-->
@whiteflame
I don't Want him claiming now. I don't have my vote on him yet either. I also looked at. His behavior last game and it just feels different as well.
Pie Recycled Roles Mafia DP1
Posts
Read-only
Total:
843
-->
@Lunatic
I'd like to get your take on the game so far, especially on Austin's behavior.
-->
@Savant
I'm referring to him attacking Moozer and the people voting against him rather than explaining why he himself is likely town. And of course he gives a reasonable-sounding reason for that, that's how scum Austin would OMGUS.
Like I just said to WyIted, I don't view this as a scumtell. DP1 is notorious for having limited behavioral reads shape the decision of whom to lynch, so people have two choices of how to respond: defensively, often by offering up some information to shake the lynch, or offensively, often by pushing attention somewhere else. If this was a later DP and Austin was actively ignoring information that suggests he's scum in favor of pushing on someone else, I'd agree with you that that looks scummy. In DP1 where the only information he can offer is his role, I don't blame him for pushing back, especially if he has an important PR. I wouldn't have blamed you for pushing back or trying to push attention to someone else.
So when you say that he started attacking Moozer... I just don't see it as scummy, dude. I think he gave decent reasoning for looking to him, and especially given Moozer's impending absence from the game, that's a move I'd expect whether he's scum or town. You can call it an OMGUS, but it comes from a rational position that makes sense regardless of affiliation.
-->
@WyIted
Alright. I'll note that last game, he was simply absent for a majority of DP1 and then came back just in time to see the hammer. Not the game I would choose to assess his behavior, but hey, that's just me.
The suspicion of moozer is reasonable but moozer seems absent minded to me. I don't think he should get a free pass for being absent minded but I do think it's a bit of a town tell that he thought savant was doctor. He is either town or the scum chat is pretty inactive
-->
@whiteflame
WyIted might be referring to the Invincible game, because that's what I linked to.
-->
@Savant
I am referring to invincible
-->
@AustinL0926
Right now you, Wylted, and I all agree that either you or he is scum. As I see it, our best play is to lynch you and then lynch Wylted if you flip innocent. I also want to get Luna's opinion, because it will inform a lot of how I read whiteflame's and your posts.
A change in behavior between games is no big deal, I was just hoping to see the same scum tells in the game linked so I could see if that's just how he is and the tells I pointed out did not materialize
-->
@whiteflame
@AustinL0926
@WyIted
Another thing I should mention that ties a lot of this together imo is that when Austin and I were scum, he said that people tend to care more about how confident you seem than about how logical you are. In my opinion, that explains a lot of Austin's defense, in which he seems to prioritize coming across super confident and as if he is "winning," rather than about making a substantial defense.
-->
@Savant
Right now you, Wylted, and I all agree that either you or he is scum
I don't agree with that LOL. If I am innocent it wouldn't make him scum and visa versa.
-->
@WyIted
You believe he is scum, which would make it true that either he or you is scum. That's what I mean. You should be fine with betting your life against his if you are 90% sure Austin is scum.
I know I don't want to vote Austin until I figure out WTF is going on with savant. Because I also do not think savant and Austin could be scum together
-->
@WyIted
until I figure out WTF is going on with savant
I'm an un-cc'd cop, so it really doesn't matter what is going on with me, because you know there's a 99.9% chance I'm not scum.
-->
@Savant
If there is no godfather in the scum PM than 99% of the time, cop is a safe claim. It doesn't impress me much
-->
@WyIted
Pie has a cop in almost all of his games.
-->
@Savant
@WyIted
WyIted might be referring to the Invincible game, because that's what I linked to.
Alright. I'll note that he was the Bleeder in that game. Based on how he performed in that game, I doubt he's self-protective here, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's scum, either.
Another thing I should mention that ties a lot of this together imo is that when Austin and I were scum, he said that people tend to care more about how confident you seem than about how logical you are. In my opinion, that explains a lot of Austin's defense, in which he seems to prioritize coming across super confident and as if he is "winning," rather than about making a substantial defense.
I'll admit, you had me pretty well established as scum behaviorally last game. Not sure I'd call his defense super confident, but I'll consider this.
-->
@Savant
Yeah and he balances it with a godfather. No godfather in the scum pm and boom you have a safe claim. I do behavior analysis. That's it. Claims are useless to me. We also have zero Miller claims and so if scum is sitting there watching zero miller's claim and not having a godfather in the PM, they have an easy fake claim of cop.
It gave you some breathing room from the earlier pressure. Not a free pass
-->
@whiteflame
I know you are very careful not to insult people but can somebody else please give me their thoughts on Savant's poor logic. Some of the logic is a little bad and we are all guilty of that, but some is so horrible as to be laughable and this is from a guy who has deep posts on philosophy and some great insights on things like how to make voting more fair here.
-->
@WyIted
We can fight that battle later if you insist on it, but in the interest of not derailing things, I'd won't push that for now.
Glancing ag his debates doesn't help either. He crushed bones on a topic that bones is very comfortable with and you can't do that with bad logic
Bones is pretty competent.
-->
@Savant
I just want to understand why it seems like the person playing this game is not the person who destroyed bones and Benjamin in recent debates. Maybe it's just not something I can understand but the riddle is killing me now.
-->
@WyIted
Can you list out the logical leaps you think I made? Maybe I can try and address them.
He also beat skepticalone. I am not saying any of those people are great but they are better than nearly everyone active here and pretty competent.
-->
@WyIted
I know you are very careful not to insult people but can somebody else please give me their thoughts on Savant's poor logic. Some of the logic is a little bad and we are all guilty of that, but some is so horrible as to be laughable and this is from a guy who has deep posts on philosophy and some great insights on things like how to make voting more fair here.
I think it's a combination of some inflamed tensions early on, the belief that he had to claim early, and the fact that his role insulates him from a lynch this DP (I don't think anyone's going to pursue a lynch on an un-CC'd Cop without good reason). If anything, this behavior makes me townread him a little more, since my experience seeing him as scum tends to include his defusing tensions rather than ramping them up.
Ok first of all Savant, you suck for choosing Invincible as the one to show to Wylted. My most recent game was Mahabharata, where I caught you as scum DP1. That's why you deliberately skipped that game and instead chose an older one of mine. You knew exactly what you were doing there.
-->
@AustinL0926
@WyIted
Sry, that's not why I did it. Much as I think Austin is being petty here, Wylted, look at Mahabharata as well. Maybe it will explain my behavior as well.
-->
@AustinL0926
Your most recent game was the one you were barely active, so I picked a different one rather than your second-most-recent.
-->
@Savant
The claim after one vote. Not a logical error maybe just inexperience. The statement that either me or Austin must be scum.
I am forgetting a bunch. I will try to point them out later.
It's just when a smart person is using poor logic it makes you wonder why. Smart people can be more prone to some cognitive biases than dumb people but other things stick out and you wonder whether it is a blind spot or if they are hiding something.
Just to show you what I mean with smart people being more prone to some cognitive distortions, let me explain one.
It is easy as a smart person to believe some types of really stupid shit. The reason being is that no matter who you know in your personal life that come to you with a contrary opinion, you can easily defeat their arguments. The makers of loose change for example, likely had IQs of 145 or above. Nobody was there that could prove them wrong because only 1 in a 1000 people can compete with that IQ level. Now lower IQ people can prove them wrong they just need to be experts on the subject matter, and they are likely to have one area of expertise while the loose change creator dabbles in multiple areas of expertise.
Here is how you fix that cognitive bias. You just take the devils advocate position and argue it as fiercely as you can. Why? Because nobody can argue it better than you and you are the only person who has the intellectual ability to disprove you and you can avoid distortions by disproving yourself often.
Another bias, and one I suffer from a lot is thinking I can come up with every possible argument for an action. For example, if somebody takes an action I can often attribute it to malice, when they had good reasons, because I am arrogant and think I have literally considered every possibility for their action and only malevolent things popped in my mind.
Dumb people just don't typically fall for that shit because they intuitively know they are dumb and because people around them can provide them arguments that defeat theirs.