Any reason you can't try to get the discussion going yourself? Why is it that you need to wait for other people to start the discussion.Once the game progresses and discussion develops I will have more solid arguments and evidence to use as a basis.
I wonder, does the fact that it has become a serious vote since I made it change your opinion of it? As it stands, I didn't like Chaos' response. He backtracked a good deal when I questioned him, and I find that suspicious. So yeah, the vote is serious.It's not the fact that Kairyuu's vote was arbitrary that bugs me. It's the fact that he explicitly stated that it's random, pre-emptively defending against any fake cases that might be built on it and giving him another reason to hop off the wagon in case it builds up.
It's a valid strategy, but quite a foolish one to use in a Newbie game. When an IC votes a Newbie partner, said partner is going to feel rather more pressured than if anyone else voted them; therefore making them much more likely to slip up and get lynched.If Kairyuu is scum, Chaos is more likely as well--random voting a scumpartner is not unheard of by far, and with the attempt at denying any real responsibility for the vote I smell distancing.
This is true of all distancing tells.(Note that this percieved connection is only valid if one of the two turn scum, with it being more valid if Kairyuu is the one that turns scum.)
That was kinda the point.My opinion? This shift in seriousness makes things interesting, but not as much as your comment as above quoted.
That is arguably true. However, I'm not overly bothered by by credibility being questionable. I may actually have a plan right now. You never know.The shift might seem harmless, and justified, on the one hand. On the other hand, this shift hadn't been made clear in any way before your comment in quoted, therefore any validity or credibility it might have is immediately questionable.
He initially just said he was waiting on discussion to get going, but did not pull the vote. It was not until I pressed him further that he unvoted. He did not unvote when the theory was explained. He unvoted when I kept questioning him. Quite possibly an attempt to placate me, which shows he is hesitant to enter a debate. This, in turn, implies that he does not want to be put in the spotlight, which is a scummy mentality.Also, you say he backtracked, when all he did was vote on random numbers and have theory explained to him, in return to which he unvoted--a natural response when you're proven that your vote is essentially useless.
Not really, but that's not why I'm voting him.Do you think that lack of knowledge or opinion in the business of random voting is a scumtell in any way?
Wiki tells are awful. I read them once and realized how easily scum can manipulate them. Tarhalindur's Standard Tells are much better, because they are less easily manipulated. However, the best tells are motive based, and don't involve set-in-stone actions. I tend to use those, as they are more reliable.You aren't looking at this in the context of alignment, you are just trying to force a wiki-tell onto a situation.
This is only my second game as an IC. The first was Newbie 750, where I pulled a rather controversial gambit, and ended up catching both scum with it. I won't use it here though after some of the reactions of the new players.This is a fair point, and from the single previous game of ours this is what I'd expect of you. How many games have you IC'd?
Meh. My comment was more to show I agree with you than anything else.Naturally; I'm just adding comments that seem like common knowledge to you for the sake of the newer players.
QFTBy the way, as a note: it should also be said that when noticing a connection, you should always note the direction that is implied in. For instance, something makes you think A and B are connected; it's not irrelevant whether A committed a tell that implies the connection or B; in the former case, A is scummier than B, but if B was the one who slipped, he is the more suspicious. It is a common mistake, one that I still frequently unconsciously make, to consider A and B equally suspicious, but this is a wrong assumption and can lead to false conclusions.
It was quite a fun play to make. I was disappointed that people didn't like it much.@kairyuu, I actually read your last IC game, and the game you referenced it from, the gambit was pretty interesting. I did love how you caught out the D1 Goon. When i saw you were IC in this game, I was tossing around in my head trying to work out how to respond to it if you did it here.
Heh. I don't even need to make the gambit to catch scum with it. Why would I do it as scum when I made the specific claim that I would not take a risk like that in a Newbie game? When I am scum I try to keep the scumteam intact (as Korts can attest to) as long as physically possible, and throwing myself into a majorly risky situation on page 1 when my partner is probably a new player is very much against my playstyle.I'd be seriously considering that he was using the last game as an example of how good it is for a townie to do while secretly being scum and trying it from the other side.
My above point remains valid.He was also sort of testing it in that game as far as i recall, so i figure he might want to test doing it as scum at some point.
He also said it was something to be used in moderation, so if he did it 2 in 2 newbie games, I'd have to think he was trying something different the second time, which would mean he was doing it as either a scum or as the doctor.
QFT. I'll add that to the list for games from now on (and I may even make a wiki page eventually).Korts' addendum to Kai's Lesson 1: There are multiple schools of thought; full transparency of motives is a valid stance as well, since if you state all your thoughts and the processes leading up to your decisions it will be easier for town to read you, any flaws in logic will be remedied faster, and your thoughts may evoke others to find important clues as well.
That is the ideal WIFOM situation, and I understand it perfectly well. However, the number of situations where I have seen people call WIFOM on something that isn't too difficult to reason out far outnumber the cases of true WIFOM, so I feel the point is relevant, even if it isn't worded 100% properly.Kairyuu, you seem to not understand the term WIFOM. It is correctly applied only in a situation where there are two scenarios of scum and town and neither is more likely than the other.
QFT. On the other hand, I endorse gambiting in all of its forms unless they are obviously flawed.Sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself is not something to be proud of. In fact, if this is done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you'e drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.
As far as I know it is theThis is a very good point. And I can attest to Kai having played it safe in the past as scum in at least one game; but this is not a significant sample size, Kai, and I don't particularly like the implication that it is.
Two-fold gambit. The point with you was minor. I thought I already mentioned that, but meh.To be honest, I don't particularly trust the result of your gambit, Kai, since it comes down to whether a particular player felt your arguments were stronger than mine, which opinion may be entirely independent of alignment. At best it is a minor implication toward Sando being scum.
Second day scum was a lurker who proved she was reading the thread but not posting. But that is neither here nor there. If you have a point in regurgitating all of this information then I expect to see it soon (note: I'm posting this as I go. I have merely skimmed the rest before now).He got all sorts of responses, most of them negative, however he caught the scum because they expressed their lack of understanding of the gambit way too hard. They appealed to emotion rather than logic, scummy. (When i say 'they' I mean the first day scum, I don't remember the catch on the second day one, but it was a 'perfect' game).
Explain this. Why do people need to meta me before voting you?Now, my 'tell'. Kairyuu said quite a lot of things that game, i would REALLY recommend that if you wish to vote me over this that you read the thread, if nothing else it's interesting. I've linked it above, just read D1 and the end.
First off, I agreed not to do it for awhile. I will probably try it again over the summer sometime.Kairyuu, after being hounded for the gambit all game (more for using it in a newbie game than for it being a bad gambit), agreed not to use it again in a newbie game. Now we're deviating into hypotheticals, because i'm now talking about if he'd claimed doc this game.
But I didn't, so this is totally null.If he'd claimed doc this game, he'd have been lying when he said that he wouldn't use it again in a newbie game, not a good start i would say.
Really? Why? First off, why would I pull it as scum after having specifically mentioned when I first used it that using it as scum would be a stupid move and I wouldn't want to run the risk of ruining the game for my scumbuddy? Secondly (and this is a theory question that I would just like an answer to), why would I pull a gambit that attempts to draw the N1 kill as its main purpose if I were the actual doc? What pro-town purpose would it serve for me to say "kill me" to the scum when I have a potentially useful power role?Thinking meta, i'd have to wonder if he wasn't in fact trying the same gambit and was trying something new, ie not lying due to a technicality. If he did this, he was 1 of 2 things, the doc or a scum.
I wouldn't. See above. Stop trying to discredit me.Why would you do it as Scum Kairyuu? For interests sake? To try it out, see how it goes? Since it worked so brilliantly the first time, why not try it out as scum? You're playing a game after all, the way to get better at it is to try new things.
The gambit isWhy would I have to work out how to respond to it? If you had done it in this game I would not have believed that you were a vanilla townie, simple as that. I would have worked off my belief that you were either the doc or scum. As a townie, I don't really want to be in the position of thinking some is either the doc or scum.
I like arguing semantics. It's fun to catch scum in a slip in their choice of wording. I'd post a link to a specific game, but it's ongoing.KvK was based around Korts complaint regarding Kairyuu 'random' voting. I personally think it is a very silly argument, but hey, it gets discussion going. It's all based on semantics in my opinion.
I believe I've stated twice already now that the minor point of myself vs. Korts was merely an indicator light, and if I hadn't been looking elsewhere as well I would have probably ignored it for the most part.And unless i misunderstood the question, i stand by this. In my view, Korts got 'angry' at Kairyuu for random voting when he was in fact arbitrarily voting. He also didn't like that Kairyuu seemingly made a big deal out of it. I think it was very semantic of Korts, although i felt that it promoted discussion, which is good.
See above.I should point out that my 'taking your side' was purely on an argument regarding the semantics of random voting, it had nothing to do with you accusing Chaos, which i addressed in my next paragraph:
My case is weak? They are two completely different points, and one I evenNote that i made sure to seperate these 2 things, you're now trying to tie them back together to make a fairly weak case.
Your case on Chaos was 100% taken from what I said. It isn't a matter of whether or not you agreed with me. It is more that you didn't even try to put your own spin on the case.I agreed that there was some scumminess to Chaos's actions, although now that you've retracted them, I guess i now disagree with you. I still believe that his unvote was scummy, whether or not you say it is a scumtell or not.
One vote a successful bandwagon does not make. I am reasonably certain that, had others jumped on Chaos with votes, you would have been right there with them.However, I did not feel that you had built a sufficient case on Chaos to make me change my vote from Japles to Chaos. I think my quoted text speaks for itself really, I saw your point regarding Chaos but I didn't think it merited a vote, still didn't even when I went through and pointed out why i thought it was scummy with a timeline of sorts.
Nope. I addressed them separately, and your single accusation in this post (that my case is weak because one of my points was weak) is a straw man.I just want to be clear, I seperated my answers between the KvK debate and KvC debate, i think you're taking my KvK answer and applying it to the KvC debate.
I am protective of scumbuddies when I am scum. I would rather a perfect game than one where we squeak by with a single live member. I would consider random voting a scumbuddy in any game to be a stupid move, because it creates a connection that can be looked at later if one of you dies.Why is this odd? Kairyuu got accused of being linked to Chaos because he voted for him. What does he do? He makes his vote 'serious'. He then says that it would be a silly thing to do in a newbie game, however, this is a quote from the 'doc' game that this blew up over:
How does that even make logical sense? I mention it being bad play, and even site an example game, and that means that I am scum doing it? This is aPosts 50 and 68 respectively in the game i linked. So Kairyuu has changed his mind and is advocating playing differently in this game when he said clearly in the other game that ICs should play hard. Also, while it is apparently a silly move, you also send a signal to your scumbuddy to not worry about the vote by saying that when an IC scumbuddy votes a newbie it puts pressure on them. This is pretty subtle in saying that he shouldn't feel pressured, but when combined with your previous comments, it seems like a nice way to look like you're pressuring him when you're not.
First of all, repeating it does not make it true. Second of all, if you read all of my games in the order I played them you will notice major discrepancies among games of the same alignment. I am still developing a consistent playstyle. Either way, you didn't get me to do what you claim you did, and saying that you planned it all along is scummy as heck.Now i figure if i can start getting you to talk about a previous game, you'll screw up, and you did, i just didn't notice till now. You've changed your mind from 'don't treat newbies with kids gloves' to 'IC scum need to be careful not to put pressure on their partners in newbie games'. I think the reason you've changed your mind is because you're now scum.
Firstly, distancing would be my actually trying to get him lynched, which I didn't do. Hell, I unvoted when I was still the only vote on him.Wow, people start actually looking at Chaos in depth, and now the case is 'utter crap'. This is pure distancing, you lead the charge on your protege scum, then once you FORCE people to associate their vote on chaos with agreeing with you, you pull the rug out from under them, thereby destroying any scumhunting on chaos.
That was kinda the point, which I mentioned when I voted you. This is IIoA (Information Instead of Analysis), which is what approximately 80% of these first 3 posts have been. It's one of Tarhalindur's Standard Tells that I mentioned earlier, and it seems to be an attempt to make it look like you are building a huge case against me when you are creating one or two points out of thin air and OMGUSing me.Then when i reply regarding the Kairyuu vs Korts debate, you attack me for my views on the Kairyuu vs Chaos.
Saying "I agree with Kairyuu/Korts in their debate" =/= taking my case against Chaos and spitting it back out almost verbatim as your own. Different scenarios even. I didn'tYou also say that i'm buddying up to an IC, yet the argument was between 2 ICs and you asked us to take sides... You deliberately manipulated someone (me) into getting the tag of buddying up to an IC, there was no way to avoid it.
Not before your buddy can find something 'scummy' in my post though.
So because Chaos asks a question that relates in some way to what I later bring up, not only does he have to be my scumbuddy, but it has to have been a deliberate play on my part? Honestly, your points are coming out of nowhere, and they are illogical to the extreme.I respond to this, and Kairyuu takes over the 'scumhunting' for Chaos, that's nice of him, don't you think?
Think about it for a second and stop using straw men. What did I say about Chaos in theNow, fine that he changes his mind, but it seems pretty oportunistic in light of everything else to jump on someone you previously thought was 'interesting, but not scummy'.
Vote Chaos all you like. Korts still finds him suspicious and I haven't said anything to him, have I? If you are going to make generalizations then make sure they are valid. Plus, my point about distancing still stands.This all feels like amazing distancing from Kairyuu, he didn't just vote on Chaos, he pulls his vote in such a way that noone else can really vote for Chaos. I still don't feel that Chaos has defended himself adequately, and Kairyuu's defence is
An unvote after pressure could be scummy, certainly, a weak scumtell, but still scummy. However, his subsequent explanations did not seem scummy to me. Simple as that. I pressure people for reactions when I think that may be scum. Interesting to note is that you are trying to discredit me again with your mention of the rulebook.His unvote was a null tell, but could have been scummy... And when he defended himself, he got the impression that he was town, that's some pretty good scumhunting Kairyuu, thanks for sticking to your convictions like the rulebook says we should.
So I'm scum based on a case which has literally zero actual valid points? Sure thing. This is OMGUS dressed up with straw men, IIoA, and attacks on my credibility instead of actual scumtells. I am happy with my vote right where it is, and would not be adverse to lynching you right now.Kairyuu has distanced, changed his mind from his previous newbie game, and manipulated me into the tag of IC buddying. He's also effectively killed discussion regarding his previous 'suspect' based off his gut. All well and good to vote with your gut, don't destroy the possibility of us discussing it without looking scummy. Kairyuu, you're scum.
-facepalm-Why the vote for Kairyuu, other than that he's scum? Well I'm convinced of Kairyuu, but I'm still not convinced that Japles isn't scum. The other reason that Kairyuu could be coming after me is that i refuse(d) to remove my vote from Japles. I think the most likely explanation is Kairyuu/Chaos as scum, but i don't discount the possibility of Kairyuu/Japles.
No, you pretty much proved that is was by doing something very similar to what I did myself D1 in the first game I was scum (Mini Theme 658: Facedown and Thirsty Mafia, the one I played with Korts) after getting a few votes on me. I waffled for awhile and then OMGUSed on of the people voting me. I got away with it by subverting the OMGUS call, but I'll not be fooled by my own trick.I've explained why it isn't OMGUS.
So in other words, when other people agreed with me you went back and read to try to make up a case against me that might shift the wagon to me. Not gonna work.When you started taking me out of context and i started feeling manipulated, I went back and reread the thread and some of the 'doc' thread, then i posted my thoughts. You forced me to respond to your accusations, in writing them i realised how manipulative you were being.
I changed very little. I'm still pulling gambits whenever I see an opportunity and revealing them to the town. I'm still aggressively pushing my cases. And I'm still playing to catch the scum. The only reason that I didn't come right out with this one before I used it was because doing that would have invalidated it as a strategy byYou were a lot more obvious with your manipulations in your last newbie game, and you seem to have changed a lot since then, both in actions and views. Considering you were vanilla then, that doesn't bode well for you being vanilla here.
Already done. A note though. I am quite impressed by the way you are addressing me as 'scum' instead of by name now. It's quite a good intimidation tactic, and one I've used myself several times.Feel free to correct my view of OMGUS, you making a case against me where i felt manipulated and taken out of context, combined with me knowing that i'm townie, set me to looking at the person accusing me. I didn't think this is OMGUS, but i realise that you want people to think that's why I'm doing this, and i respect that, scum.
I like quicklynches. As soon as I am confident that someone is scum I want them lynched so that I can move on to the next scum. It's the way I play, and it is reasonably effective (which, of course, you know, seeing as we lynched the scum roleblocker on page 8 and had a 24 hour D2 that ended the game in Newbie 750, which you seem to only want to cite when it serves your purposes). You can stop taking jabs at my credibility already. None of them have been valid, and I highly doubt that any will.By the way, as an IC, how come that you know that a quick lynch is almost never good for town, you know i'm at L-2 (you just posted) and yet make no mention of it. Thanks for confirming my views on you.
More attacks on my credibility. This is getting pathetic. Pull the other one. It had bells on it.Kairyuu also didn't let it play out, he saw an oportunity with the doc game comment and went for it. I hadn't even voted for Chaos40 and i've 'fallen into his trap'. That's a pretty pathetic trap, if to fall into it you don't even need to vote for the bait (or even FOS for that matter)
See above.Since I'm going to bed soon, and last time i did that 3 votes came up on me, and 3 more would be 1 more than needed to hammer, i think we should have the quick-lynch talk. I personally think that one reason Kairyuu didn't post a longer reply earlier was that he was hoping you'd quick-lynch and he wouldn't have to worry about the annoyance of being questioned by me.
It essentially just means that I have been further convinced that my vote is in the right place. More of a rhetorical device than anything.@Kairyuu: Confirm vote: wasn't mentioned in the rules, what is it, a game mechanic or a rhetorical device for weight?
No. The vast majority of that post was written in my role as an IC, not my role as a player. The things I accused you of are not up for discussion. You did them, and that is that. They are scumtells, but I believe you are somewhat more likely town backed against a wall and making mistakes because you are new. I will not comment further on my list.1: Am I right in assuming this is only a newbie mistake if you're not scum?
You are really stuck on this aren't you. Everything anyone does in this game is entirely situational. In this case I saw a stronger tell coming from a different source. That tell has been dealt with to my satisfaction now, so I am moving on again.You're change from voting me to JL and Bekkatha I can understand from a townies POV, but not from the POV of someone who advocates a quicklynch.
Nope. Does switching my vote imply that? How so? I expect full explanations to both of these questions.You wanted a quicklynch, despite knowing that there were at least 2/3 people who had failed to respond, has your view on quicklynches changed?
Townies get lynched. It happens. If we had lynched you, and you had flipped town, I would be disappointed, but not overly distraught. We have 3 strikes after all.If not, since you now think i'm a newb townie, wouldn't it have a been a mistake to quicklynch me?
I am not going to just let the game stall because some people don't feel like posting. A lagging game is far worse than one where we accidentally lynch a townie D1.This is especially true given that you guys put me at L-1 without requiring a response from the 2 people you're now accusing.
Take a look back at my explanation of it, and point out to me, with quotes, where I ever said that the point was to draw a vote onto my bait. If you can do that, I'll cede my point. But, you won't find it, because that was not the goal. The goal, as I saidWhy did you think you had caught scum before they had voted for your bait, or FOS'd him even?
That was the main problem with my gambit when I made it. I didn't take that into account, and I had to adjust to the Chaos angle to strengthen it (yes, this means the final product is a weird hodgepodge of 3 different gambits).Given that you claim to be a townie, and by your own admission you looked scummy, why wouldn't a scum take the opportunity to accuse you instead of Chaos or Korts?
Wanna show me where I said that Korts was a townie. I said I believed him to be probably town based on my initial reads, so I used him as my debate opponent.You said that scum would jump on Korts because he was a townie, how did you know he was a townie?
What Japles did was not OMGUS. You lumped me in with him on page 3. He made 2 posts between the point where you accused him and the one where he voted you. OMGUS would imply that as soon as you accused him (more like voted, because that is what OMGUS is more often associated with) he went and built a case against you that culminated in a vote. He addressed your points, but didn't vote you until later. That is not OMGUS. His reason was crap and utterly destroyed my town read on him, but I prefer to work on one front at a time.He voted for me after I lumped him in with you and Chaos as a passing reference, considering your crusade against OMGUS, do you think this was OMGUS from him?
He gave a reason, but the reason was crap. I think he is suspicious, but not enough to warrant my vote or attention right now.What do you think about him putting someone at L-1 with no reasoning given?
Dunno. Wasn't paying attention to that debate. He should have addressed you points, but I don't know the exact situation (and am too lazy to go look it up right now) so I can't comment fully.What do you think about his failure to actually address any of the problems that I've brought up, and just vote for me?
That's what I said:I said you didn't respond to some of my points, not that you didn't respond to some of my posts.
Kairyuu wrote:Secondly, it has not been the length of your posts that has kept me from responding to all of your points
Suit yourself. I like the long posts, and except for one time I've gone through and responded to everything.And I'm changing my style because it doesn't seem to be working. People aren't responding to what I'm saying regarding you and others, and people like Japles are getting away with brushing huge posts off with no regard. I don't know if it's the others in the game, or if it's because of my style, but if I try a different style and nothing changes, at least I know it's the people, and not my style. This is a learning game, I think it's the time to try out some things to see what is most effective.
If you present the scenario then you are making an accusation. If you are not making a direct accusation, then you are trying to see if anyone else takes it up and pushes it.I was so engrossed with huge posts I missed this little nugget of misrepresentation. Automatic assumption? Of what that the IC's are scum buddies? I presented it as a scenario, yes, but not my definitive point of view.
How have I exonerated anyone? Is it D2, and am I a claimed cop with an innocent on Korts? If not, then I have not done anything but express my opinion on a fellow player.I found it odd how you chose someone for your trap, when you could have no way of knowing who is scum and who is not. In fact, you are guilty of exonerating both IC's: Yourself, because no one claims scum and Korts because of his use in your trap.
Yes it is. I took the setupAs to the math of both IC's or any two players randomly selected, being scum is irrefutable. However what you did is not the same.
You cannot look at it from an in-game perspective. That skews the numbers, because it factors in alignment of the player making the argument, which is ambiguous to everyone else, and therefore makes the numbers subjective and therefore wrong.As a townie, not knowing anything else and looking in on the scenario you've presented, we see that there is 2/8 or 1/4 chance that a person picked at random is scum and a 1/7 chance that the scum is picked randomly from the remaining players. 1/4 * 1/7 = 3.57% better but not good odds.
Why are you trying to raise random odds? Is there a purpose for you to want to prove it likely that two people are scum based on random chance?But can we increase the odds?
Hypocrite. You accused me of 'exonerating' Korts by using him in my gambit, but yet you then claim that people should trust you because you are making a scenario involving random numbers? Are you serious?Of course, this townie player assumes the good intentions of the scenario creator, therefore giving 2/7 chance that the first person picked at random is scum while the chances that the second person picked is 1/6 as scum. Therefore 2/7 * 1/6 = 4.76% better still! However shockingly slim chances.
No to the first, and yes to the second. However, I don't like to gambit as scum, as I have stated over and over again. It is too risky, and puts my teammates in a terrible position if it fails.Let's assume you are scum, would you risk losing a team member in order to sail all the way to the endgame? Perhaps. Would you chose two townies to guarantee a scum favorable lynch? More likely.
Well duh. I never said that my word was law. I expressed my reads, and nothing more. If Chaos or Korts is scum, then that is just one more uncontrollable variable intrinsic to gambiting. There is no surefire solution for catching scum. If there was, then this wouldn't be much of a game, now would it?I am not saying you are scum, what I am suggesting is that the trap you so carefully crafted has a fatal flaw. The assumption that even with a bad argument against them, the second accused player is not scum. You have no way of confirming that.
No. No he hasn't. his defenses have been weak and scummy, and if this was anything but a newbie game I would still be pushing.I can see your reasoning behind Sando's wagon, but he's acquitted himself quite well.
Nope. Can you point to where I said they were?Are first impressions more important than well reasoned argument?
PBPA is correct. Also, this is wishy-washy. Don't comment on a situation without reading it first. Also, why is it that you claim that Sando has acquitted himself when you haven't read his responses to my accusations?Honestly slogging through the huge ?PBPA?, is that right, is rough going. But hopefully after a more thorough reread I will find that Sando's arguments may be strong or they may be weak.
More wishy-washy-ness.I however am not in a rush to lynch him based on a flawed trap. If upon reread, I find the results satisfactory then the flawed setup can be ignored, ends justified the means.
Nope. I'm trying to point out bad logic and weak arguments as well as providing my own points. I'm attempting to keep myself polite. If I'm failing then please tell me, because it is not my intention to be rude.'Kay. I'm beginning to have a hard time figuring out Kairyuu.
I don't know if he's irritated at us naughty newbies or what.
Nope. That's wrong. The question was whether or not my views about quicklynches had changed (aka. do I not support that view anymore). My answer was that no, I had not changed my views (quicklynches are still good in my eyes). I merely changed my vote, and asked if that implied somehow that I changed my views, as was being claimed by Sando.This isn't addressed to me, but because I have also noticed this I really feel like pointing out two older quotes of yours, Kai. I hope I understood right that you were saying nope to wanting quicklynches in the previous quote.
Good point. I misread his point. When I went back just now I saw that he was presenting "me" as the "scenario creator," not himself as I originally thought.English isn't my first language so it's possible that I misunderstood Infinis, but it really looks to me like you did. Don't understand at all where he suggested that he should be trusted.
You have these sources:We cannot believe you though just because you say so "over and over again". Or because Korts has one game of scum-meta from you. On this I comment mostly because of the overtone.
I pointed out that his assumption did not work with the math, and he went up in arms trying to defend himself when there was no accusation of scumminess in my math bit.Regarding your talk on the overdefensiveness of Infinis, can you elaborate overdefensiveness over what?
Japles isn't interesting to me right now. He is scummy, yes, but not as much so as Infinis, so I am focusing on the scummier target. It's just the way I do things.And why is this more noteworthy than Japles's behaviour, which to me seems like defensiveness directly related to his own persona?
They keep the game moving. Getting bogged down in weeks and weeks of arguments is boring, and gives the scum longer to influence people's reads. I prefer to let the scum have as little Day influence as possible, limiting them to Night game to redice their effectiveness.What I'd like to ask though, is that why do you like quicklynches?
Meh. I changed my mind. People do that all the time. I would regret lynching Sando if he flipped town, but I'm still not 100% on him, or on anyone for that matter. It's all a matter of comparison.You now say you think Sando is more likely town than scum. So from your perspective, if you're a townie, your judgment has changed quite a lot due to some more discussion.
No worries. I didn't read it that way.Looking back, I think I was actually a little rude there. I do appreciate your ICing.
Obviously you should take everything with a grain of salt. And this gambit is more complicated than the doc one, even if it wan't as large-scale. Hell, the doc gambit was the largest scale gambit I've ever made.re: your gambiting meta: ok, thanks. I'll glance at those, though I'm still undecided on how much credit it is wise to give to meta (also this gambit really wasn't drastic like the doc one in N750).
General Patton was a strong holder of the belief that a good offense is the best defense. His completely unwarrented attack against me for a comment that was not even close to an accusation, followed by an extremely weak justification of that attack amounts to a pointless defense against a non-attack. That's the way I see it at least.I read his post again carefully and generally the part I where I didn't follow you was about defending himself.
He was attempting to disprove my math for most of his pot, not attack my gambit. My gambit had nothing to do with the math at all.Other than that it was math and pointing at what he thought were flaws in your gambit.
Happy Birthday! Take all the time you need.I'll try and get something comprehensive later, but it's my birthday today, I might not have time for a day or 2.
I covered this already. That doesn't work because it is tainted by alignment. Assuming a townie is doing that, yes, the math works out, but assuming scum is making the prediction, they know with 100% certainty whether their choices are scum or not. You can't have subjective math and actually try to trust it.Regarding the maths, Inifinis does have a point in that you need to work out the 'random 2' using 8 players instead of 9. Obviously you're not going to include yourself in that. So the chances of picking any 2 people completely randomly and them being scum are: 2/8 x 1/7 = 3.57%
That doesn't look quite right. If you assume I am a townie (again, getting into subjective math) then if I pick two people randomly, they each have an independant 25% chance of being scumHowever, i was thinking, and this was in relation to Kai's gambit, what are the chances that he randomly picked 2 people and 1 or both were scum? I haven't done maths in a while, but it would seem to be 1-(6/8 x 5/7) = 46.43% chance that of the 2 people you randomly pick, 1 or both will be scum.
Please expand upon both points mentioned here in your next comprehensive post. I have a sneaking suspicion that your predisposition to be being scum (given by the fact that you are still voting me), will lend to your thinking that anything I say will either be forced or weak.Infinis did tend to falter off after he got 3.57% and started bringing in completely arbitrary numbers, which could be him trying to 'force' the numbers to give him the result that he wants. Seems a bit dodgy, but I also think Kai's case against him is pretty forced.
Depends on my mood. Generally I use them on my second or third on my scumlist, but I'm trying to keep my attention focused on one at a time this game, as a sort of test to see if I can manage it.I think the flip flopping on your vote Kai should be noted. I guess you don't FoS anyone? Straight to vote?
How is it OMGUS if you haven't decided whether or not I'm scummy? You haven't voted, or even FOSed me yet, and your entire 'accusation' concludes with you not being sure if I'm town or scum. Besides the fact that that attitude is fence-sitting, and scummy, it doesn't amount to anything in the line of something that could draw an OMGUS.I defended myself against a misrep. If you thought it little so be it, but I thought it was a good launching point for my discussion of the gambit. OMGUS voting me, really... as an IC?
I have to take you at face value. You like aggressive play and sometimes end up flailing.
Hence why my vote was not OMGUS.I am still pondering scum versus town.
Yup. Sorry 'bout that.I take it that this is a typo and should say “your predisposition to ME being scum”.
I don't remember saying that his math was an attempt to incriminate me (though I may be wrong, since I'm not bothering to look it up at the moment).So while I think that his maths is fatally flawed, I think it is not a scummy attempt to make you look like scum.
I also don't remember accusing him of that. Quite the opposite. I believe it was him who accused me of misrepresenting his point, which was extremely minor, and my 'misrep' didn't even contain an accusation.I also think he’s misunderstood your gambit, not misrepresented it, and I think I’ve had quite a bit of experience with the different this game
Yep. There's that. He sounds like he's trying to decide which position to take, but hasn't figured out which one will benefit him most (aka. a scummy motive for his actions, one of the best tells out there).The second point against Infinis, the much more telling in my view, is his defence of me “he’s acquitted himself quite well”, followed by “But hopefully after a more thorough reread I will find that Sando's arguments may be strong or they may be weak”. These 2 almost directly contradict each other.
Pushing = pressure. Pressure is accomplished through votes. I throw my vote around to provide pressure sometimes. This is not one of those times, but it still fits the bill. The best way to get someone to do something that they are unlikely to do is to build a wagon, because then they feel the pressure of an imminent lynch, and are more likely to comply (yes, strong arm tactics are fun).I don’t think we need to vote him right now, I think we need to push him to provide his comprehensive re-read, and analyse that.
Sorta. I can't figure out if he's attacking me or not, since he keeps going for it and then backing off and trying to pacify me in the same post (another example of trying to play both sides of the argument to see which one will be better for him in the long run).As to your case against Infinis, you accused him of making an accusation against you, which you seem to have taken back now?
Hmm. It seems we are having a problem communicating. This math stuff that I'm using has nothing to do with my gambit. It was a purely theoretical exercise to show that Infinis' original assumption (that both ICs were scum) has a very lowe probability of actually being the case. His response post brought in the gambit, but that is a separate thing altogether.I think he was more trying to point out why he didn’t agree with your gambit and its results.
Ojanen pointed out that I misread the point I accused him of being a hypocrite over. I dropped that point entirely.You said he was being a ‘hypocrite’, when what he was doing was not hypocritical, he was just wrong in what he did.
I don't think that wishy-washiness is the best phrase for it now that I think about it. More like playing both sides of the argument.And lastly you attack him for wishi-washiness
Really? Where? Another thing I don't remember doing (perhaps I'm just tired).this seems to be your new catchphrase, you’re accusing all of us of it,
Totally different situations. Playing both sides of the same point and not following through with something you say you'll do are different things. Both can imply scumminess, but they are not the same tell.I really don’t buy it at all as a tell. If he claims he’ll do something and doesn’t do it, then it’s a tell, but give him time to finalise his thoughts.
Understood and agreed.This was pretty much all that had been posted when I made my comment, more has been posted since, but you can’t hold me accountable for what gets said after I’ve said it. I don’t want to write too much more on this right now, if you want clarification ask for it, otherwise I’m waiting for Infinis to provide a more detailed re-read.
As a said somewhere in this post already, my math was not based around my gambit and the likelyhood of using scum as bait, it was simply to show that assuming both ICs to be scum is foolish and doesn't go with what the actual, random math says.Well, actually, not really, I think we agree on the maths, just not how to apply it. You feel that you should take the point of view when randomly picking 2 people, that you don’t assume that you’re townie. This basically means that you’ve decided to run your gambit before you get your PM on role. 2 things: 1, you still have to change the maths, as not only wouldn’t you choose yourself, but for the sake of the gambit, you couldn’t. 2, you’ve stated you wouldn’t run the gambit (or any gambit for that matter) as scum, therefore you must assume that you are a townie for the purposes of the maths. These aren’t subjective statements, they’re practical, logical, objective reasonings for why it should not include you in the maths.
I think that's a bit off, but you're close. Since you're trying to figure out the % chance of including scum, you need to look at it from the side of the scum. You have a 1/4 chance that the first will be scum, and a 1/4 chance that the second will, assuming the variables to be independant (which we must, because it is an 'or' statement). From there I think we can just add the variables, giving us a 2/4, or 50% chance that one of them is scum (with no calculation being necessary for both, because if 1 is scum, then it fulfills the criteria of 'one or more') assuming completely random chance, and assuming that the person making the gambit is town.As to my actual maths being right. Well my take was this, you pick 1 person out of 8 first up, you have a 75% chance that they will be townie. Now you choose another person, you have a 5 in 7 chance of them being townie (71.43%). Therefore you have 71.43% x 75% chance of them both being townie, or 53.57% chance. Therefore, you have a 46.43% chance of it being something else, ie 1 or both being scum.
Odd. Thought I mentioned that there was no hurry. Guess I forgot.I’m still pretty busy, I’ll post more later tonight after I get back, prolly around 12 hours assuming i'm not too drunk, this is getting epically long anyway. But when you ask for clarification of points, clarification you get
Huh? Explain please. I don't understand what you're trying to say here.My initial reaction is that Sando and Kai are not in some kind of gambit.
As town that is a terrible attitude. As scum that's a good way to get caught being noncommittal.As for any other conclusions, the waters are muddy and the fence is quite a good seat to try and sort things out from.
Yup. I know. I'm not exactly at the top of my game here, and I'm really struggling to get good reads on most players.Unfortunately the jumping around of his vote seems noncommittal just as bad as the fence sitting he accuses me of.
This is mildly contradictory. You state that the case against Sando is good, but you vote Korts for falling behind? I'm not saying you should vote for Sando, but if you're gonna vote someone, at least do it over a scumtell.Kai's case against Sando is good, not manipulative. Sando's defense and Kai's counterattack need a second reread.
So to my vote, three nothing posts in the past 8 days? Vote: korts
That's exactly the problem. If someone does that, then they are making an assumption about alignment that has nothing to do with play. The simple fact that the person makes an argument about math, you would assume them town, which is bad.And finally, I have to recover from the term "subjective math". Wow just wow. You have to assume that the voter is town, since a scum knows his scum buddies and has no need to guess who is scum.
OK. I see where I went wrong, but you are neglecting the possibility that scum was hit the first time. Wouldn't you have to branch your numbers to 5/7 OR 6/7? giving you 71% OR 86% on the second shot? I don't take statistics, so I'm working off of logical deduction here, but that way makes more sense to me, and I don't know how I could combine the two possibilities.A townie has 6 possible town player votes out of the 8 players remaining
Therefore, 6/8 or 75% chance that the townie does not find scum on his first pick.
We eliminate this first voted player from the players selection pool, so we have 7 choices left. Therefore, 5/7 or ~=71% chance that the townie does not find scum with his second pick.
I absolutely despise this excuse. It's a total cop out for overreacting, and allows you to do a total about-face when things start heating up. You need to take responsibility for your own arguments.I agree it was minor but this is day 1 and we have little to go on.
Elaborate please.Also, based on Kairyuu's timings of bringing his cases to the table, I wouldn't find the scumteam Kairyuu/Japles unlikely.
He jumped straight into a dialogue with me, and his points were solid for the most part. That, and his posts read as if he were honestly looking out for the best interests of the town.Kairyuu, what gave you a pretty decent read of Korts is his first posts?
It forces you to make assumptions. I don't like making assumptions, because they open up all sorts of problems.What is wrong with trying on and describing the subjective math perspective - "if he is town then how much sense do these actions and assumptions make?" I'd think that's a standard tool of thought to evaluate if someone's behaviour is consistent.
I addressed this in my last post before I saw this one. Japles has moved up dramatically on my scumlist after my reread, and I would be happy to lynch either him or Infinis today.The whole Japles/Kairyuu thing is disturbing me a hell of a lot. Japles actions throughout have been really odd, Japles agreement that he was ‘just trying to fit it’ seemed incredibly scummy, but it got pushed to the sidelines when the whole Kai vs Sando thing blew up. Japles then put me at L-1 with absolutely no reasoning, and when pushed on it provided none either.
When I questioned Kai on this, he was having none of it, absolutely refused to post anything regarding Japles.
Kairyuu wrote:
Kairyuu wrote:He gave a reason, but the reason was crap. I think he is suspicious, but not enough to warrant my vote or attention right now.
The reason Japles gave wasn’t crap, it was utter crap, there was absolutely nothing to it. Kai has been voting people left and right since then, but Japles has somehow avoided his attention, despite this obvious problem. It really does make very little sense, unless they’re scum together.
Korts is an active player, and was active in the beginning of the game. Enough so that I got a good, solid, town read on him. His 'active lurking' has been him apologizing for taking so long to catch up. As I have had a situation where RL has gotten to me badly enough that I was V/LA for 3 weeks once before, I can sympathize with him. There is no reason to disbelieve that he has merely had a rough time getting caught up like he has said. His posts have been non-game-related (since they reference why he's been away), and therefore can be taken at face value and viewed outside of the lense of alignment. I trust that Korts will be back with us and posting (or will request replacement if he cannot come back) soon.The other thing I wanted to bring up (but i think Infinis beat me to this one) is that I can’t work out the whole Korts and Kairyuu thing now. Kairyuu has attacked Josh Lyman and Bekkatha (now Millar13) for inactivity, yet completely ignores the pretty obvious active-lurking of Korts. Korts has been around and posting the odd small thing, with no substance, since his last substance post on the 2nd of April, where he voted me. Now I know that from reading Kai’s previous games and his reacting to Josh and Bekkatha, he has a pretty dim view of people lurking and is a strong advocate of it being a scumtell, yet he hasn’t even mentioned Korts lurking. Personally I feel we have some time to give to Korts to reply, but I’m very surprised that Kairyuu hasn’t brought up Korts yet has attacked the other 2 for lurking.
He said he was having some trouble in RL, and that he would be back soon after it was sorted out. This has nothing to do with alignment, and I therefore dropped my vote, because there was an out of game reason for the lurking. However, he never came back after saying he would, so my suspicion of him is beginning to increase again.On the subject of attacking people for lurking, I thought that Kai let Josh L off the hook incredibly easily. Josh L posted a 2 sentence explanation and Kai was happy to accept that immediately, no questions asked. I honestly can’t understand this from the point of view of either a townie or a scum, Kai, can you please explain why you didn’t push Josh any harder, maybe get him to provide some input when he can?
Hence why I told people to take it with a grain of salt. The fact that this is a Newbie game kinda throws me off after the last one. My gameplay ethics tell me that as scum I should never gambit in a Newbie game, because it puts unnecessary pressure on my scumbuddy, whether I include him/her in the gambit or not. However, that contradicts with my view that I shouln't hold anything back just because it is a Newbie game, and causes all sorts of problems for me. So yeah, I won't stop you from thinking that I may have gambited as scum, but after the game, once alignments are no longer an issue, I will reaffirm that I hate gambiting as scum, and would probably never take the risk.Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:13 am Post subject: 137
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damn rugby, not only did that Tahs lose, but now Ojanen has competely beaten me to the post.
The whole Japles/Kairyuu thing is disturbing me a hell of a lot. Japles actions throughout have been really odd, Japles agreement that he was ‘just trying to fit it’ seemed incredibly scummy, but it got pushed to the sidelines when the whole Kai vs Sando thing blew up. Japles then put me at L-1 with absolutely no reasoning, and when pushed on it provided none either.
When I questioned Kai on this, he was having none of it, absolutely refused to post anything regarding Japles.
Kairyuu wrote:
He gave a reason, but the reason was crap. I think he is suspicious, but not enough to warrant my vote or attention right now.
The reason Japles gave wasn’t crap, it was utter crap, there was absolutely nothing to it. Kai has been voting people left and right since then, but Japles has somehow avoided his attention, despite this obvious problem. It really does make very little sense, unless they’re scum together.
The other thing I wanted to bring up (but i think Infinis beat me to this one) is that I can’t work out the whole Korts and Kairyuu thing now. Kairyuu has attacked Josh Lyman and Bekkatha (now Millar13) for inactivity, yet completely ignores the pretty obvious active-lurking of Korts. Korts has been around and posting the odd small thing, with no substance, since his last substance post on the 2nd of April, where he voted me. Now I know that from reading Kai’s previous games and his reacting to Josh and Bekkatha, he has a pretty dim view of people lurking and is a strong advocate of it being a scumtell, yet he hasn’t even mentioned Korts lurking. Personally I feel we have some time to give to Korts to reply, but I’m very surprised that Kairyuu hasn’t brought up Korts yet has attacked the other 2 for lurking.
On the subject of attacking people for lurking, I thought that Kai let Josh L off the hook incredibly easily. Josh L posted a 2 sentence explanation and Kai was happy to accept that immediately, no questions asked. I honestly can’t understand this from the point of view of either a townie or a scum, Kai, can you please explain why you didn’t push Josh any harder, maybe get him to provide some input when he can?
I also need to explain my stupid posting of meta gaming and poker. It was in relation to Kai’s defence of his gambit, and his claim that he never gambits as scum. Well, I play a bit of poker, and anyone with a passing knowledge of the game knows about bluffing. There are 2 good opportunities for people to bluff in poker, when noone knows your playstyle at the start of a game, and later once you’ve developed a playstyle and can make people believe you’re following it.
Now Kai is well aware, especially given that I brought it up as a part of ‘The Slip’, that anyone in this game can go back and look at his previous games, so the option of bluffing when noone knows his playstyle is denied to him, althoughhe did try to claim that he doesn’t have a defined playstyle at one point, something he later contradicts with his claim that he never gambits as scum, but you know…
That just leaves him the option of convincing us that he’s following his ‘normal’ playstyle while he does something else. This is the classic bluff, you play your 4-3 offsuit cards the same way as you normally play your A-K, convincing people that you have the A-K when in fact you have the 4-3. You can’t do this very often, but if you do it sparingly, it can be devastating, and almost impossible to pick.
What I’m trying to say is that you cannot just assume that because someone is playing the same way as they usually do, that they are the same alignment. It would be perfectly normal for a good player to set up a ‘normal’ persona for themselves so that they can bluff effectively as scum. If someone can’t act as their own ‘normal’ persona as scum, then they wont last long in this game.
Kai’s claim of ‘I never gambit as scum, therefore since I gambit’ed this game I’m not scum’, cannot be taken at face value. Firstly, he could be bluffing as stated above, and secondly, it wasn’t much of a gambit, he didn’t risk his partner unless his partner is either Korts or Chaos, although he claims this is the main reason he wouldn’t gambit.
So does that mean that you'd like to lynch Japles, and then me tomorrow if he flips scum? I think he'll flip scum, but I'm a bit wary of the Kairyuu lynch for tomorrow. I really don't think he's scum.All in all, I’ve changed my mind from Kai/Chaos to Kai/Japles, and the more I look at it, the more I think Japles is scum, and Kai just refusing to get drawn into a comment on Japles seems really dodgy as well. I’m open to comments on either at the moment, Ojanen certainly seems to be set of Japles more than Kai, that’s ok with me, although I would like to hear more from other people.
I didn't like the math, but I didn't accuse him of using it to make me look scummy. I voted him for the points that I've mentioned, nothing more.I thought it was pretty much implied. You attacked him over his maths and conclusions drawn from it, then voted him, I figured this was a fairly strong indication that you found his post and maths scummy.
To buy yourself time before you have to take a side.True, but I don’t see why he’d say it. Why would you say anything like that if you were scum.
At the moment, neither. Now that you aren't being accused anymore you are making quite decent arguments, and are being very direct about it.Fine, but you’ve accused both me and Infinis of being Wishi-Washy, do you still think I’m being wishi-washi with my posts or am I playing both sides?
QFT. If we let it get to a day or two before deadline, then there is a very much reduced likelyhood that we can coordinate properly and actually get a lynch. People need to talk NOW!We have a week till deadline. We need everyone talking. Considering prodding and replacements have gone out, failure to participate must be seen in a harsher light than it has up until now. We can’t have discussions between 3-4 people and expect to get a meaningful D1 lynch.
Sounds about right. I'll just have to convince you to help me lynch Infinis then, now won't I?I'm doing this because outside of the link to Japles, I'm no longer all that sure on Kai. Considering this, if Japles turns town, which i doubt, but if he does, I at least will think much more townie of Kai. If he turns Scum, then I'm going to have to be really convinced not to lynch Kai. But either way, we learn something.
If we were to lynch Kai, and he turned scum, then we've linked him to Japles and can lynch Japles. But if Kai turns town, then we haven't learned anything about the scum.
I think what I'm basically blabbering about is what I think Korts said earlier, links tend to go 1 way. I think the link ties Kai to Japles, not the other way round.
Sounds about right. I think Josh may have forgotten about us though, and may need a replacement soon.Yep, fair enough, he seems to be in the same boat as Korts. The difference I see is that Korts has promised a re-read and comments, Josh hasn't as far as i know. It seems that you don't need to push Korts as much as Josh, Korts realises his responsibilities and will get to them when he can, Josh is a newbie along with us and might not realise it.
Yup. Absolutely right there. My oversight may yet cost me my first legitimate pro-town lynch (I don't count the one where I replaced in at L-2 and wasn't able to swing the wagon off).Kai's tone seems quite mild, but if Japles is scum and it's all a coincidence then I must say it's a hell of a coincidence.
661 is where I first saw it used/helped with it, and it worked there. 750 was a failed attempt.I saw the game breaking plan in the 750, but I don't understand this.
Yup. Typo caused by mention of Infinis in the previous paragraph probably.Did you mean to write Japles instead of Infinis to the second paragraph?
) Meh. I think the Chaos kill was probably either randomly determined, or chosen because once Chaos was out of the limelight he sorta faded off a bit, which seems a bit like doctor play. Forgot to mention that apparently. Oh well.he mentions that scum must have been power role hunting, but doesn't mention at all that Chaos acted like a power role--in a very general sense, cops act aggressively and hop wagons, while doctors try to stay as much in the background as possible while still helping town.
Not baseless. I mentioned several times throughout D1 that I think you are likely town, and thus am functioning on the assumption that you are. YouAlso, Kairyuu, in stating that he's suspicious of millar partly because both ICs are alive, made the baseless assumption that I am town; this is a possible scumslip.
Josh was absent during the Night Phase. There was only one scum left alive during said Night Phase. With Josh inactive, he could not have submitted the kill, and therefore assuming him to be scum there is no explanation for the fact that a kill went through. Therefore, discarding the absurd (I love Zeno's Method), we can safely say that Josh cannot be scum. He is confirmed town; moreso that even you or Ojanen, because the bussing issue does not come into play (though I would consider it extremely foolish to risk bussing heavily D1 in any setup).although I'm not going to discount Josh L just yet.
My gambit was terribly flawed and failed miserably. What of it? Take a look at the actual gambit and take a look at the best scum indicator in the book, motivation. Prove my motivation for the gambit was scummy and you prove my gambit scummy. Saying that your biggest problem with it is that it was meant to involve only townies (a variable that I have absolutely no hard knowlege of until after the game, making it purely speculative anyway) and then calling that a scumtell is utter craplogic. Find something that actually makes sense as a point please.The biggest problem I see with the gambit is that it apparently, and is supposed to, have only townies involved in it. The 3 people are Chaos, Korts and Kai himself.
Why is this a point in your case when it had no relevence in the first place. I acted stupid to draw Korts into an argument (via the vagueness and deliberate baiting on one or two points). The 'scumminess' was directed entirely at Korts, and I didn't expect anyone else to pick up on it, which they didn't, so that bit worked out just fine. It served its purpose, and until you can prove that drawing Korts into my gambit was scummy, this point is null.Kai deliberately acted scummy, yet expected a scum to go after his target, despite the fact that in Kai a scum would have an easy attack on a townie acting scummy.
How many times do I have to tell you that the Korts bit was not the true function of the gambit. Scum would see neither me nor Korts as an easy enough target, due to the fact that we were both ICs, but would likely have no problem at all going after Chaos, who we were ganging up on. That was the main focus, not the Kairyuu v. Korts bit.It makes no sense for a scum to do anything other than go after Kai.
Hell, I don't even remember what this "slip" that everyone was so hyped up about even was. The trap was my focus, not any sort of slipup. It obviously didn't work. Oh well. Being poorly designed does not make it scummy. Being poorly designed with obvious intent for it to be so (aka. not knowing what to expect upon its enactment and just going with whatever) is what makes a gambit scummy. It's all in the intentions, which you really need to start looking for.I still think that the trap was designed to be very ambiguous, pretty much anyone saying anything could have been accused using it. I think that Kai saw the opportunity with ‘The Slip’ and decided to throw some fuel on the fire using the trap.
I maintain that it was, and will continue to do so post-game.Kai quickly set up my counter-argument as OMGUS, when it wasn’t
Bullshit. I disproved every single one of your points as flawed.Has consistently attacked my attack itself, not the arguments.
I provided solid evidence of each and every one of those points. I back my statements up when I make them, so accusing me of not doing so isn't gonna work.He’s called it OMGUS, a misrepresentation (without any evidence of this), and an attack on his credibility:
Thanks for the quote list. Now do something with it. Prove that those statements are scummy, rather than true. If you're gonna provide quotes out of context then you could at least use them in some way. There is no argument here, and therefore no point made by putting this in here. It's more fluff with no purpose. I've said before and I'll say again, you need to do more than post filler.These are all quotes from Kai
- “You're complete and total obsession with discrediting me is noted, and will be commented on fully in an hour or three once I finish my post.”
- “I wouldn't. See above. Stop trying to discredit me.”
- “OK. So after reading that entire post, all I got was that it was irrelevant waffle and a shot at my credibility. If this is part of your full case then you need to rethink it.”
- “From this post all I got was more waffle and another attempt at an attack on my credibility, this time by calling my case weak and then just reiterating your own actions.”
- “More attacks on my credibility. This is getting pathetic. Pull the other one. It had bells on it.”
- “Instead of actively trying to disprove my case, you came at my credibility as an IC, which irritated me to no end.”
- “however, your implication that this has been an ongoing thing instead of simply one post made while pressed for time is still not appreciated”
See above. Unless you are calling these statements scummy (and unless you provide reasons why they are then you aren't doing that) then there is no reason for them to be here. And of course, that's besides the fact that you ignored the cases contained in the same posts as these quotes.Has made some very definitive statements with nothing to back them up:
- “Oh, and thanks for the OMGUS by the way. It definitely tells me I hit this one out of the park. confirm vote: Sando”
- “As soon as you were accused, you immediately went back to dig up anything you could find on your accuser. This is a very bad idea, because it opens you up to all sorts of OMGUS accusations” - Which he took full advantage of.
- “The things I accused you of are not up for discussion. You did them, and that is that.”
- “He gave a reason, but the reason was crap. I think he is suspicious, but not enough to warrant my vote or attention right now.”
Well duh. I was pissed off because you weren't attacking me for being scummy based on my actions, you were making baseless attacks on my character and credibility as an IC. How would you feel if someone just walked into a board meeting you are part of an started calling you incompetant? I'm willing to bet you'd get pretty irritated.The emotive appeals regarding attacks on credibility especially seem pretty scummish.
This is literally theKai is very linked to Japles, read post 140 from Ojanen, it illustrates it perfectly, any further comment from me would merely be restating what she said. This is easily the strongest thing for Kai being scum, he admits it himself. Just because I’m not writing much on it doesn’t mean I think this is minor.
So because you now see a distinct possibility of getting me lynched you have decided to take the side of the person most likely to help you. Nice. Totally not scummy at all.The beginning of the now defunct gambit. IN hindsight both ends are garbage. In fact if I was forced to decide which is scummier I'd say the attack on Korts, for the random number problem, which I believe is a null tell.
10+ games of experience on this site, and a good bit of theory discussion with some of the other players both inside and outside of games, that's where it came from. If you want to bring up a counterexample with similar credentials then go ahead, but otherwise there was absolutely no reason to disregard that bit, especially since you were totally on the fence about theMy underline. Where did this reasoning come from? It didn't hold water so I dismissed your @all request
"Look everyone, I know how to restate what other people have already said!"Here is the explanation for springing the "trap" early and some metagame arguments from a previous game. Funny the first person you exonerate is Japles, with the obvious escape clause at the beginning of the sentence.
I'm calling your bluff, scum. You have no case, but now that it's clear where the wind is blowing you feel safe in getting off the fence and hopping straight onto my case with nothing original to add yourself.After this wall of text throwing every logic/debating term kai could find at Sando, I frankly was wondering where the real case was against Sando other than thinking he had only OMGUS and fallacies in his defense of Kai's attacks.
Funny. You had maybe 8 lines of text in that entire thing and you're acting like you just wrote a book. All you did was quote my posts. That's nothing special.OK breathe, and Ill get back to business
I never exonerated Korts, I called your mistake on assuming an IC scumteam being likely. You blew that totally out of proportion, and disproved nothing. Your math was off because it assumed yourself town, which the rest of the town does not know. However, we've been over this, and it has no relevance anymore.This post bothers me 1. Math is Math but to exhonerate someone based on a low probability, which I disprove later, is a little wonky but hey not scummy in my book.
You are totally not understanding what those points were mentioned for. I wasHowever the condensed argument thing against Sando is scummy. You never point out exactly what you're refering to. Linking the quote and then misrep of it by Sando. It was just a speech, a good one mind you, very convincing, but your gambit had devolved into who's a better player, I am so I'm right. When it should have attacked actual quotes from your opponent.
Lurkers piss me off, and I had done a 180 on Sando. Why would I attack someone I don't find scummy any more?I still dont understand the Josh vote here. After all that effort on Sando, you go for Josh?
Except for a select few instances where I didn't have time, I have responded directly to everything anyone has said to me.This post is much better, I disagree with your opinions but at least your responding directly.
How is itAnd yet a third vote is strange to me. It seems that whenever someone has something to say about you, you decide its time to dig up everything you can about them, the exact same thing you accused Sando of doing!
Why the hell did you need to quote the first ones? You could have just said "Kairyuu's post X was this, and I have these problems with it. Kairyuu's post Y I find scummy because of A, B, and C." Considering how little you are actually commenting on in those posts, there is literally no reason to quote the whole posts.I would go on and go post by post but I;d have to spoilerize the rest (which I usually dont click myself, or drop more enormous posts.
That's not attacking my credibility. That's attacking my case, and it perfectly fine with me. You're wrong, but my irritation at that is mostly at myself for screwing up the gambit so badly.I meant to attack your ‘credibility’ on 2 things, and as far as I’m aware this is all I attacked your credibility regarding:
1: The gambit, it’s premise and it’s result.
I'm not irritated at your attacking my gambit. In fact, I'm glad you did, because the ensuing debate convinced me of your towniness.Why shouldn’t I have attacked you on it? Don’t get pissy that I’m attacking your credibility when you know that my attack, in this instance, was completely valid. Not to mention, I have to wonder what would be thought of your gambit if I hadn't pushed so hard on it. Somehow I doubt you'd be so open about it being flawed and a failure if I hadn't attacked on it so hard.
Meh. I also didn't get irritated about that. Liking quicklynches isn't the most common trait around here, so it's a perfectly valid concern.2: Quicklynch, you can get pissed over this, fine, I was trying to get some discussion going on it.
Why would you do it as Scum Kairyuu? For interests sake? To try it out, see how it goes? Since it worked so brilliantly the first time, why not try it out as scum? You're playing a game after all, the way to get better at it is to try new things.
Posts 50 and 68 respectively in the game i linked. So Kairyuu has changed his mind and is advocating playing differently in this game when he said clearly in the other game that ICs should play hard. Also, while it is apparently a silly move, you also send a signal to your scumbuddy to not worry about the vote by saying that when an IC scumbuddy votes a newbie it puts pressure on them. This is pretty subtle in saying that he shouldn't feel pressured, but when combined with your previous comments, it seems like a nice way to look like you're pressuring him when you're not.
Those all include you essentially saying that I'm being a bad IC. The fact that none of them are valid doesn't matter, you are still attacking my credibility as an IC, rather than attacking my case.His unvote was a null tell, but could have been scummy... And when he defended himself, he got the impression that he was town, that's some pretty good scumhunting Kairyuu, thanks for sticking to your convictions like the rulebook says we should.
Posting my quotes in the correct order would be useful. I determinedFollowed by outlining why your gambit had caught me, and starting a nice little bandwagon on me.
Seems like you've done some fabricating of your own.
(insert 12 page post here)GUYS
PLEASE TRY TO BE SUCCINT IN MAKING YOUR POINT
OTHERWISE I WILL STAY FOUR PAGES BEHIND FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE
And then when you remembered, your activity level stayed extremely low. This is out of character for you, and is therefore sticking out like a sore thumb.I was prodded because I forgot about the game.
So, when exactly was the last time Josh was prodded/responded to a prod. I figure that asking direct questions about the game state is much more helpful than trying to meta it.This keeps you dirty buggers guessing so you're not tempted to try to meta the game state.
Nevertheless it got discussion started, and I think that was the primary purpose as opposed to catching scum in a single move.
After this one is over or one of us is dead I'll take a look.I'd link you a game...but it is on-going you would be most impressed
Alright. I can see that you had no ill intent here, but the way that I saw it was that, after you read that game, where I said after the game that I would not be trying the gambit again any time soon, you felt the need to speculate about why I would use it again as scum so soon. It was as if you were trying to say that I would so easily go back on my word as scum, and it bothered me. Meh.How is this attacking your credibility as an IC? I was merely giving some reasons as to why you might have played the gambit again as scum. All I meant was that when people play games, they try new strategies, new tactics, for interest and so that their gameplay improves. I can’t see how anyone could take this as an attack on your credibility. Unless you think I was being sarcastic, which I wasn’t, it was a pretty resounding success in that game.
Same as above, but again I see where you were coming from now that you've explained it.Again, I’m trying to point out inconsistencies in your play, not attack your credibility. I can’t see how I’m attacking your credibility as a player or an IC here
I wasn't offended, just mildly irritated at the time. Taking things personally in a game like this is just foolish. I learned that long ago.You’ve found one, a comment where I make a snide remark attacking your credibility. Sorry if I offended you, it was more personal than it needed to be.
I'll drop those points now that I see the reasoning behind them. I guess I was just misinterpreting you.I still don’t see why you need to make 8 different statements complaining about me attacking your credibility. It strikes me as you trying to get me to back off for reasons outside of my arguments, and it also seems like you’re trying to paint my arguments as personal attacks, when they are, for the most part, not.
^^^Goodposting^^^At this point in time, I think it’s down to Kai and Infinis. I agree with Kai’s statement that we should lynch him today or stop thinking of his link to Japles as his only scumminess. I personally would be feeling very dicey if we get close to Lylo with Kai in the game still, so if people agree it’s between these 2, I would definitely choose to lynch Kai today with a strong lean towards lynching Infinis if Kai comes up town.
I believe we have a misunderstanding here. I was defining 'randomly selected' as just a quick decision on the part of the remaining scum without any real thought to strategy. I've done it before as scum, and it isn't a bad way of confusing the hell out of townies when they decide to try to figure out why player X was NKed.I’ve made sure these are in order. Basically:
- You state that you think the NK could have been randomly determined.
- You state that JL is cleared because a NK was given while he was V/LA
- The mod is questioned and confirms that if scum is V/LA their NK will be randomised.
This seems like you’re aware of the rule, yet still clear JL when you know it could still mean he’s scum.
If this is not the case, do you still think JL is in the clear?
It's debatable. I'm in the group that thinks that anything that will further your win condition is fair game (which is why I like breaking setups so much). Others may disagree with me though.Is it unethical to try to outguess the mod? I wanna check, but we do play to win after all? I have thoughts about the Josh Lyman inactivity situation.
Take a look at this again:Are you saying that you still discount Josh as scum, or is this further justification of your previous statements regarding Josh being confirmed town?
I don't see how Josh is cleared, he's V/LA afaik, so a random kill is perfectly possible, am I wrong on something?
That means that if you are not around to submit a Night action, said action doesn't happen at all. Hence, if Josh was scum, the fact that he flaked ages ago means that there would have been no Night Kill at all, since he would be the only scum left alive who could submit it. It's simple logic really.Vel wrote:3 If you have a role with a Night action your choices are due to me by the posted deadline. If I do not receive your choice via PM by the posted deadline you will forfeit your actions.
No, the logic is sound. Also, read Kai's Lesson 3 regarding WIFOM. I posted it on like page 3 or 4 I think.There is so much WIFOM in this post I don't know where to begin.
You are posting very little. All you're doing is quoting big posts that others have made to look like you're writing more than you are. Nice try.Instead of making monster posts keeping Korts behind let me try and clear up my argument.
How many times do I have to prove why Josh can't physically be scum before people will actually listen to me?Josh has posted 3 times! 1 random, 1 stall and 1 unvote. Kai has made a strong meta argument that Josh, clearly isn't around enough to submit the kill. I would also argue that, if he was reading the thread cursorily, who would he NK? Kai or Sando clearly. No thought needed, no plan, just kill an active poster and let confusion spread. Based on this I would eliminate Josh from my suspect list for now.
Nope. He was talking directly to you Infinis.millar has made short, terse posts. He also claims to have forgotten about the game and doesn't like "talking crap" which implies Kai has been.
This is craplogic. millar has been around on site. He is one of the three I see to possibly be scum, along with you and Korts, simply because no one else would make sense.IIRC, Kia claims it is out of character for him. A meta argument again, but with little to go on...millar has to be eliminated from the suspects list for the same reasons as Josh
More craplogic. Sando is all but confirmed. Attacking him now would just be stupid, because it would be assuming him to be stupid enough to bus to a lynch D1. Sando has proven himself to be intelligent (if tunnelvisioned) repeatedly. This argument holds no water.Yes chaos did go towards Japles but he was pro "Slip" most of the thread. He attacks me for lackluster scumhunting. Killing chaos seems to me a decent frame up for me, but a great ploy against Sando. A very thin theory, but a theory.
I'm a very easy mislynch for today. There is no reason the scumKai...well he's so prominent it seems unlikely he's running a double gambit?! Scum pretendiing to be town using a gambit to catch scum. However, I can see no reason why scum wouldn't NK him. If Kai is town, then the town would turn towards me or Sando for the lynch.
If we confirm one more player then we cannot lose. 4 confirmed players on D2 = insta-win. I'm treating Ojanen and Sando as confirmed for the sake of argument, and Josh is confirmed through inactivity. One of them MUST die each Night for the rest of the game or else scum cannot win. Either way, the best hope for scum right now is to go into lylo with one confirmed townie staring them down. If we could confirm ANYONE else besides those three then we cannot lose. The scum would be forced into a 3 player lylo up against 2 confirmed townies. Sorry for fishing for an instant town win Infinis. I know it poses problems for you as scum, but setup theory is where I'm strongest, and the numbers say to break the game if possible.Kai's rationale for voting me is just plain wrong and he is fishing for town power roles. What justification can he have for sacrificing a power role for a vanilla townie role...that's if we have power roles which we're not guaranteed to have since with only a goon dead we can't determine which setup we have.
This is terribly weak. It is my playstyle to refer to previous games as evidence of things. I do it very often, and if you take a look at my more recent games (how ironic, that I have to respond to this accusation with the very thing you say is scummy) you will see this trend, especially early in the game when I haven't gotten immersed in a game yet. This is a null tell at best.(1) Multiple times throughout Day one he points to his own completed games as examples of his play style. I find it to be scummy to point to one's previous games as a defense for your innocence because it makes you appear as if you are actively thinking of the way you acted in past innocent games and using that to point to why you look innocent this game. If you truly are a town player, your actions should be speaking for themselves just fine. You shouldn't have to justify them by pointing to a previous game.
Take a look at the votes. Every last one of them has a valid reason for it.(2) He is throwing his votes all over the place. Day one alone he voted for five different people: Chaos40, Sando, Josh Lyman, Infinis and finally Japles. He also threw an FoS on yet a sixth player: Bekkatha. On Day Two he is already back to throwing his vote around from millar13 to Infinis to Josh Lyman then back to Infinis. To me it looks like he is just tossing his vote around seeing where it might stick while also creating chaos.
You do know that we have a 75% chance of having power role(s) in the game, right? The obvious move for intelligent scum would be to try to find them and eliminate them. Also, if I were scum I wouldn't necessarily know if there were power roles either. This is a completely weak point.(3) First post of the day he suggests that scum are hunting for power roles. I think this could be a scum slip. We don't know if there are power roles in this game.
Oooooh. Woooow. You actually know how to read. How brilliant.(4) He distanced himself from Japles Day One when others tried to get his opinion on it until the end of the day when it looked apparent that Japles demise was inevitable.
Null tell means it is in no way indicative of alignment either way. Most actions taken are null tells. It's exactly the same as someone defending themselves against an attack. The act of defending is a null tell because both scum and town would defend themselves when attacked. It is indicative of playstyle, not alignment, that I reference previous games.If it's a null tell it's still bad town play in my opinion.
So are you saying that when I do something unconventional that I do all the time as scum I shouldn't make sure to mention that? I don't play like most people, and therefore end up having to defend myself against accusations that my weird moves acre scummy somewhat often. I repeat, it is a null tell.You shouldn't be needing to defend your play with your own past example.
Not always. Examples from the past are factual. Logic and reasoning are subjective and alignment based. If there is something I can do to deal in facts rather than conjecture, I jump at the chance.And if that's not good enough, logic and/or reasoning usually works better than an example from the past.
The fact that I am not totally consistant does not mean that when I cite examples, those examples did not happen. They are still perfectly valid examples of things I have done in the past which can be linked to the alignment I was when I did them.You yourself admit to your own past examples not being so great by mentioning that you are still developing a consistent play style.
This is not a straw man argument. If the votes are valid, then there is a perfectly good reason to be making them. Therefore, you are essentially just arguing opinion. You don't like that I made numerous votes in the game, so you say it is scummy.This is a straw man argument. The fact still stands that you are throwing your vote around. My argument was never about your reasoning or lack of reasoning. Your voting isn't automatically okay just because you can justify all of your votes.
OK. Fine. So lets assume I'm scum. From my perspective, there is still a 50% chance or greater that there are power roles in the game. Therefore, it is perfectly valid for town-Kairyuu to think that the scum are hunting power roles when they make a strange kill.Scum don't see the same odds as the town does, since they know their own setup they can eliminate the other two immediately. For them it is either 100% or 50% depending on which two scum roles they have.
I apologize. This game is bothering me to no end because I can't see any way out of being lynched (alignment is irrelevant here, as I've never been lynched as either main alignments), and either way it hurts my side. I was frusterated, and I took it out on you. It won't happen again.Insulting another player like this really isn't anyone's place to be doing in game.
I didn't say to dismiss it. I'll be lynched over that issue yet, because it's perfectly valid. No misrep please. Kthxbai.@Kai Dismissing your scummy behavior in regards to ignoring Japles as you insist is not going to happen, it is a big issue.
Nope. Never said that. Gambit was crap. Case was not. I stand by the points I made against you as I backed off. They were a perfectly valid reason for me to keep my vote on.So I see the gambit is suddenly "totally valid" again.
Yes, it was poor form. No I did not belittle the point. I belittled all if his other points, which are weak. That point just annoys me because its valid and I can't do anything about it now.That is poor form, and the belittling of the point looks baaaad.
Then do it. Don't waste time. Lynch me so that you can go lynch Infinis tomorrow and we can end the game already.I seriously feel like voting you right now,
I believe that Korts is already caught up, or at least most of the way so. The game isn't going anywhere, because everyone wants to vote me but keeps waiting for something. Just do it already.but I want Korts in the game before lynching anyone and there are still some questions to be asked.
I'm the most obviously scummy player alive right now, and was going into N1 as well. It makes logical sense that if we have a cop I was the investigation last Night. If I'm not, it does the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Since if I live through D2 I will still be the scummiest player going into Night, it would make perfect sense for me to be the investigation.This is a trick I used with my playgroup for a while as Scum before they caught on. What this does is it makes the Cop think that you may be innocent and when he thinks you are innocent he is less likely to check you on following nights because he wants to look for scum. You also hint at this in your first post of the day.
It's a win-win. If the scum kills me then they won't be able to try to get me lynched D3 to get to lylo. If they don't, then I'm confirmed town. I see no downside other than a possible guilty investigation, which, while more useful than a confirmed innocent, is not as feasible.If the Cop hasn't checked you and you are innocent you are encouraging him to do so if he exists. The scum know you are innocent and if you are going to get role checked you become a better night kill because by killing you there is a better chance that the Cop may be also investigating you and your death wastes his role check, essentially role-blocking the Cop.
