimal line of play to strongly overreact and discourage discussion. This was my concern. It seemed to me that you were trying to discredit the argument as a form or not, not as a specific instance, and I found that troublesome from a truth-oriented perspective.

Sky


You didn't have to say that his claim was valid. You completely bypassed caring about what he was claiming and instead made a stab at me for how I choose to respond to his post. And by stab I mean you called me suspicious for it (a little suspicious if I recall correctly). This is relevant because it pushes the faulty agenda put forth by Neo.

As for pursuing the truth of Neo's assertion, there's nothing to pursue. It is quite obvious he was in error. That's why I illustrated it with just calling someone mafia without anything to back it up. That's why I said it was "just because". There's nothing else to make of it beyond it. Except you've gone and done this (ie. fanning the flames).

Also, if the attack has merit, then deflecting it isn't sufficient. Neo's attack didn't have merit. That's why my "deflection" is justified and moreover it is more than a deflection. As you saw with JD's weigh in on the subject, applying what Neo does to everyone shows that it is obviously a bad attack. And the only reason I even asserted it applied to everyone (which I did not explicitly state, but should have been obvious just from looking at Neo's posts) is that he provided no evidence to sufficiently single me out for the application of his attack (something to which you obviously agree he is in error for).




Firstly, it is not reasonably clear that's what Neo's intent was. If that's the opinion you hold, though, then it begs the question why you'd even see me as suspicious for *any* kind of response that addressed Neo's *reasonably clear opinion that has no evidence backing it up*.

And no, I understand what you're talking about which is why I'm hellbent on fighting you. You say my response is suspicious. I disagree. Your entire approach to this is suspicious to me since you obviously recognize the fault in what Neo was asserting, yet you were content to ignore so as to call me suspicious for my (reasonable) response. Then you end up accepting my refutation later (which was said towards Dusky when talking about what I'm arguing) even though what I stated to Dusky is essentially the same thing you recognize yet criticize me for (that Neo had no evidence and how, in your opinion, I should have just pointed it out -- despite it being obvious -- instead of just responding the way I did (which, again, is completely justified and addresses the issue of Neo's assertion)).



And here we come to an impasse. Neo's argument lacks substance. It only consists of "you must be mafia because you'll tend towards picking mafia roles". Now forgive me for having to go to basics on some things, but if the premise is that I'm inclined to choose mafia roles, then the argument is that I must be mafia. There's nothing sound about that. Mind you I'm just nitpicking since I'm sure you understand the point I'm getting at.

Also, not responding isn't necessarily better since the silence can be interpreted as guilt in some situations. Point being, it is arbitrary how people will interpret the reaction given. But the point I'm making/asserting is that my response to Neo was perfectly legit as it illustrated the issue with his argument. If you disagree with that, then oh well.



No, you're just overdoing it now.

Let's get something straight. Trying to use psychology in this instance (figuring out if a person would prefer mafia roles over town roles in this particular game) requires a reasonable amount of data to make that assertion. We can talk *about* it as much as you like, but no one is putting forth anything concrete that can be used to psychoanalyze a particular player. More than that, we don't know the points assigned to the roles each player was given options for. For all you know, someone may have gotten choices that had zero mafia points. Or maybe a player got a role with high point values. At the end of the day you end up *assuming* any single player (without any kind of psych data to fall back on) would equally have options available that would make them mafia.

Aside from that, *how* I responded to Neo, again, was perfectly fine. You're now trying to extend that to me trying to shut down discussion with the way I responded to Neo. This is absurd because the other way of responding that you would have accepted (ie. not responding at all) works better at shutting down discussion by not encouraging it in the first place (hoping it blows over).

All in all, I believe my response worked great. JD certainly got the point that was being made. But that's unfair since he understands me better than most people.

...

Reading all this (which is a lot ) it seems to me that we agree on most points. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Recap:

Neo is saying KoD is more likely to be scum than other players because he would seek out such a role. Does not provide evidence for that claim, though
KoD says this could apply to anyone. Applies argument to Neo.
Neo disagrees, stating it wouldn't apply to him because the premise that he would seek out a mafia role isn't given
I disagree with the notion it could apply the same way to anyone because you would have to assume a vacuum and that everybody would have the same inclination to pick mafia roles
Skystone is saying the same I think][Jay and KoD are arguing that Neo had no proof for his argument, thus making it wrong and/or suspicious
Skystone finds it suspicious KoD didn't address the argument per se (meaning thatdrawing conclusions from past behaviour might be useful in this set-up
KoD finds it suspicious that Skystone got suspicious


But aren't we just arguing two different points?
Me / Sky / Neo: Argument is a valid point if condition (KoD would want to be mafia) is true.
Neo: Premise is true.
Me / Sky: Premise needs proof that wasn't provided.
Jay / Kod: Proof is missing therefore argument is bonkers.

Aww my list got messed up. Sorry. Imagine a line break where the ][ is.

No, I indicated -- as did Dusky-- that the form of his argument has substance. This continues to be the case.

As an aside, I find your language misleading. I did not "take a stab" at you -- I made a reasoned observation based on observable phenomena. That sort of empirical method is the vehicle by which the game progresses!


It is very explicitly not deductively valid to conclude that Neo was in error. We might conclude that his argument is unattested in any meaningful way; or we might suggest that he is suspect for venturing an argument with unjustified premises; or we might dismiss the actual truth as presently unknowable. But the truth condition of his proposition exists independently of the presentation thereof. You only demonstrated that such an argument can be made willy-nilly regardless of truth value, which is and remains self-evident.


I still think you're misevaluating my point, so I'm going to define some terminology in order to capture some distinctions. A sound argument is an argument for which the premises are true and the conclusion necessarily follows. Validity, on the other hand, is a property only of the syllogism itself. Consider:

1. KoD is a frog.
2. All frogs are translucent.
Therefore, KoD is translucent.

This argument is valid in our sense (because the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises, regardless of their truth value), but not sound (because the premises are untrue).

The essential element of my entire line of inquiry has been -- as Dusky seems to have noted -- that Neo's argument was a) valid in the sense detailed above, and b) thus potentially sound in a case such that evidence for someone's role predisposition is determinable by some principle or another. (Though I also found it problematic that your choice of response seemed designed to stifle discussion rather than to progress the game state.) These are not inconsistent positions, and I suspect that it is only because you are conflating the principles of soundness and validity with the idea of credibility/proof that you have ventured otherwise.


It troubles me that you would downplay one of the few sources of authentic information currently available to us. We don't need hard data on every number to make generalized conclusions about likelihoods and balances of probability. Assuming a randomized distribution of options relative to players' psychographic dispositions, then, on balance, players who actively pick roles with higher mafia points are still more likely to end up with mafia roles. Absent other information, this so-called 'psychoanalysis' is still technically better than lynching people randomly.

Also, while we might not know the exact numbers, we can probably generalize based on the kinds of choices we were given whether or not individual players might have a meaningful opportunity to influence their roles in one direction or another.

Hey, I can help resolve a small part of this. Namely the "we don't know if people got equal options" part. The combined point total for my role options (ignoring distribution and saying nothing of my actual choices) is 74. Now each of you has a second data point to look at when considering that argument. That was easy.

We're really having issues here, aren't we?

Dusky


Neo disagrees because he says I should know (I don't) that he doesn't prefer mafia since it puts more pressure on him as opposed to town roles. Guess we all learned something about Neo now.



It's almost as if you'd have to have some kind of in depth knowledge about a person in order to know whether or not they would tend towards picking mafia instead of just saying they do without any sort of evidence to back it up.



Sky more or less backed up Neo by casting suspicion on me for my response. Two things to note about me saying this though:

First, I am aware Sky has stated he doesn't believe one way or another about Neo's argument. This had to be expressly stated *after* he made his post casting suspicion my way and *after* I had to bring it up which made him clarify. If that was left unsaid, it leaves room to wiggle.

Second, despite what Sky originally asserted about my response (that it was suspicious), he has gone on with his posts to state things that help reaffirm (as far as I am concerned) my response towards Neo:

The first time being here



The second part is what matters most, but (since I love to restate stuff many times) the first part matters as well since I am certain Sky is wrong here. So allow me to iterate once again. Concerning the first part (since I've been thinking about argument/premise with their meanings), the issue here is that Sky says I didn't refute Neo's premise. So what is the premise? And what is the argument while we're at it?

KoD is mafia because he is more likely to pick mafia roles.

What is the argument? I believe, and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, that it is I am mafia. That means the premise, if I am correct, is that I am more likely to pick mafia roles. I won't bother bringing up burden of proof. Instead let's go to my response to Neo.

In a nutshell my response was, "That applies to everyone." So does this address the premise? I would say it does indirectly. I asked Neo to explain what he meant so I got a better idea of where he was coming from, stated that it applies to everyone, then eventually voted Neo with the same reasoning (that he must be mafia because he is more likely to pick mafia roles).

The argument "[insert name] is mafia" can be applied (thrown) to (at) everyone. The premise though? Well, we can either apply the premise to everyone or just some. If we apply it to everyone, then we get the outlook where everyone can be viewed the same (as being equally likely to try and be mafia). But not everyone is going to agree with that (look at Dusky's response and Sky's response to me). That means that not everyone is going do this, only some. How do you know which? By.. having.. evidence.. Proof to back up what you're saying.

At the end of the day my response, which illustrated the failings of Neo's attack, serves to point these out. That, obviously, you can accuse anyone of being mafia, and that, obviously, you need more to go on than by just saying someone is more likely to pick mafia roles.

The second part matters because Sky talks about this stuff, but doesn't apply it knowingly while interacting with us (Neo and I). That is, Sky interprets Neo's stuff as opinion based, yet selectively focuses on me despite what Neo said was already addressed sufficiently by me (even if Sky doesn't like this). This is all evident in Sky's posts after this where he goes on to criticize Neo and affirms that my response does work (just not as well as other avenues per his own preference).

I have a bat and will beat this horse even if it is dead.


Still from Dusky


No, he didn't like that I didn't refute the argument's premise. There is a small area where Sky mentioned this explicitly wherein he said I had an easy out, but didn't use it (instead opting for the "rhetorical hyperbole" which he finds suspicious due to it deflecting -- per his opinion -- as opposed to refuting).




This is a gross misrepresentation of what I focused on. Don't get me wrong, I can easily tunnel, but Sky's approach to me is suspicious. He interjected into the conversation between Neo and I only to say that, "You know KoD, psychology is a thing, and you didn't actually address Neo's premise. You instead deflected. That's suspicious." Obviously not his exact words (because I might as well be as detailed as possible since we're being pedantic -- or at least I am since people either miss stuff by accident or on purpose), but the impact of his interjection does several things which I have already mentioned:

- It (indirectly) backs up Neo simply by throwing suspicion my way.
- It tactfully neglects to bring up the obviously valid points against Neo.
- It rejects the validity of my response to Neo (when coupled with the obviously valid points previously mentioned).

There's a lot more to this than me getting suspicious because he got suspicious.



No. If we're talking theory, then sure. Obviously if you can prove someone has a tendency towards playing mafia, then you could reasonably conclude that person is more likely to be mafia than others who may prefer neutral or town roles. But we're beyond theory. We're in application. Neo came out swinging (and note that Neo has since recanted his approach and is instead reaction trolling as opposed to being serious about the original argument). Sky interjected to say psychology is a thing, then says I'm suspicious for how I responded.

Before any of you even spoke about the idea of proof, JD was the first to mention it and address it with his post. He accurately got the point of what I was illustrated, and what it meant given the situation. The argument (and premise since I'm being painfully aware of it now) can be applied to everyone. The moment you point out the issue with the premise is the moment have trouble with the argument itself. By asserting the all of it applies to everyone, it should become clear that this just isn't true (unless vacuum) since everyone isn't the same (which would lead to the idea of backing up the assertion). The only way you can back up the assertion (the premise) is by proof, and you'd have to do that for single instances just like you do for everyone. Since no proof is offered, obviously the premise holds no water nor does the argument by extension.

Well this is awesome. I just had my post eaten because of having to log back in.

Here is the gist of what I was typing to you Sky:

- I focus on playing the game. Not on theory which is what you have preoccupied yourself with when engaging me over this stuff. You say that I seem like I'm trying to stifle progress/quiet discussion, yet you focusing on all this what-ifs is a truly meaningless distraction.

- Case in point for the above: I spent time googling valid and sound arguments. Neo's argument is still not valid because even if the premise that I tend to pick mafia roles (with high point values) is true doesn't guarantee the conclusion I am mafia is true.

- My "rhetorical hyperbole" is just as "valid" as Neo's argument and works. No matter how you approach it, dealing with my response to Neo deals with Neo's argument in its entirety (as far as the conclusion and premise are concerned). This is because both (Neo's argument and my hyperbole) lack details beyond one premise that, even if true, doesn't guarantee the truth of the conclusion. And when applied to everyone, obviously it is wack. And when applied to any individual without more to work from, it is still wack.

- I'm not downplaying any information *because there is no information to downplay*. All you have is one person saying that another is more likely to pick mafia roles (with high point values) than roles with low mafia point values which means the person must be mafia. There's nothing to back up that assertion. I certainly don't see anything. I'm certain you don't see anything either, unless you manifested an ability to see something I cannot. Psychology can work. Cool. But without anything concrete here for you to point to, then I'm going to tell you to prove it. And you can't without it. Dispense with the theory and what-ifs as it doesn't progress anything. All it is doing is adding fluff that you can't back up.

-- Note to previous: Neo asserted something with no information to back it up. You can't apply your psychology without more to go off of. It isn't better with this approach as opposed to randomness since you have nothing to go off of for the psychoanalysis (generalized or otherwise) or even small data (outside of Neo asserting he will tend towards town more so than mafia roles out of preference). And we haven't factored lying into this yet.




One good thing out of me losing my post is it forced me to be less wordy.

I'm already kicking myself for this, since I know this is one of my weaknesses, but, I'll make a partial claim. One of the abilities that I have has let me know that KoD is one of the two most likely people to have been scum, based on the number of mafia points they selected. I have no idea if he really is scum or not, but, based on my ability, I know that he was one of the most likely to be mafia.
Hence, between that, and the reaction, I'm very comfortable with where my vote is now.

Wow, Neo. You did not play this ideally. So you are saying that you were given a sheet of subtle information, and your response was to roll it up and swing it like a bat as fast as you could? Bad play if you're town, bold lie if you're scum. Care to tell us who your second suspect is? Seems odd to claim two thirds of the ability and not complete the claim.

@KoD: would you be willing to claim how many mafia points your role got? Just so we have something to compare to?

It was a targeted ability that I used on KoD - so, knowing that he was one of the top 2 most likely to be scum is all I have right now. After a few days, I might get more info, it's not an every night type of ability.

If only Postatog had eaten your other post instead.

Indeed! See text in bold further down.

Right, and you really might not. But maybe you played enough with him to have an idea.


So? You keep saying Jay knows you like no other, so shouldn't he for example have an idea of what you would prefer? And vice versa - do you think given the choice Jay would pick a mafia role, or would you say you have no idea what so ever?

You yourself draw on other games and past behaviour multiple times in the last game we played, so why would you now totally ignore or even reject the idea?



No! That is not the argument. That would be the conclusion if we had reasonable evidence for the premise. The argument, as I understand it, or lets call it the idea (as I have not googled all the terms), is that players who like being mafia are statistically more likely to be mafia in this game than players who would try to avoid that.


Fair enough.


Yes, I agree there needs to be proof. But I did so from the start (as did Skystone). What we are saying is that the argument that mafia-inclined players are more likely to pick up mafia points (and end up mafia) can be applied to everyone, but not everyone has the same inclinations, therefore the conclusion isn't the same.

At first I thought you were just missing the point, but by now I do find it really strange how you are so unwilling to consider player tendencies and statistical likelihood.

This combined with Neo's claim is leading me to...
Vote: KoD

In KoD's defence, Neo has since claimed that his accusation was based on an investigation result, not meta knowledge.

Which is also better for Neo, honestly, as metagaming is bad practice.

But the claim is also super weird. An investigation ability which tells you how many mafia points someone has relative to the field, except not exactly, and that cannot be used every night? That just seems so narrow.

You'd be wrong then since Neo admitted to crafting the argument separate to picking a target for it, not to mention validity of the argument is the issue here, not the logical soundness (that part is filibustery irrelevance).



Semantics. KoD is applying argument here as a means of describing Neo's overall aim, such that Neo is arguing that KoD is mafia because x, whereas youre limiting the meaning of argument to simply the x.

Psychological theory aside and psychoanalysis put into practice, KoD and Neo are classic town v town. I make this statement based off of experience with both players and deducing based on past behavior what I believe their alignments to be.

Going in a different direction now, vote: rag because anybody who would openly claim night 0 and then not post in the game thread seems plenty suspicious enough for me.

I would also be happy to provide my combined total, but in light of Neo's claim against KoD, I think it would pragmatic for the rest of us to wait until KoD has decided to share or not share his own total. That way he has less data with which to potentially manufacture a result (if he is inclined to do so).


Untrue. Given that Neo admits to making the argument as a proxy for his role-result on KoD, and in order to draw attention to KoD in particular, it's fairly clear that he was implicating one player (KoD) specifically.

In any case, and for KoD's benefit, the argument is something like this:

1. Players are able choose role options in a way that influences their likelihood of receiving particular roles.
2. Players will choose role options that increase their likelihood of receiving their preferred roles.
(2.a. Players who choose roles with more associated mafia points are more likely to receive mafia roles.)
3. KoD prefers to receive mafia roles. [Neo's proposition.]
Conclusion: KoD will choose options that increase his likelihood of receiving mafia roles.

This is not an argument that KoD is mafia. Rather, it is an argument that KoD is more likely to be mafia given that premise 3 is true -- which, with minor reformulation in light of the allegation that KoD is one of two players with the highest number of mafia points, is both valid (in my earlier sense) and credible (because there is now non-trivial evidence). Whether or not this is sufficient evidence to convict depends on a) whether we feel that KoD's conduct has also been suspect, and b) whether we have evidence against another player that is stronger than the statistical allegation against KoD.

I am willing to agree that KoD's behaviour thus far is consistent with what I know of his town play, but I don't think I've ever played a game with him in which he was mafia, so I have no means by which to comparatively analyse his respective styles.


Neo only said that he couldn't see a scenario in which you didn't choose options with the highest number of mafia points, not that he thinks you must necessarily be mafia. See above for an approximate formulation of the argument, but the takeaway is that, given that the premises are true, you are more likely to be mafia. Thus, the argument is valid.

On a different track, I don't actually see where Rag claimed. Could the wise Cardinal enlighten me?

I'd also like to see something material from Rubik.



A valid point. I hereby appoint myself both pope and anti-pope of your organization.