For playing a good game in Nightless?
Newbie 310: It's All Over -- WOO-HOO!
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Waiting for theopor, I suppose. In the meantime, this is the only post that could possibly be remotely scummy:
Feels like a "safe" post. Random.org to not be held responsible and the ultra-townie smilie with enthusiasm and reassurance that scum is the enemy.Azkar wrote:Alright .. scum hunting time .
random.org says I shouldvote: Fircoal.
Unvote: Seol,
Vote: Azkar
Based on very little, but it's a start.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
It is pretty much just grasping at straws.Azkar wrote:
Well, I guess if you really want to grasp at straws .. *shrug*VitaminR wrote:Feels like a "safe" post. Random.org to not be held responsible and the ultra-townie smilie with enthusiasm and reassurance that scum is the enemy.
Unvote: Seol,
Vote: Azkar
Based on very little, but it's a start.
Seriously, though, is random.org any more a suspicious reason for voting someone than any of the other reasons offered, so far?
I guess I'll try to curb my excitement about the next game I play . I admit it, I'm an impatient person. I waited through the queue, I waited through the confirms stage, and I was just happy about getting into the game.
But also to test reactions, like Fircoal stepping up to defend you. That could at some point become useful information.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
(I am going to reduce the quote size a bit to make this more readable.)
It certainly isn't something that'll really count against you in my mind. I'm just explaining why I voted based on something that is not really concrete evidence.Fircoal wrote:
The only reason I defended him, was because it didn't seem like a scum post. Just what I think.VitaminR wrote:But also to test reactions, like Fircoal stepping up to defend you. That could at some point become useful information.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I think it is to do with the fact that your defense is "the only reason I defended him, was because it didn't seem like a scum post." That is what you can assume about every townie.
Your defense comes down to reasserting the fact that you're pro-town. That doesn't mean much as a defense, which is why it can be seen to reveal a need to re-affirm the underlying assumption that everyone is pro-town. Basically, stating that you're pro-town reveals a guilty conscience, and the possibility in your mind of it being untrue.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Could you show me how is it the logic that has been used against you?Azkar wrote:Did I really defend Fircoal? I thought I was more defending myself, by speaking out against the sort of logic that was being used against both of us. Honestly, Fircoal hasn't really said much in the game to make me think much, either way.
Well, yeah. 8)Azkar wrote:Because you're innocent, obviously, right?
More than anything, I'm keeping my vote on you and picking at your actions to see how you respond (and others). I'm not anywhere near convinced that you're scum. Honestly, your posts seem pretty transparent and helpful overall. I am definitely re-evaluating my suspicions.Azkar wrote:I'm still new to this game. I'm trying to get a feel for the right directions to take. Maybe my attack on VitaminR was weak. I still think his attack on me was weak. At least I'm willing to admit it, and back down for the moment.
The thing that is keeping my vote on you at the moment is mostly the strong sense of connection between Fircoal and you.
This, I'm afraid, is just strengthening that:
While I don't think theopor_COD's conviction is warranted, putting Azkar at -1 is not really all that significant. One of the votes on him was a random vote by you, who has clearly stipulated that he does not agree with the suspicion on Azkar (and therefore would not support a lynch). Also, anyone hammering Azkar this quickly would come under close scrutiny. It is not all that dangerous.Fircoal wrote:unvote: Azkar
Vote: Theopor_COD
You put Azkar at -1 lynch, that's a newbie game scum tactic.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I do think you're right in that they stem from the same tack of reasoning. I definitely see them as separate, though. Firstly, intuitions about the sincerity of a post play an important role. Secondly, Fircoal's comment was different. It was unprompted and defensive and it stood out. Your first post was essentially the perfect townie post. They are both falling back on what is "safe," but in ways that I think should be distinguished.Azkar wrote:Maybe it was a more tenuous link than I thought it was, at the time. But that's the only point I remember saying much of anything about Fircoal.
That's all fairly irrelevant, since I do see how you would not have necessarily been defending Fircoal in attacking that.
It is a poor strategic move, but I have (or had) no way of gauging whether or not you or Fircoal are sound strategic players. In any case, the connection seems so obvious that I find it difficult to come up with another explanation. There is a tendency for suspicions to polarise a group of players, but, even if that is the case, a great deal of useful information can be gleaned from encouraging that process. I would definitely like to hear more from Fircoal about his theopor vote, though.Azkar wrote:Thanks for explaining your current reasonings. I can see how the perceived connection between two players can be seen as suspicious. It seems a pretty obvious tell, though, and a really poor strategic move to show that much public support for a scum-buddy. It was nice having at least one person sticking up for me, but I don't pretend to know his motivations. I'm sure Fircoal can provide more insight into his thought processes than I can.
I would also like to hear from Avinyl and Seol.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
The point is that scum would give themselves away by doing that, which is not worth lynching a townie. A pro-town player should never hammer in that situation.Fircoal wrote:I voted Theopor_Cod, because he put Azkar at -1, and a newbie, but to you it may not seem like much of a problem but it stood out more to me. If we allow people to put someone at -1 lynch, the scum can lynch that person, making in 2:3 on the 2nd day, I don't want that to happen.
Btw, Azkar, what did you make of theopor's vote?-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
(emphasis mine)Seol wrote:The Azkar/Fircoal thing is, I think, a mountain out of a molehill.
I tend to think that the polarisation has comeVitaminR wrote:In any case, the connection seems so obvious that I find it difficult to come up with another explanation. There is a tendency for suspicions to polarise a group of players, but, even if that is the case, a great deal of useful information can be gleaned fromencouragingthat process.fromVitaminR, calling the original post a "connection" was stretching but fair game for page 1, but since then it's only "obvious" because it's been talked about so much. Looks to me more like he's trying to convince us of the idea than explore it.
I fully admit that I have been creating the polarisation, like I attempted to indicate there. I wanted to see how Fircoal and Azkar would respond to being linked. It allows me to pressure two people at the same time.
In that, I've become reasonably convinced that Azkar is not scum (although I'm in no way sure about Fircoal, which is why I've kept my vote on Azkar).
The way Azkar has responded has been very balanced overall and I don't feel like he has reacted like scum. He hasn't tried to shift the blame or defend himself to death. I also think the manner in which he stepped away from his initial vote of me was distinctly pro-town. It is very easy to respond to an attack with an attack.
Unvote: Azkar
It was just a response to Fircoal's question about Thesp's vote. I was trying to be responsible as an IC, because I felt like I'd just been attacking the new players rather than helping them. In hindsight, I should have indicated that I did not think it significant in that post.VitaminR wrote:Explaining why an action "could be seen as suspicious" is as good as calling those actions suspicious in terms of its effect on other readers. It's as if you want to establish the idea and reasoning that the act was suspicious, but then distance yourself from that position. Any sort of disclaiming past statements of that sort raises my heckles.
Very true, but, to a large extent, assuming that they are the same will make the latter true.Thesp wrote:
Taking the step from "A pro-town playerVitaminR wrote:The point is that scum would give themselves away by doing that, which is not worth lynching a townie. A pro-town player should never hammer in that situation.shouldnever hammer" to "A pro-town playerneverhammers" is a pretty big leap. (Actually, looks like others have also harped on this.)-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I can see how it can be read as less than absolutely serious, though. The phrasing is a bit over the top ("ultra-townie smilie," for instance) and we were essentially still in the random voting stage.Azkar wrote:I don't see VR's earlier post to be making a joke out of anything, and I doubt anyone else did. And if someone casts suspicion on me, yeah I'm going to try and explain my perspective. I don't think it would be good for anyone if I just tried to skirt the issue.
I have to say I disagree. He explained his vote then too.Azkar wrote:I get the feeling that theopor's found himself with some doubt cast on him, and is trying really hard to try and justify his past actions. It doesn't really seem sincere to me, though.
[quote="Azkar"That puts theopor at lynch -1. I think we've had enough discussion here about premature hammering that I can trust no one will do so?[/quote]
I'm definitely not going to hammer him.
Argh... now I'm doubting Azkar again.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I think that would be an interesting discussion. I must admit I haven't given it that much thoughts and I would to hear your reasoning. It wouldn't be that appropriate for the game, though. Perhaps through PM afterwards? If that would not be too much trouble, anyway.Thesp wrote:
I disagree entirely. There are a number of counterfactuals against this line of reasoning as well.VitaminR wrote:Very true, but, to a large extent, assuming that they are the same will make the latter true.
In the original post, I did try to in the wording, but it could have been clearer.Thesp wrote:
I thought youVitaminR wrote:It was just a response to Fircoal's question about Thesp's vote. I was trying to be responsible as an IC, because I felt like I'd just been attacking the new players rather than helping them. In hindsight, I should have indicated that I did not think it significant in that post.didindicate that in your post.
(emphasis mine)VitaminR wrote:I think it is to dowith the fact that your defense is "the only reason I defended him, was because it didn't seem like a scum post." That is what you can assume about every townie.
Your defense comes down to reasserting the fact that you're pro-town. That doesn't mean much as a defense, which is whyit can be seento reveal a need to re-affirm the underlying assumption that everyone is pro-town. Basically, stating that you're pro-town reveals a guilty conscience, and the possibility in your mind of it being untrue.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I was not propagating it, I was explaining it. I do think, however, that it is valid reasoning. Whether or not it applies, though, relies on how you interpret the sincerity of the post.Seol wrote:If you think it's valid reasoning, why don't you follow it to the conclusion that the act was suspicious?
If you don't think it's valid reasoning, why are you propagating it?
That is all irrelevant, though. I have already said that I should have elaborated on that then.
I did not attempt to use the phrases "I think" or "it can be seen" as justification, merely as an illustration that I truly did not intend to propagate the reasoning at the time.Seol wrote:Furthermore, using phrases like "I think" or "it seems" whilst describing a stance and later citing that as a justification that you really didn't subscribe to that stance is a more egregious manifestation of the disclaimer tell.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I clarified that I didn't find it suspicious two posts after the original post!Seol wrote: But if your position hasn't changed, that means you were presenting an argument you didn't subscribe to, which is just as scummy. Yes, if you didn't think it was suspicious you should have elaborated back then. Not doing so is why I'm suspicious. Saying now that you were wrong not to be clearerafter you've been called on itdoesn't really do much for me.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
It wasn't meant to be accusatory. In my head, it was just a clarification.Seol wrote:Which was right after you'd been called on, and earned a vote for, bad reasoning in the original post - and at that point you clarified your position in an accusatory manner ("that's not what I said" as opposed to "that's not what I meant").
I do agree with the chain of reasoning, but Fircoal's post didn't seem insincere to me. Looking back, 'I don't see it as a significant tell' should have been 'In this case, I don't see it as a significant tell.'Seol wrote:But when I say "you should have elaborated back then", I mean in the original post. You were presenting a chain of reasoning that you didn't agree with, without mentioning you didn't agree with it. You're not disputing that.
It is not incorrect, flawed or inapplicable, though. It is not poor logic. I could have very well attacked Fircoal on that. In fact, it would have made more sense, since I was pressuring Azkar over something similar.Seol wrote:There are a reasons why scum would want to present a chain of reasoning against a player that they don't agree with - because as they're attacking an innocent, they don't have any genuine reasons to suspect anyone, so any arguments have to be fabricated. If they're called on poor logic, they have to decide how they're going to respond to that. On the other hand, I can't see any reason why a townie would ever want to spell out logic that they think is incorrect, flawed, or inapplicable - except possibly to illustrate that the logic is incorrect, flawed or inapplicable.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
It borders on being tautological, yes. I suppose the way I see it as that comments like that can reveal more about someone's sincerity than the way they attack someone. Also, in a general sense, someone who posts something like that is relatively more likely to be insincere. That is why I think the logic does apply. That does not, however, allow for individual variation, i.e. subjective judgement.Seol wrote:Isn't that pretty much tautological - if he's lying about his motivation, he's scum anyway and the rest of the reasoning is redundant?
It's not a tell to me because of that, but that is based on subjectivity. For Thesp, it could very well apply. Also, in a general sense, the logic always applies.Seol wrote:Furthermore, if you think his being sincere means that it isn't a tell, isn't that a reason to make the chain of reasoning not applicable in this situation?
Or am I misunderstanding you?
I'm not sure if I'm explaining this properly, but this is how I see it.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I think so, because I do agree that my perception of his sincerity made it not a tell for me. I don't, however, think that invalidates the logic.Seol wrote:Let me clarify what I mean by the reasoning not being applicable. I'm assuming that you believe the premise leads to the conclusion (otherwise, the logic would be flawed). The logic wouldn't apply if this was a case where thepremisewas flawed - for example, in this case, if you didn't think Fircoal was asserting he was pro-town.
Were you taking a different meaning?
That is exactly what I'm doing. I believe the logic to be fully internally consistent.Seol wrote:If you believe the premise is correct, and the reasoning applied to the premise is correct, then you have to believe the conclusion that leads to, don't you? ...Unless you're disregarding or de-emphasising logic based on non-logical factors, such as instinct and judgement?
Fircoal, a brief summary of events:
- Thesp voted you for the way you stressed that you were pro-town.
- I then explained the logic behind that.
- Azkar attacked me for using that line of logic on him too.
- I stated that I actually didn't feel it applied in this case.
Seol's case against me (with my responses in italics):
- In originally explaining the logic, I did not say that I did not feel it applied. By doing this, I endorsed the logic and strengthened the case against you.
I agree with Seol on this. I should have made it clear in the original post.
- I presented an argument that I didn't support.
It was intended as an explanation and not as an attack. Also, I do agree with the logic behind it.
- I agree with the logic, but do not follow it through (i.e. attack Fircoal).
My gut reaction to your post was that it was sincere. That overrides the logic for me.
Seol, do you feel this captures the debate fairly?-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
The problem is that it wasn't a poorly executed attack. I see it as good logic and I could have easily used it as a platform to attack Fircoal from. It would have even been more consistent with my attack on you. If I had wanted to attack Fircoal, I don't see why I wouldn't have done it in the original post. Perhaps to divert attention away from myself and not be held accountable, but that does not really seem consistent with my subsequent focus on a perceived link between Fircoal and you.Azkar wrote:As far as the recent back-and-forth between Seol and VR ... I'm still not really sure what to make of it. Seol makes some valid points. I did initially find VR's earlier attack/explanation (wording depending on who's side you're taking) to be suspicious - hence my earlier VR vote. It's possible VR's later posts explaining that it wasn't really an attack reallywerean act to distance himself from a poorly executed attack.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I agree with you. The point is that a non-defenceAzkar wrote:
Now, Fircoal's certainly guilty of making a useless circular defence, but I don'tVitaminR wrote:The problem is that it wasn't a poorly executed attack. I see it as good logic and I could have easily used it as a platform to attack Fircoal from.reallysee how it becomes an assertion of pro-townieness. Maybe I'm reading things from a slightly different perspective, but the first defence from Fircoal came accross to me as, "It didn't seem suspicious to me." The second defence just restated the first. It was a non-defence, really. He doesn't explainwhyhe didn't find it suspicious, just that he didn't.isan assertion of pro-townness. The reason why it is a non-defence is because we assume that every player only defends posts when they didn't find it suspicious. That is the assumption of townieness.
Fircoal and theopor, did the summary help at all? I could try again.
Upon re-reading, Seol has become my nr. 1 suspect. He has focused pretty strongly on me and it bothers me that he has mostly only commented on the other players in this game when asked specifically about one of them.
Something that stands out is how his vote for me has been absolute. He doesn't FOS or indicate any change of direction or in suspicions. Firstly, that movement is crucial in the opening phases of a game. Secondly, it moves the debate above a level of direct relevance. Without any apparent consequences to his official position in the game, whether or not a point of his is acknowledged or refuted becomes irrelevant.
Avinyl is probably nr. 2. I agree with theopor's questions about his vote. On the whole, though, he has not posted that much and I can't really say I've seen enough of him to get a read on him.
Vote: Seol-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I'm going to lump these questions together:
I'd expect to hear that your position hasn't changed. I'd expect some sort of attempt to put it into perspective with regards to the rest of the game. Your point is only worth as much as how it relates to your suspicions of other people. That is what I meant. 'Movement' was an ill-chosen word. 'Fluidity of suspicion' would perhaps have been more accurate (also: it sounds fancy).Seol wrote:Crucial, you say? As in, it's suspicious if I keep my vote on the person I suspect most, instead of moving it about?
My core argument - that you were arguing a point which you disagreed with - still stands. It hasn't been refuted. If at the end of the debate, my core argument still stands, why on earth would you expect my position to change?-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Seol wrote:Now, I don't like this resolution a great deal, but it does resolve the sticking-point I had.
I did see those. I don't know, it seems to me to very much relate to the situation inside the debate. I get the feeling that through the rhetoric of the discussion your vote moved into a position where it appeared out of consideration, and, therefore, exempt from scrutiny.Seol wrote:It resolves the sticking-point I was having with understanding what VitaminR was trying to say - now I feel I at least understand the position VitaminR is representing. I also said I didn't like the resolution. Just because my opinion of VitaminR is improved over what it was doesn't mean he's all the way back to square 1 again
I don't find the fact that you say you need a re-read to give an opinion on other players in any way redeeming. That suggests to me that you need to construe an acceptable impression of their behaviour.Seol wrote:but I'm due to re-read and see if there's anything more significant that's worth following.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
That actually makes your stance a lot more understandable to me.Avinyl wrote:My suspicions of VitaminR are that he was arguing a point which he disagreed with. It's also that he just feels suspicious. I am very bad at deciding who seems most suspicious, so I usually just go with what feels right. I am not 100% sure that he is mafia, not even 5%, but i have to vote someone.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Heh. I'm so going to get myself lynched...
Theopor, your awful play just seemed sincerely clumsy to me. It didn't seem manipulative, just like someone who wasn't exactly sure what he was doing. I still don't think you're scum.
The fishing...
Fircoal: he voted you and I wanted him to explain it more. I don't think a third vote early in a newbie game is necessarily a scum tell and I wanted him to back it up with reasoning.
Azkar: I thought his reading of someone voting for him could reveal a lot about his alignment.
Seol: he only focused on me and I felt he was avoiding your wagon. Also, from his earlier comment about you (which I will quote below this) I thought he saw you in the same way and I wanted to see if he would stick to that. I find the fact that he hasn't pretty scummy.
I think you have turned it around and you pulled up some good analysis. Don't fault yourself if you end up lynching me, I screwed up as an IC here, I think.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Hmm... that was in response to my question, wasn't it? Then I'm remembering it wrong.Seol wrote:I don't have a good handle on theopor_COD yet. He's wagon-happy, and says he's confident in his position, but I don't think his reasoning as I understand it is compelling. I'd say he looks scummy in a vacuum, but it's not in the least atypical for newbies nowadays.
The one you quoted was because I felt he was focusing on me, asking him for an opinion after the debate was because I wanted to see whether or not he would do the convenient thing and change his position.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
"Resolve a sticking point" seemed quite vague to me. I didn't read it as a clear statement of your position.Seol wrote:
I'm confused - what are you asking here?VitaminR wrote:I did see those. I don't know, it seems to me to very much relate to the situation inside the debate.
I thought you were saying here:
That at the end of the discussion, you'd expect me to state what my position was. I was merely pointing out that I did that, and to suggest otherwise is misrepresentation.VitaminR wrote:I'd expect to hear that your position hasn't changed.
I did not blindly agree with you in the debate and I presented explanations that should cause a change in perspective. As you yourself indicated, your opinion did improve. As a result, you should have scrutinised your vote.Seol wrote:Again, I'm not sure I totally understand you here. Are you saying that I wasn't scrutinising my own vote, or that it was exempt from scrutiny by others? Ultimately, I voted you for something that you did, that I consider suspicious. If you want to challenge the reasons why I consider it suspicious, then I'll scrutinise my vote. If you want to challenge whether or not you actually did it, then I'll scrutinise my vote. But if you accept that you did it, and you tacitly accept my argument as to why I consider it suspicious, then why would you expect me to scrutinise my vote, at least as a consequence of the debate?-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Maybe, but it would have been stupid. Perhaps it is highly irrational, but I just don't think you're scum!theopor_COD wrote:It wasn't an elaborate plan to catch anyone but I stand by my last post, I just think townies however experienced have to view me as scum or had to at any least, nowhere have you even discussed the idea that I'm looking the most guilty, it's like your trying to push a lynch on someone else because you know I'm town, I think the plan was to lynch someone else maybe Soel, (mind I'm not sure on him, he could easily be your scum partner) and then get me easily lynched tomorrow, I'm maybe miles off there, but your defence of me just doesn't look like anything a townie would do. I think you'd get respect if you hammered me pages ago.
I can't really explain it, I can't make it much clearer. I'm not going to pretend I think you're scum because I can't back it up with logic.
If I was trying to push a lynch on anyone, I've really handled it the wrong way. I said I'm not going to hammer you in such definite terms that it would look strange if I changed my mind on Day 2. My Seol vote was way too late and at a point where my credibility in this game was pretty much gone anyway.
I don't have a plan and I genuinely just happen to think you're not scum.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I thought that too, initially. They've avoided each other so neatly, though. They've barely commented on each other's behaviour. Seol avoided the Azkar wagon, Azkar has avoided the Seol/me debate.Fircoal wrote:
Seol maybe, but I don't think that Azkar is scum.VitaminR wrote:Fircoal is definitely not scum.
It's Seol and Azkar, I'm fairly sure. That's just gut, though. I don't really expect anyone to follow me at this point.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
He's the only one I'm not that sure about. I'm reasonably certain neither Avinyl, theopor or you are scum.
The way he FOSed Seol seemed sincere and, if scum, it was not really in his interests to divert any attention to a suspect who seems unlikely to be lynched. Theopor, Azkar and me make much easier targets.
I think he is pro-town at this point.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
This post:
He can freely cite that he agrees with Seol or that my attack on Azkar was suspicious. The fact that he admits to not being sure about that and the fact that he bases on gut to a large extent make it seem sincere.Avinyl wrote:I know i definitely meant to write that theopor_COD put Azkar at lynch -1. Why did i write Fircoal? I really have to sleep more.
I didn't want to put the last vote on you, not because it would seem suspicious, but because i don't want this day to end too soon. My suspicions of VitaminR are that he was arguing a point which he disagreed with. It's also that he just feels suspicious. I am very bad at deciding who seems most suspicious, so i usually just go with what feels right. I am not 100% sure that he is mafia, not even 5%, but i have to vote someone.
For scum, there would be some perfectly plausible reasons to hide behind there. He doesn't need to make his position that weak or his vote that open to criticism.
As for Thesp, theopor and me, I suppose, but the crucial thing to me is not who he was diverting attention away from, it is the fact that he need not have pulled Seol to the forefront. If he's scum, it makes justifying a vote needlessly difficult to choose Seol over others.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Yes and I do definitely think Thesp is likely to be pro-town. A big contributing factor, however, is also that I don't think an Azkar-Thesp pair or a Seol-Thesp pair is likely from the way they've interacted.theopor_COD wrote:Well if we listen to you then Azkar and Soel are the scum partners, right?-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Seol-Thesp: Thesp's attacks on Seol, mainly.Fircoal wrote:
What interactions?VitaminR wrote: Yes and I do definitely think Thesp is likely to be pro-town. A big contributing factor, however, is also that I don't think an Azkar-Thesp pair or a Seol-Thesp pair is likely from the way they've interacted.
Azkar-Thesp: Thesp essentially just waved away the Fircoal-Azkar thing, commenting on it afterwards. If they were scumbuddies, he would not dismiss a case that was that prominent so easily. If Azkar turns up scum, it is too damning a mark on his record. He's too experienced a player to make that kind of mistake.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Mixed response to this post.Thesp wrote:Hmm. I'm still fairly fixated on theopor_COD, and I'm a little surprised at the lack of claim from him after essentially being told to do so (rightly, I think) by Seol. I don't agree with the VitaminR hate at all.
Pro-townish: He doesn't capitalise on the wagon building against me, which is an easy route to follow.
Scummy: Theopor is at 2 now (Fircoal unvoted), I don't think he need claim. Also, I don't the like theopor wagon at all.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Nobody hammer theopor. He is pro-town.
Seol is scum trying to push two mislynches (theopor and me). He is setting up two distinctly separate wagons.
Also, he forced a claim from theopor on a third vote when there has been no indication of anyone wanting to put on a fourth vote. This allows someone who normally wouldn't have theopor to go "ah well, at worst he's a townie" and hammer him.
I have to go to university now, but I'll go through Seol's post in more detail this afternoon.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Right, I'm back from uni. I'll address Seol's latest post and then dig into his earlier ones.
I've already answered that question a number of times. His play is illogical, but not manipulative. An example would be him unvoting me, he doesn't need to do that at all. I would be a convenient target to lessen the pressure on him.Seol wrote:You're stating that like it's fact.What makes you so sure?
The same thing goes for him messing up reasons for voting Azkar earlier in the game. He could have got away with hiding behind my reasons. The fact that he confused his reasons is strange, but it does not serve a purpose for scum.
I don't think you are. You are voting people who are not behaving like scum.Seol wrote:I'm trying to lynch people who are behaving like scum.
That was a fairly rushed post. Picking at my phrasing has very little use, you know.Seol wrote:Iset upthe theopor wagon?
This is what I meant:
You are setting up justification for two distinctly separate wagons. This allows you to switch freely between them. You even said that we are almost level in scumminess. That means you don't have to stick to one vote. If, for instance, you'd said one of us was more suspicious, you would have been bound to pursuing that person.
Avinyl has barely posted, and has definitely not commented on theopor's defence. Azkar has not posted since theopor posted that defence. Thesp didn't even know how many votes theopor had.Seol wrote:Avinyl said he considered theopor the most suspicious, but didn't want to lynch him yet. That's normally the time to be asking for a claim.
Emphasis mine. Seems pretty clear to me that Thesp, while he acknowledged the need to look over the thread, was actively supporting the claim request.
You got a quick and easy claim off a newbie and it was scummy.
Seol, let's not devolve into insults. I've made my position clear and attempted to explain my thoughts as fully as I can.Seol wrote:What theory? "He's scum and he's attacking me"?
In game terms, we're at each other's throats, but I'd like not to breed any ill-feeling.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Sympathy Plays
When I care about a game, I'm more likely to post what I feel. There is nothing inherently scummy about posting an emotional response. Town and scum are just as likely to do it. It is only scummy when it's the only response. Theopor hasn't done that. I haven't done that. Citing that list looks impressive, but the quotes are wholly irrelevant. It simply makes it look like there is this big body of scummy quotes as evidence for your suspicions.
Reactions to Seol
It seemed pretty ambiguous to me. I think you were intentionally vague in order to not give a statement of position.Seol wrote:Ah, well, the combination of the full comment ("Now, I don't like this resolution a great deal, but it does resolve the sticking-point I had") and the lack of unvote seemed to be a reasonably clear statement to me. Are you arguing that it was intended to be vague, or that it wasn't intended to be a statement of position?
Heh.Seol wrote:Your explanationsshouldresult in a change of perspective? Surely that's up to me to judge? And yes, my opinion improved, relative to the point where it appeared to me you were flatly contradicting yourself in every post.
I meant "should" as in assuming that your position had changed, which you indicated.
What I have a problem is that none of that was clear at the time.Seol wrote:I was still suspicious of you, and (prior to the re-read which I needed to get a handle on the rest of the game) I didn't have any firm suspicions on anyone else. So I kept my vote on you.
There's a big difference. You avoided the wagon, you didn't ignore it at all (you commented on it quite definitively when did you post).Seol wrote:I'm not seeing the difference. I ignored the wagon (along with the rest of the game - not that that's justifiable, just trying to put it in context), which therefore links me and Azkar. Thesp, who actually was here, was ignoring the wagon, and it's a sign they'renotlinked... except that if Azkar is scum, it's a black mark against Thesp (i.e., it's a sign they're linked... if it suits you).
I don't get your last point at all. I specifically said that it wouldn't be a black mark against Thesp.
A Paragraph on Avinyl
There's another reason why I think he's pro-town. It relies on the assumption that Seol is scum, but that is fairly fortified in my mind. Avinyl joined Seol on the wagon on me, citing his reasons. That amount of deference is too obvious for scum, I think.
Seol's Theopor post
Seol's opinion can essentially be boiled down to this quote, I think:
That's not true. Theopor is voting me because of how definite I am about it. That's not a bad reason to be suspicious of me.Seol wrote:Basically, the sum total of your post is you saying "yep, I'm scummy, I've been talking crap all game, but VitaminR doesn't think I'm scum so he's scummy".-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
What theopor quoted was much later into the game in my head, for some reason.Seol wrote:Are you confused about what happened here? Because bearing in mind the chronology of what happened, your comments make no sense.
I'll clarify.
This was quite early on and it was because Seol had only commented on one aspect of the Azkar wagon, his suspicions of me.VitaminR wrote:
I'd like to hear this too.Thesp wrote:Seol, what do you think of theopor_COD?
This one refers to asking for your opinion on other players after the debate.VitaminR wrote:Seol: he only focused on me and I felt he was avoiding your wagon. Also, from his earlier comment about you (which I will quote below this) I thought he saw you in the same way and I wanted to see if he would stick to that. I find the fact that he hasn't pretty scummy.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
It came across that way to me. It's a part of trying to explain why the fact that he seemed so focused on me seemed scummy. It's getting a lot more attention than it deserves, really.Azkar wrote:Next, VR's starting to worry me, some. His attack on Seol for (apparently) not restating his position at the conclusion of their debate comes off as a little contrived. I think Seol made his position fairly clear, and it doesn't reflect well on VR to try and indicate otherwise.
It's mostly that I feel compelled to respond to every part of a post (lest I leave anything unrefuted) that some things get pulled to the forefront that shouldn't be. A lot of the back and forth between Seol and me is essentially fluff.
I don't think so. Half of those voters hadn't acknowledged theopor's defence and his defence made a visible difference to some players in the game.Thesp wrote:All this focus on Seol's request for a claim seems odd. Theopor had been at lynch -1 for quite a while, with two others willing to vote if it wouldn't cause a lynch. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for a claim. Fircoal's unvoted, but that's irrelevant to the request for claim, since the unvote wasaftertheopor's non-claim.
If anything, Seol should have been a lot more cautious. As an IC and a player with a good reputation, he should know that a strong request for a claim from a newbie is not something to be taken lightly.
That's what I was arguing. It is so much more suspicious (if you are scum), that it makes Thesp and you an unlikely scum pair in my eyes.Thesp wrote:I'm afraid I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw, here. I'd think ignoring the wagoncompletelywould be a more suspicious act than at least acknowledging it, if maybe a little late.
Nothing really overtly scummy here, but Azkar's post and opinions are definitely in line with what I'd expect in the case of a Seol-Azkar scum pair.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Definitely, Seol's an awesome debater.theopor_COD wrote:Azkar wrote:Seol's a very good debater. He's probably either being very helpful or very unhelpful.Avinyl wrote: Seol - Somehow, he feels more like a machine than a human. I don't know how to describe it.
I think that sums up Soel perfectly, he's damn good town or scum! Mind VR isn't far behind, one of them is very good at lieing.
I re-read and Seol's request for a claim wasn't as strong as I thought it was. Doesn't change my point, but it seems only fair to mention it.
Also, Azkar, it is important to realise that none of the other voters were up to speed with the game. There was really not enough justification to ask for a claim.
I'm stressing it because I'm worried theopor will get lynched because there's not a lot of risk involved. I don't want to see another easy newbie lynch that, in my opinion, really isn't justified.
I forget to comment on one thing in Seol's posts earlier.
This seems incredibly scummy to me. The fact that we're almost level in his eyes means he can switch rather freely.Seol wrote:VitaminR is not far off level with theopor.
I think it is also important to stress the difference between this and, for example, my Seol-Azkar suspicions. What I'm doing is incredibly limiting. If Seol or Azkar turns up town or one of the other plays turns out to be scum, the foundation of all my reasoning collapses.
For something like this, it doesn't matter if theopor turns up town or I turn up town. He can continue to push for the other. They're separately justified. It's low risk and high reward for scum.
I also find the fact that Seol hasn't addressed the interaction between theopor and me at all very interesting. He's not looking at a scum pair, but at lynching individual players. (Incidentally another, albeit small, reason why Fircoal is pro-town, he has.)-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I was and have been referring to Seol's second request for a claim. The one that led to a claim.Azkar wrote:
But .. the request for claim wasVitaminR wrote:I don't think so. Half of those voters hadn't acknowledged theopor's defence and his defence made a visible difference to some players in the game.beforehis defence! Seol may be many things, but a prophet, I doubt. You're twisting things around. Seol made the request for claim at a point when there wasn't any reason to think anyone's position was going to change any time soon.
The fact that Seol, after theopor posted a defence after the first request that led to an unvote,just repeated the request, despite not having heard from Avinyl or you, only makes it worse.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
What I'm used to this is giving the player a final chance to defend themselves. That is how I see this situation. Theopor does some scummy things, people vote him and then you get to a point where he has to make his big defence. If that doesn't convince anyone, he claims.Azkar wrote:Theopor was in a situation where just about everyone in the game found him very suspicious. It's a point in the game where it's generally considered appropriate and neccessary to claim. He wastoldby one of the players that it would be a good time to claim. Instead, though, he deliberately avoided claiming. It makes it look like he's got something to hide.
That said .. I think you're blowing the claim thing out of proportion. From the games I've read, it's not at all abnormal to ask for a claim in the situation theopor was in. Nor were Seol's requests particularly urgent: "I think a claim is probably in order," and "I still think a claim is appropriate." No, "You need to claim, now," or "Claim now, or someone is going to lynch you," etc.
I have acknowledged that his requests weren't particularly urgent, but they definitely implied a way of seeing the game (not waiting for you or Avinyl, ignoring theopor's defence because it is not a stellar display of logic, based in honesty) that I don't agree with and that I honestly find scummy.
I could very well be attaching undue importance to some things. When you see someone as scum, everything they do becomes scummy.Azkar wrote:It's a pattern I'm seeing in your attacks on Seol, picking at small things, and twisting them out of proportion.
I don't think that's predominantly the case, though. I don't think I've grossly misrepresented Seol's actions. If you don't agree with me, that's okay, I don't expect you to, but there is a difference between that and your characterisation of my attacks.
Azkar, I've noticed you're basically doing Seol's end of the defending. I also find it fairly unsurprising that I'm high on your list of suspects. In fact, judging by your recent list, you should pretty much be voting me.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
I don't see how you can say that. It was enough for Fircoal to unvote. Also, it was a couple of pages. That is essentially half the game.Azkar wrote:I don't know .. I wouldn't have said there was much to get up to speed on, at that point. There was a lot of back-and-forth between you and Seol, but it wasn't really anything new.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Fair enough.Azkar wrote:
Well, I'm trying to point out how your recent actions have come across to me. I can't really do that without bringing them up, and since the lion's share of your recent actions have been attacks towards Seol ...VitaminR wrote:Azkar, I've noticed you're basically doing Seol's end of the defending.
You do seem to pick his side in every single detail of it, though. You seem to disagree with me completely on all of it.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
That attitude is exactly what bothers me. Assuming that the justification still holds ignores everything that happened in the meantime, when there were strong indicators that the general consensus could change significantly.Azkar wrote:Sorry, I think we were talking about different stages of the game, again. I thought you were talking about the first request, since you had said, "There was really not enough justification to ask for a claim." The second time around, the request was already been out there, so I didn't think that statement applied .. .-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA
Labelling sympathy plays as manipulative seems a bit exaggerated to me. I know from my own experience that it is easy to build up frustration over a game. I don't believe all emotional expressions should be taken at face value in a mafia game, but I don't think this level of suspicion towards them is warranted.Seol wrote:Firstly - there's more to scummy behaviour than just being manipulative. I'd agree that illogical behaviour isn't necessarily scummy in itself, however it's not just a lack of logic. There's also a lack of consistency, which is far more telling. Also, I'd disagree that he's not manipulative - I'd describe his "defence" post ashighlymanipulative - not only the sympathy plays (see below) but also the turn into an attack on yourself in the latter part.
Yes, he then later unvoted. That's one example of an instance where he could have behaved in a certain opportunistic, manipulative manner, but didn't. That doesn't mean he isn't manipulative. It just means he wasn't in that instance, and if he was elsewhere, then those arguments still apply.
I just don't understand the inconsistency. It is not difficult to avoid from his point of view. He could have easily hid behind my reasons for pushing Azkar. I honestly don't think it's that telling.
He was referring to 167 and 168.Seol wrote:Between post 163, where theopor said you stuck out the most, and post 170, where he said your theory made sense, all you'd posted was assertions I was scum.
I felt referring characterising that as "he's scum and he's attacking me" was unfair.
There's more to it than that.Seol wrote:Wait, no - you did also criticise me for "forcing the claim" on the basis that "this allows someone who normally wouldn't have theopor to go "ah well, at worst he's a townie" and hammer him." That's assuming a hammer-hungry townie, when Avinyl had already expressed a cautious approach re: hammering, and it postulates one possible outcome - which isalwaysa possible outcome of a claim on a wagon and yet doesn't happen all that often - and cites it as motive. Pretty mucheverywagon has a claim. Are all requests for a claim trying to set up a BWCS hammer? Do you haveany basisfor me trying to set it up, other than speculation?
1. You've won yourself some information. You know he doesn't have a power role.
2. It always has an influence. Knowing that theopor is a townie makes it easier to go after him. Even if only subconsciously for some players, there will be an effect.
3. I have seen quite a few players lynched Day 1 based on the "at worst, he's a townie"-principle. Perhaps that's not your experience.
4. Theopor having claimed consolidates the position that he is a suspect. It sets him apart from the other wagons. The fact that he has claimed alone makes him suspicious.
As for what other basis I could have for thinking that you're trying to set up an easy hammer: What other basis would I have? You're not come out and say "I'm trying to manipulate you into hammering theopor."
Also, what is BWCS?
True, but I don't think it has been ladled on that heavily. There is nothing there in theopor's posts or in my posts that I don't see as normal human emotion. I'll agree with you that theopor's big defence post is an exception, but coming from a new player in that position, I don't regard it with that much suspicion.Seol wrote:Disagree. There's nothing inherently scummy about posting an emotional response, or two, even. There is something scummy in posting an emotional response with no substance as a substitute for a proper response, but there'salsosomething scummy about ladling on an emotive message to excess. It's manipulative, the written equivalent of puppy-dog eyes.
Seol wrote:I beg to differ, actually. Theopor didn't post a substantive defence. He simply said, in a number of ways, "I was wrong, I suck bad". He also attacked you, but in respect of "defending" himself he appealed to our better nature and tried to divest himself of accountability for his past actions.
I disagree. I feel theopor has made a real attempt to defend himself. What you think of the quality of his defence is a different matter.
Context is still important. They were posted in quick succession and in a mood of frustration. If I'd consistently continued with them, you'd have a point, but I think it is clear I'm not attempting to sway people with emotion.Seol wrote:No, volume is highly relevant. Once isn't really worth remarking on. Four or five in short succession - or in a single post - most definitely are.
It was an impression of your behaviour that gradually formed during the debate. Also, I don't really see how you can excuse yourself from not pointing who you find scummy by saying: 'Nobody asked.'Seol wrote:I can't anticipate everything that you're going to want at every point. If you want clarification on my position,ask. My playstyle is not governed by your expectations.
What you did was not drawing an obvious connection between the two of you, though. Avoiding a wagon is something that a lot of players do. Defending another player and attacking their attacker is likewise common. They're subtle connections. That is the distinguishing factor.Seol wrote:Also, can't you apply the same mindset to me? Even if I was actively avoiding the wagon - which I wasn't - you're arguing that's damning against me. I'm pretty much as experienced as Thesp. Simply put, I don't see the distinguishing factor here.
I'd think they'd correlate in his perception.Seol wrote:He was voting you because he thinks that you not finding him scum was illogical, as it seemed clear to him that he was appearing scummy. His arguments are all about the nature, not the firmness, of your position.
Straw Man. I didn't say that.Seol wrote:So you found me scummy for changing my position on theopor_COD? My original opinion was that I hadn't heard much from him, and wagonning isn't a tell for newbies. My revised opinion was based on new information, and my reason for thinking he was scummy was basically inconsistencies in his story, which is a tell for anyone. Revising my opinions when presented with new information is scummy now?
What I found scummy was that initially you seemed to adopt the stance I'd expect from a townie. Not overreact at a newbie's inexperience. You changed your position after behaviour that I felt was very much in line with what I'd expect from an inexperienced player.
I can't argue with that, considering the amount of players who have me near the top of their list.Seol wrote:Being focussed on one player in an early stage of the game is also absolutely typical of my playstyle. I've found it to be very effective.
Righto. I've omitted some of my responses (which was difficult, because it means granting you the final word on some things ).Seol wrote:Agreed. On that basis, I'm trying to only respond to the key points. If I omit anything you think is significant or relevant, please highlight it. It's important we don't get drowned in the details.
This misrepresents my point completely.Seol wrote:I don't look at scum pairs on day 1, because it's a fundamentally weak approach. I look for scummy individual behaviour. Like you said, your reasoning is prone to collapse - that's because it's built on sand (and by sand, I mean unverifiable assumptions). The scumknowthat people are looking for relationships, and they're going to behave in such a manner as to try to undermine that approach as far as possible - so chances are if you do apply such reasoning, you're either being manipulated or doing the manipulating yourself. I don't know why you're arguing that taking an approach like that is essentially pro-town.
I try to use the best tools for the job. Lynching people based on postulated relationships is not only weak day 1, it's also a classic misdirection tool (ie establishing a false relationship to later exploit). Lynching people based on their behaviour in isolation is simply more effective.
Day 2, once you have some reliable evidence about the alignment of people,that'swhen I believe it's appropriate to start reasoning based on scum pairs.
I never said only looking at scum pairs is pro-town. I said not looking at scum pairs is scummy. I believe a combination of the two to be most effective. Subjective or not, there will always be links between scumbuddies that are in some way tangible. To ignore them is convenient, you don't have to limit your suspicions. It will get people lynched, that's true, but the game is not about getting someone lynched. It is about getting scum lynched.
As for Day 2 being the right day for it, surely that would depend on the information available?
I feel there's more than enough to analyse in this game.-
-
VitaminR Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 3668
- Joined: November 14, 2005
- Location: Somerville, MA