The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Sigil, City of [Phalla] - Game Over
Posts
Note that he didn't say she was dead outside of that narration either.
You still haven't shown the formal argument for "not A", you continue to give the outcome as the argument instead. That is not how Things Work(tm).
He did put on his host hat to say "Arivia is alive" in an appropriate host manner. Are you making the claim that deflecting a direct question is not expected or appropriate of a host?
Exactly. He never explicitly clarified this point in either direction. Confirming a bunch of logical predicates that one can use to justify a given conclusion is not the same thing as directly and explicitly confirming that conclusion.
Until Arivia died yesterday, she was basically Schrodinger's cat.
I think I see your problem with argument. You do not grapple with anything other than the conclusion.
That is not what makes an argument at all.
First off, we're not in philosophy class or math class. I'm not going to sit here and draw you truth tables. I have no interest in constructing a "formal argument" here because this is a game and we're peers and we're having a conversation.
Now, I have already provided, several times, the logical predicates I used to conclude that Not A is a possibility. I asked you before if you read those posts or not and you haven't answered me.
Have you read those posts?
I'll go one step further: If the answer is no, then go read my posts. If the answer is yes, then my next question is why you keep incorrectly suggesting that I did not provide an adequate defense. If you're waiting for a "formal argument" then you'll be waiting forever. I gave you my reasons.
He did not put on his host hat to say "Arivia is alive." That is objectively false. This is not how logic works. Saying "A is true" is not the same as saying "B and C are true" where A is one (of many) conclusions you can draw with B and C being true.
Out of the two of us, I'm not the one that doesn't comprehend how an argument is constructed, particularly a logical argument.
I would construct your arguments but then you will just claim I am being dishonest. Feel free to construct it yourself or stop claiming there's a rationale. There isn't another way to show it is emotion and rhetoric behind this.
No, I am stating that 38thDoe never said "Arivia is alive" so you claiming that he did is objectively false.
I think 38thDoe did exactly what he should have done, but that is an entirely different subject. I am not talking about him: I am talking about your factually incorrect statements.
When did I say that he said that verbatim? Oddly literal of you, when you're the one putting words in my mouth like "idiot."
I never said you said he said it verbatim. I said he didn't say it. And he didn't. I would go so far as to argue that he didn't even implicitly suggest it. He left it ambiguous on purpose. He clarified a few rules, which was appropriate for him, and did not comment in any way, shape, or form on Arivia in particular, which was also appropriate of him. 38thDoe's language here is almost entirely irrelevant. He might as well not have clarified anything and we would still probably be having this argument.
Tautology! :rotate:
Not very useful though.
So, yes, "he did put on his host hat to say '<X>'" does imply that he said those words, especially considering your punctuation (double quotation marks suggests a direct quote). Obviously, that is not true as evidenced by the (four) threads itself. But obviously that is not what I am talking about anyway. I am talking about whether or not 38thDoe communicated, to the thread, that Arivia was alive, either explicitly or through heavy implication. He did not.
For the love of god.
Okay, let's rewind.
From what I understand, your argument is this:
- People that break game rules get the banhammer.
- The host said that a person who was breaking the "only one ghost post rule" had been talked to and it hadn't happened again.
- The host confirmed that ghosts can only post once.
- Arivia continued to post.
More or less? Maybe I'm leaving some stuff out. Feel free to slot it in. I don't think your argument is WRONG, anyway, so it doesn't matter. I'm just saying that it isn't explicit enough to contradict an opposing conclusion.
I really hate repeating myself, but I'll go ahead and do it.
My perspective, at the time while I was playing the game (and a few days after):
- Breaking game rules is not explicitly against PA or CF rules (and I did look this up). I have been in situations where players were acting against the host's desires and they were not infracted or banned.
- The host said that a person who was breaking the "only one ghost post rule" had been talked to and it hadn't happened since. I assumed this referred to Arivia, who hadn't posted for a bit before the host posted this.
- Arivia posted some longish time later. So the previous clarification that "it hasn't happened since" is irrelevant. Because it could have been happening again.
- A lot of hosts don't want players to get banned or infracted over their game because it causes bad feelings.
- The game was plagued by Vanilla bug and weather-related power outages, so maybe the host didn't have that much time to monitor the thread. To be honest, when I host a game I'm not exactly sitting on the edge of my seat, watching the thread like a hawk. Much less so if I am literally unable to, or if it is extremely inconvenient for me to do so (like I am at work and the forums are blocked, for instance). So maybe he just didn't see a lot of it, or he was too busy dealing with other things to really take care of it.
- Arivia's personaly. Sorry, Arivia, but yes, this factored into my suspicions. She understands that and in fact it was how she was able to play us so well.
- Arivia's PM to me asking me what my role while claiming to be dead (and while I was still alive, obviously).
- Arivia showing up dead in the narration.
The point is, there is a lot of evidence to support the conclusion that Arivia was dead. There are some things that suggested otherwise, but a clue is not necessarily proof. And in the end, people put those clues to the test and succeeded in killing Arivia.
In the end, though, I don't know why you have to make this so unpleasant. I understand you are trying to defend the host and Arivia but Arivia doesn't seem to give a shit and I don't know anything about 38thDoe or anything but he wasn't taking enough flak to necessitate you sitting there condescending to everyone.
It's a game. I'm not really a fan of being told I need to construct formal logical arguments lest your condescension of me is valid. That's just not cool. It may not be cool to assume Arivia is a troll and it may not be cool to grudge either Arivia or 38thDoe but what you're doing is also not cool.
I know I had fun. Arivia's ability lead us to really question our "confirmed" allies. A witch hunt while the true culprit was scurrying under us. But honestly, I think ahava and bedlam were the only real casualty from it, as we were grinding out mafia consistently
Quoted again for truth
Yeah, that was funny from the sidelines. "But everyone is confirmed!"
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
The best part, in my opinion, is that we devils were fully aware of the fallout it would cause. That just made us cackle more loudly.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Since the village won in the end I regret it not.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Henri Emmanuel Gratien St Pierre in Where No Man Has Gone Before
Lord Augustus Cumberbatch in Eclipse Phase
You didn't quote anything?
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
We seered you early and the original plan was that I was going to reveal as a seer to Infidel and give you to him. But then Matev started talking to Retaba and said he'd been seered by me, then Infidel died, then you died, and that was that.
Henri Emmanuel Gratien St Pierre in Where No Man Has Gone Before
Lord Augustus Cumberbatch in Eclipse Phase
hrm, I was seered twice?
Bugger
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I at least see his point, and at worse, feel a bit condescended to. Your intent or not, it's how it is perceived. Take that at what you will.
DSFGKJLKDGJLKJDFLGKJFG CORN
the mechanic was one that shook some things up.
people got cranky and misjudged one or two or three things.
It's done and over now, we shoudl move on and forget it.
@Drez, don't worry about the Stever's Law thing. I saw you get snippy with me and i figured that for once I just wasn't going to argue with you, it just wouldn't have been worth my effort at that point. We're all good darlin.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The bolded stuff isn't logic, it's subjective considerations primarily based related to what is considered to be the "norm". Which is pretty much exactly what misled them. There isn't anything wrong with using these methods to catch mafia or whatnot (acting on what you know of an established player is often useful) but when things get weird it's very helpful to set them aside and try to figure things out.
This is the information that was given by the host via public clarification.
- The narration is given from an observer's perspective, it is not objective fact.
- A dead player may only make one ghost post containing non-host information. One player was not following this rule and they have since been told not to do so.
-
If you assume that Arivia has to be dead because the narration says she's dead, you are ignoring the first clarification about the narration. Understandable since people generally assumed he was talking about whether someone's death was by the mafia or the village or something, but ignoring a given is still an error in logic.
If you assume that Arivia has to be dead because she's pissing you off and HAS to be the rulebreaking jerk you've envisioned her...well, the failure to use any logic there should be obvious.
Basically if you take the above host clarifications and do some research to note the following facts
- Infidel also posted twice after death, and unlike Arivia hasn't posted since.
Therefore: Infidel could have been the player in question
And she is acting like a living player as:
- She votes every day except for the first day after she died, and hadn't missed a vote before her "death" so she's very much following activity requirements.
- She is very much ignoring the ghost posting rules, trying to sway people to vote one way or another and giving game information.
If you just set aside all feelings you have about Arivia, look at the above facts, and pretend that some person you don't know is the role in question, what do you think is most likely?
I at least don't fault anyone for coming to the faulty conclusion based on subjective considerations of what is considered "normal" in phalla or their feelings towards a player: I screamed at Arivia in PM myself because I was just as fooled (and then had to apologize later!). But I don't see why people are grudging the host when all the information to figure her out was there all along.
Stever's Law now refers to anyone trying to rebrand a "rule" that had failed miserably before, and then proceeds to fail miserably with it again because it was a stupid "rule" in the first place.
So Stever's Law raging is now applicable to "B:L is Never Evil"?
Ahhhhhh wanted to kill you so bad.
We got a bonus!
it seemed like every time someone started nosing into it and trying to get a discussion going someone who was convinced arivia was being a goose would make a loud, boisterous statement about how we should pay no attention to her
that made it a lot harder to get to the truth than anything arivia did
IT HAS NEVER FAILED
Besides, it's not a law. It's the way of the universe.