Mini 645 - Innocence Falls (Game Over)
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I don't like the way Pope's #41 completely ignores what's been posted, and assumes Matin's alignment based on a null-tell.
Not a great case, but good enough for my first vote.
Vote: The Pope's TiaraRecord:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ Pope: I'll consider that response, but my vote's staying put for the moment.
Was there any point to your post, other than being funny? Why did you choose to post what you did in response to a serious defense against your initial jab?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Wow... super activity levels. Forgive me if I'm a little slow in keeping up. I'm a busy guy and one of my other games is a little overwhelming ATM. Anyway...
@ Simeon: I didn't choose to refrain from arguing. I opted to refrain from arguing at that moment, for two reasons. (1) I was leaving for work. (2) Pope's answer caught me a little off guard because I couldn't imagine anyone claiming that his previous statement (#25) was a joke. So I decided to have another look before taking a stance, anlalyze what he'd said and when rather than just arguing against someone who might have been a townie I'd misread. That is not the same thing as backing down.
I do understand the tactic of posting statements like "TPT is town" even when one is not sure, but I would like to read at least a summary of your reasons for finding him innocent.
@ Pope: Now that I've considered your answer, I have some problems with it. The reason I took #41 as being serious was that your questions in #25 ("Are you trying to avoid acting scummy so as not to draw attention to yourself? Why would a townie be worried?") came off as very serious; too serious, in fact, for what had prompted them. Then Matin seemed to catch that same vibe, explicitly stating that his previous action had been a joke (which was obvious anyway).
Your answer was to post #41 and, now that you point it out, I do see the irony. But I still don't see anything funny (or even attempted funny) about #25. Nor do I see the benefit, for town, of ignoring the way Matin took you so seriously. I'm wondering if you realized you'd gone too far too soon and tried to back out with #41.
In the past two pages you have digressed into abstract posts, which has no benefit if you are town. Yet it could have the benefit of giving you the image of a VI/jester if you are scum. You are an intriguing case. I'm still not sure you're mafia of course, but I think you're the most suspicious at this point.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
1. It's my apology for refusing to post a random vote. I try to get a content-based vote out as soon as I have a lead, even if it's a minor one.nureins wrote:1. Ythill QUICK vote after saying he doesnt like random-joke votes...
2. pope INSISTING on you so much
3. tpt voting back to Ythill in an OMGUS way
4. They playing to vote each other to DISTANCE in a semi-random phase...
2. I wouldn't so much call it INSISTING as I would call it SLINGING MUD. Pope got too serious too quickly, then backed out, then voted for me. INSISTING would have involved more posts, more argument, and one less OMGUS hop.
3. Yes the vote was OMGUS, but I consider it a null-tell in most situations.
4. This is horrible play. Relying on conspiracy theories (assuming two players' alignments without knowing either) leads to confirmation bias and therefore mislynches. I welcome you to point out alignment tells against myself, Pope, or anyone else but... please... don't start accusing us of distancing until one of us has been confirmed as scum.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I don't like nuriens' "beautiful dance" post (#75). It poses as being meaningful but is a study in ambivalence. He takes all sides without really saying anything, and he quietly discredits the arguments against Pope while doing so (which doesn't sayanythingabout Pope's alignment).
@ nuriens: There's been time to see what's developed. Now, do you find me scummy? Or Pope? Or both? Or neither? Why?
@ habit: Good catch on the possibility of Jahudo mason-fishing, but I think it's equally likley he's scum-hunting and the rest of his posts have given me a townie feel (all gut, but that's okay at this point). Can you show why his comment is more likley to come from scum than town?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I'm getting a slightly more townie vibe from Sim lately, but I still don't agree with him about Pope.
Absouletly not. Choosing to argue somethingSim wrote:
So, in other words, you chose not to argue it, whatever your reasons.Ythill wrote:@ Simeon: I didn't choose to refrain from arguing. I opted to refrain from arguingat that moment, for two reasons. (1) I was leaving for work. (2) Pope's answer caught me a little off guard because I couldn't imagine anyone claiming that his previous statement (#25) was a joke.later, after considerationis not the same as choosing to not argue it at all. You seem too bright to have misread that accidentally, but I'll ask rather than assume. Did you?
@ nureins: You've got it wrong about Sim and Pope. Sim's baseless "defense" might be said to tarnish his rep, but it doesn't tarnish Pope's.IfSim is lynched and flips mafia, it would be strong evidence of Pope being townie. But, once again, you're heading down the road toward conspiracy theory.
It may be just your posting style, but I'm starting to become suspicious of someone who is willing to say so much without actually taking a stand.
@ habit: mason-fishing = role fishing for masons
That's the least-helpful thing you've posted.Goat wrote:
You don't like evidence? That's gotta be some kind of a scumtell.Simenon wrote:Ugh. This post contains my three least favorite words: "scumtell", "evidence", and "least-helpful"Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ Sim:Please answer my question from the last page...
In spite of this, Sim is looking more and more town, as is Cass. Nuriens, on the other hand...In #, I wrote:
Absouletly not. Choosing to argue somethingSim wrote:
So, in other words, you chose not to argue it, whatever your reasons.Ythill wrote:@ Simeon: I didn't choose to refrain from arguing. I opted to refrain from arguingat that moment, for two reasons. (1) I was leaving for work. (2) Pope's answer caught me a little off guard because I couldn't imagine anyone claiming that his previous statement (#25) was a joke.later, after considerationis not the same as choosing to not argue it at all. You seem too bright to have misread that accidentally, but I'll ask rather than assume. Did you?
@ nuriens:When I said you wouldn't take a stand, it had nothing to do with you not voting. It had everything to do with your extensive use of qualifying phrases. Good townies are not afraid to be wrong and, especially since English is not your first language, I'd think you understand the power of qualifiers to make a statement ambivalent.
Other things I find suspicious: basing your current case on theory disagreements, suspicion growing against Sim while his tells have been showing more town than scum, suddenly both taking a stance and making a vote in answer to my accusation, and buddying to Cass.
unvote; vote nuriensRecord:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
The grammar debate was entertaining but utterly pointless.
@ Simenon: For chrisskaes, answer the question. Did you accidentally misread my response about arguing later vs. not arguing at all? What, am I typing in braile?
@ nuriens: I said I don't joke vote. Then I explained the difference between that and early voting. Stop twisting my words, scum.
I'll have little to no internet access until Tuesday night. Going camping for my birthday. When I return, I'll give comment on whatever has transpired.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Got some time to check in briefly and I figured I'd comment on a few recent topics.
The theory discussion is still annoying.
Pope being experienced but not knowing stuff (self vote, OMGUS) is not a contradiction because he said his experience was from MW and other sites.
Sim's posts just seem long because of all the quotes.
Nuriens' most recent defenses amount to "no I didn't." It is a fair assessment to say that he has buddied and put out a smoke screen of noise. The second may only be a n00b tell, but there are enough other scumtells to keep my vote where it's at.
Look at post #15, which was a reply to your #14, and which you replied to in #16, and then explain to us why you are lying.nuriens wrote: The only thing you have said is :
"1. It's my apology for refusing to post a random vote. I try to get a content-based vote out as soon as I have a lead, even if it's a minor one. "
I will move my vote as often as I like. Changing one's stance as the evidence changes is good for the town.nuriens wrote:Now few posts later, not only you have moved again from your minor case, now you claim another person is definitely SCUM.
Nothing isdefiniteD1, but it's become pretty obvious to me that you are scum. I don't understand what's wrong with me saying so.
Now hurry up and implicate your buddies so we can lynch you.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Goebels isn't playing this game. Let's stick to reality, scum.
You can call me whatever you want, it doesn't change your alignment.
1. Refuse, not hesitate. Stop lying.
2. Yes. So what?
3. No. My suspicion of you grew over several posts, based on your behavior.
4. That personisscum.
5. That personhaslied, or at least hasn't demonstrated otherwise. I didn't talk about your buddies, I told you to.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
nuriens wrote:...too many quick votes for someone who isreluctant to cast votes in the beginning.nuriens wrote:Ythill. In my view, he has jumped over two persons with very poor arguments. Especially inconsistent with someone that claimsearly voting is not his specialityand thatclaims that never goes for early voting...I wrote:@ nuriens: I said I don't joke vote. Then I explained the difference between that and early voting. Stop twisting my words, scum.
Nuriens, not having a proper defense for himself, decided to deflect suspicion by suddenly attacking me. He did this by claiming that me refusing to joke vote somehow meant that I wouldn't vote in the "early" part of the game. I never said any such thing. His first lie.nuriens wrote:Theonly thingyou have said is :
"1. It's my apology for refusing to post a random vote. I try to get a content-based vote out as soon as I have a lead, even if it's a minor one. "
When I point out what I actually said, and that I explained the difference between that and early voting (that an early content vote is something I will do), nuriens claimed that I'd only made one post on the topic, rather than two. His second lie.
When I pointed that out, the "king of qualifiers" backtracked, asking us to believe that he posted the phrase "the only thing you have said," without qualifiers, to mean "the only thing you said about the difference between joke voting and early voting." Third lie is the charm.
Give it up, dude. I'm not Goebels. I've simply been trying to keep it brief, since we have so many wordy players, and since I've had limited access.
Your "attack" is nothing but a weak attempt to keep the heat off of yourself. You haven't answered my initial accusations satisfactorily. You haven't answered the accusations of others satisfactorily. And Ihaven't even sharedall of the scumtells I've seen from you.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Quick post before work.
It looks like I've cornered nuriens-scum. He's backing out of the argument and blaming it on me, but his next post contains a passive-aggressive jab. I will be rereading this game soon, probably tonight. When I do, unless I find some heretofore undiscovered town-tells, I will be posting a complete case against nuriens.
@ habit: I don't find Pope any less suspicious than I did, but there are bigger fish to fry. Why would you threaten to hammer someone (who is only @ L-5) without reading his posts? Seriously dude, if you don't like to read, why are you playing this game?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
First things first...
I read nuriens' posts (and those he quoted) carefully, skimmed the rest.
I've identified three people likely to be town (one of them is about as solid a read as I could have at this point). Not going to name them.
Nuriens is still my PE#1. Matin and habit are looking suspicious to me. A few others are looking creepy, but less suspicious than these three. None of my tells on them are based on relationships with one another and I amnotsaying that all three are scum, just that they are the three most likleyindividualsin my view.
I've decided that the Pope evidence is inconclusive.
Anyway, I promised a case on nuriens... get out your reading glasses...Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
PbPA of nuriens
Starts forcing conversation through serious questions as early as #14 and theory debate by #20. (null)
Names 7 of 12 players as possibly implicated in #38-39. Gives ambivalent “town-soft” reads on two of them, with little new evidence, in #53. (scum)
Posts the “which is a joke?” quiz (#58) to his declared townies, myself, and the lead suspect. The examples all shed suspicion on two opposed players. The post leaves a very obvious exit from any attempt to discredit it (scum).
Considers Pope “a bit suspicious” while coaching him in #65 (scum).
Changes his Ecto read with the evidence (town) and puts words in Jah’s mouth (scum) in #71.
“Beautiful dance” post (#75) suspecting all three players in the most current drama. Confirms his vote while saying, of it “randomness has not disappeared a lot.” (scum)
WOW (#105-107) is a study in ambivalence, “answering” all questions without taking a solid stance. Interpretation could take things either way. Uses the outs he seeded in #58. Coaches Pope twice. Avoids a direct question about his stance by claiming he’d already answered it (major scum).
Second WOW (#111) minimizes his own suspicions, attacks Sim for null tells, eluding that he is scum and Pope is town. Uses the “too rational to be a townie” argument (scum).
Third WOW (#128) makes slippery arguments against Sim, using them to finally take a stand (as well as vote) immediately after I have called him out for being wishy-washy. He does this while claiming that he’s in no hurry and trying to convince us of a semi-random stage (scum).
In #129 he’s territorial (not sure if that’s the right word) about his treatment of Sim (null).
In #144 argues semantics, offers a false dichotomy, and continues baseless arguments against Sim (scum).
A confusing misquote in #146 just makes me wonder if he’s paying attention (null), but he goes on to use his earlier ambivalence tactically, invite suspicion, and give a baseless townie read on Cass (scum, though some are very mild).
In #157, he says he’s not arguing theory, but rather arguing about the three word post that his THEORY ARGUMENTS started with. He then claims that the separation of his posts somehow proves the order in which he read. Then OMGUS attacks me. (all null, but not compelling defenses to the allegations). Chimes in on the infer/imply situation in #158 (null).
Scumeter (#161) does not follow the progression of evidence/accusation as stated by its author (major scum). Reveals the poor semantic argument of his Sim case in #171 (null, but weakens the argument). Also blathers a defense to a hard question about wagons and his vote (scum). Second of three alleged lies in #172 (scum).
Pushes good questions in #173 (town).
In #184, explicitly offers to sway his opinion if people can convince him (scum). Gets involved in the “agent of scum,” discussion, which issomebody’ssmokescreen, but not his own (null).
Posts the no-I’m-not defense in #187, includes a very mild appeal to emotion (null, but not a convincing defense).
Growing weary of debates in #189. Not a solid tell but this looks like an escape hatch (cornered scum).
Argues with me in #194 (see my #195). Argues more in #197: funny thathecallsmeout for arguing semantics when I’d pointed out his misleading bombast. Even though a lot of his points were crap, it’s very hard for me to tell the difference between cornered scum and frustrated townie in these posts (null).
In #198, bases much of his case against me on the assumption that my case against him (which he never really answered) was weak (scum).
In #205, refuses to answer “repetitive” posts by me, thereby declaring that me clarifying the truth about his misleading assertions is just repetition. Makes a passive-aggressive stab at me, a sort of underhanded defense of himself, in #206 (cornered scum).
In #208, again makes the baseless assertion that I am lying. Comes back in #210 with ad hom (cornered scum).Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ nhat:
Having not shared scumtellsyetis not a secret. Especially since I let it all hang outbeforeyour accusation.
When I first started playing this game, I learned that giving town reads too early helps the scum, so I will not be divulging that sort of information unless it becomes extremely important, such as if one of my townie-reads is involved in a counter claim.
But I shouldn't let you pull me into a theory debate. There areplentyof pro-town reasons to withhold information.
Nothing I've said requires fluency beyond that already demonstrated by nuriens. Nor does he have a problem following complex arguments. Nor is he the only one who can discuss the points. Nor is being multilingual a town tell.nhat wrote:Also, you are going tit-for-tat with a player whose English is far from perfect.
As does everything. Please explain why scum would be more likley than town to treat nuriens as I have. Saying something "looks like" scumminess demonstrates nothing.nhat wrote:...it looks like a good opportunity for scum types...
Besides, who's bandwagoning?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I guess I've made another OMGUS enemy.
@ habit: I never said there were three scum. I said I had main suspects. I also said I had three town reads. Do you think I was saying there are only three townies?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Ithabit wrote:I do liek to read, but more succint stuff would be good.wasa PbPA. I will try to keep things brief when I can.
Sure. #58, #105-107, and #161.habit wrote:highligth teh main ones or top 3 for me please?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Conceded.nhat wrote:Check the post times. We had pretty much simultaneously posted.
You didn't say being a polyglot was a towntell, but you suggested that arguing with one was a scumtell. Unless you're suggesting distancing, you are assuming that nuriens is town based on his language.
It's easy to exploit lots of people for lots of different reasons. That doesn't mean they can't be scum, and it doesn't mean I'm scum for calling them on it. If nuriens manages to convince me that I'm mistaken, I'll lay off him. Until then, I'm not going to baby him.
And if you think myargumentswere unfair, I'd appreciate you addressing them.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I have to leave for work soon, and so will not have time to respond to nuriens' post immediately, but Iwillanswer it later. I do have a few brief words for now...
@ nuriens: I noticed that you defended yourself against null tells and even one town tell. Did you not realize that the parenthetical words null, town, and scum were meant to identify the tells? This is an honest question. I just cannot see whyanyonewould post a defense to a town tell.
@ habit: I think you misunderstood what I meant about the scummeter post, but that is a valid point about the backdoor left by nuriens. I do think that your ideas about why scum would buddy are a bit off the mark, but let's save that conversation for after we have had a card-flip.
@ Cass: You've posted an interesting contradiction. Nuriens' defense is mainly based on the belief that I am misinterpreting him on purpose. How can you claim that his defense is good while still not seeing me as suspicious?Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
As promised, my response to nuriens. You’ll note that I don’t bother arguing when he has tried to “clarify” things I didn’t list as scumtells, though I’m still laughing that he attempted to disprove one of the few things that might lead me to believe he is town.
I guess I misread this part, and will concede the point. On first read, your “I want to hear more from” sounded like a call-out. One scumtell withdrawn.nuriens wrote:I DIDNT MENTION ANYONE AS POSSIBLY IMPLICATED IN 38-39.
This doesn’t change the fact that your “two suspects” were on two sides of a debate, which was my point in identifying them. This would be the same as another player shedding implicit suspicion on both you and I right now. Wouldn’t you find that suspicious?nuriens wrote:It is not "my declared townies, yourself and the lead suspect". It is "my declared townies (if you want to call them that way, that is ok) and MY TWO SUSPECTS.
There is no such thing as partially random. Calling a vote partially random is a tactic that allows one to pursue it if the town agrees or abandon it if the town finds it suspicious.nuriens wrote:My vote was on you among the three of them due to a "random" reason, so I wanted to point out that the reason was partially random.
This is about #105-107. You make statements that seem torn between myself and Pope as the scum choice, still ready to spring on whichever side of that debate the town leans towards. Your suspicion increases on Pope, following the town’s current lean. Meanwhile you introduce suspicion on Sim and place those FoSes, which has the effect of giving another either-or choice. This is what I mean when I say you are not taking a stance. Saying, explicitly, that you find one of us scummy and pursuing that one would be harmful to you as scum, especially early in the game.nuriens wrote:You are very fast in making conclusions. I am not, and I like to see the game developing. So I took a solid stance. But for you, solid stance maybe is a different thing.
A townie isn’t afraid to change his mind later. A mafioso is.
“...probably because my suspicions on all of you are milder than hers...” and “of course, this is only my opinion...”nuriens wrote:I do not see here your point about "minimizing" my own suspicions.
"Oh congratulations, People is wrong and you appear as being correct after the lynch of an innocent..."nuriens wrote:Eluding that sim is scum and pope town ? where have you read that?
Maybe you are too inexperienced to understand this one entirely, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. No matter how it is phrased, and argument that comes to the conclusion “so-and-so is either a stupid/irrational/etc townie or a mafioso” is likely to make the subject, regardless of their alignment, freak out and seem scummier. It does this by creating the illusion that they must either admit to being scum or admit to being your pejorative, thereby strongly involving the ego. By town, this argument should only be used if you arenuriens wrote:"too rational to be a townie" argument ??absolutely certainthe person is anti-town which is pretty unlikely this early (and you said you were not). As scum, it’s a very useful tactic. And I notice that you’ve now used it again, against me.
1. This could be a scum move, or it could have been a mistake, or laziness. He didn't actually attribute the quote to you, he just neglected to attribute it to her.nuriens wrote:1. He misquoted.
2. He accused (Cass and Me) of him having backtracked.
3. It was pretty clear that neither Cass nor me had done.
2. He did no such thing. Cass accused him of setting up a backtrack, he said "Show where I've backtracked," to point out that her hypothetical accusation was meaningless.
3. Agreed, but this doesn't matter if you read what Sim said in the correct context.
Also, why are you so concerned that Sim put you and Cass on the same team?
Actually, my mistake. I was confused by Ecto speaking of himself in the third person. At least now I know you're paying attention.nuriens wrote:With respect to the misquote, which one is it ?? I havent misquoted in 146...
Sim didn’t give a read. He gave an opinion without trying to disguise it as a read. You tried to base a READ on the fact that Cass was attacking a suspect of yours and you agreed with her. For your read to be valid, we have to assume that (1) you are town, (2) Sim’s action was scummy and (3) Cass is not manipulating you. That’s a lot of assumption and, to me, #2 is clearly not true.nuriens wrote:Clearly, my read on Cass was based in our Simenon experience, in which I perceived that she was scum-hunting. Very different to Simenon on TPT that was simply "tpt is town", totally baseless...and that curiously, u dont find scummy
Now... on to current matters...Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Sim vs. Ecto seems kind of pointless. Both sides make sense. Sim was, perhaps, a bit too quick to judge and Ecto a bit too quick to be defensive, but I don't see any of their posts as scumtells.
@ nuriens: I'll only attack you for honoring Cass' request if your case against Pope seems scummy to me. And I'll do that no matter what you do, so long as it seems scummy to me. Did I mention that your hesitation seems a little scummy to me?
Even though I say this, Iamentertaining a small doubt about my nuriens read and it is this: in rereading to answer his post, I noticed that a fair number of those scumtellscouldbe n00b tells. Though the sheer number makes that theory sound like a stretch, he is new. Not enough to unvote him yet, but I will be reading him more carefully as we continue to squabble.
And I'd appreciate everyone's opinion as to whether nuriens is more likely to be inexperienced scum or simply inexperienced.
I don't find you particularly anti-town but this question raises a red flag. ItCass wrote:...could you please each make a case on anyone that isn't the other?could beyou trying to put a stop to our argument before one of us is implicated.
Basically, I don't take kindly to the suggestion that I post a case on someone who is not my top suspect. However, I do have other suspects, and I suppose it couldn't hurt to harp a little on one of them. Just don't expect the full PbPA case, at least not yet...Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
For Cass... a starter case on one of my secondary suspects. Habit, please respond...
Habit attacked Jah when Pope was in the spotlight. He claimed to have found Jah suspicious for reasons I don’t agree with and then, within a day’s time, cleared Jah based solely on WIFOM. He used the too-scummy-to-be-scum argument, which is like WIFOM+1. He also stated that he was abandoning the case “not because everyone doesn’t agree” which seems like a very odd statement for a townie to post if he believes in the reason for changing his mind.
Later, habit used further WIFOM (and admitted it) to rekindle those suspicions on Jah, after claiming that his initial case had been for the purpose of starting discussion. It all feels very... false.
Habit gives Pope a lot of leeway when he’s in the spotlight and even posts an anecdotal defense for the auto-vote. It could be subtle buddying, especially since it is retracted a bit once Pope is in the clear.
He claims to misread a lot, which may be true, but it may also be a ruse to allow him to make inflammatory statements and then retract them. One mention of this, in his tenth post, includes the story about how he was hammered for it in another game, which seems like an unnecessary appeal to emotion.
Habit’s accumulated stance on scumhunting bothers me. He doesn’t like “taking it to the next level.” He doesn’t like arguments based on joke votes. He doesn’t like questions directed to specific people, or focused arguments, or multiple conversations happening at the same time. He doesn’t like arguments in general, or all-inclusive attacks, or using pressure to draw out slip-ups. He doesn’t like posts that don’t go deep enough, or posts that are too long. I suppose these could be honest peeves, but it seems odd that a townie would tell so many people to stop scumhunting.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
No worries... it was poorly worded.
Basically, I'm wondering if people see nuriens' scummy behavior as null-n00b play. Or, more generally, I started to see that such is a possibility and I wanted others to weigh in on that topic.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I wrote that paragraph with habit's posts open in isolation so, yes, I assure you that there is a quote for each one. Rather than have me post them all, why don't you quiz me by picking a couple?Ecto wrote:There are so many accusations here that I believe few players would actually go back and see if Habit actually exhibited all of the behavior listed.
But yes, it was a bit excessive. Such is my style. It leaves room for town to defend and scum to slip up.
Habit's defenses make some sense, but I'm not entirely convinced. Not going to argue at length with him, since the case (though honest) was mainly for Cass to get her read. If I feel like pushing habit, I'll come back to it.
I will say that his no-lynch suggestion is a little unsettling.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Habit's speculation about the setup is just that. The flavor doesn't include any definitive statements. It mentions thepossibilityof inclusion of the three most common town power roles, but also hints that any number of other roles might be included.
@ nuriens: Why did you pick Tritch and not Sim for your current case?
I'm looking forward to the Cass vs. Tritch situation that's brewing.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I'm not interested in lynching Tritch at this point, but I'll hear what he has to say.
Not waiting for anything specific, just working long hours, got a date tonight, and tomorrow is poker night. I'll be able to poke my nose in for a moment like this, but don't expect any serious research.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I think you've misunderstood what I meant originally. I didn't suggest that nuriens was an experienced player but first-time scum. I believe it was he who claimed minimal experience at one point, though I don't have time to look back at the moment to verify it.Andycyca wrote:
After reading the nureins-only I find him a newbie. That theory about him being an experienced-player-but-first-time-scum doesn't make any sense. An experienced player would know a better approach to the game, both as scum and town (even more, if person X has been protown a long time, he knows how to think protown)Ythill wrote:No worries... it was poorly worded.
Basically, I'm wondering if people see nuriens' scummy behavior as null-n00b play. Or, more generally, I started to see that such is a possibility and I wanted others to weigh in on that topic.
I just chose poor wording to ask whether people believed that his suspicious play stems from inexperience alone. And, for the record, I'd still like to hear more folks' answers to that.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Though habit is still a stated suspect of mine, I'm not liking this latest development at all.
One of the reasons I've been reluctant to pursue him was the dynamic involving nuriens + Cass + habit. I was grilling nuriens but had also listed alternate suspects. Cass asked for a secondary case and, after I turned my guns on habit... you see what's developed.
I don't buy a lot of the reactions to his latest post. It was an unnecesarry appeal to emotion, yes, but he's done this before, just not so explicitly. The added intensity seems to have naturally developed from the increased number of arguments against him.
Nor do I see how the post could possibly serve his purposes as scum.
Nhat's "case" on habit is pointless. It's clearly possible, even probable, that habit misread the flavor. And this wagon has grown too quickly for my liking. I'm especially suspicious of Cass' FoS here, because of the aforementioned dynamic and the way it allows her to push the wagon while avoiding cuplability in the vote count.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I don't think a FoS is more opportunistic than a vote in this instance, but I think it accomplishes some of the same goals (pressuring the target, pushing the lynch) without the culpability of a vote and is therefore more suspicious.
True, but silly and unreal do not tell me anything about his alignment.Simenon wrote:
Oh come on. It was plain silly and unreal.Ythill wrote:I don't buy a lot of the reactions to his latest post. It was an unnecesarry appeal to emotion, yes, but he's done this before, just not so explicitly. The added intensity seems to have naturally developed from the increased number of arguments against him.
My statement was unfair and my only excuse for this is that I was in a bit of a rush when I made that post. To clarify, your case was not pointless, but the bit about him knowing the set-up was. Its inclusion made the whole case seem somewhat contrived, like it was bad icing on an otherwise reasonable cake.nhat wrote:
You left out the part where he's jumped back on to Jahudo for the flimsiest of reasons.Ythill wrote:Nhat's "case" on habit is pointless. It's clearly possible, even probable, that habit misread the flavor.
Goat's read of me in #316 demonstrates that he is a skilled player. It can be read as a gambit from either scum or town. I don't know that it indicates his alignment by itself but, coupled with the right card-flip, it wouldnearlyconfirm him one way or the other.
The accusations against Andy are intriguing to me, as are those against Cass.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ Sim: I obviously wasn't reading "unreal" as literally as you meant it. Rereading habit's appeal, I do see what you mean but it's a tone he's had all along. What do you think of earlier examples like his #27 & 30 (#s in isolation)?
Yes, but habit was in no danger at all. The effect of the post was to draw the spotlight to him, something which could have been foreseen. To play the WIFOM game... what do you think of a player who is crafty enough to employ this tactic but daft enough to time it so poorly?Sim wrote:...a scum wants to fake emotional explosions because they keep them from getting lynched.
That said, I'm not convinced that habit is town. I just don't see much of a scumtell in his latest post. This wagon has been very good for information though.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
This is another gear change for which I don't see valid reasons but I'd rather not discuss what makes you see people as townie, so I guess we'll let it lie for now.nuriens wrote:Ythill, Im reading positively from you lately
I've got some problems with Jah's #311 but I'd rather not state them until habit responds to it. So...
@ habit: Please respond thoroughly to #311.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
unvote
A lot has been revealed since the habit wagon started. My views of this game have changed considerably. I sense the need for an extensive reread, though I will not have time until the weekend.
For a little while, I considered putting a pressure vote on habit just to see the reactions, but it seems like we've got bigger fish to fry.
Jah was one of those I had privately listed as townie. #311 made me look twice. Now Goat has done a great job of analyzing Jah and I agree with many of the points therein, though they differ from my own. My only real problem with the Goat case is that he doesn't seem to have any doubt, which is unsettling but may be a function of his playstyle.
Anyway... here's what I thought about #311...
I'm glad habit answered this first, because I didn't want to offer the defense to him. Habit was caught up in a gear change. My case came for odd reasons (to offer Cass a read of me) and therefore was sudden. Other sudden suspicion fell upon him. There were no votes but there was a good deal of pressure.Jahudo wrote:
What heat were you referring to? Besides not having any votes on back then, you do know how many votes it will take today to lynch? With 12 alive it's 7 to lynch unless I'm mistaken.habitang wrote:Yes I feel the heat of beign suspected by a lot of people. I can only ask that I be given benefit of the doubt, like really really give me benefit of the doubt.
And once someone is at L-2 and L-1 every rational townie will discuss thoroughly because a fast hammer is scummy. You have no reason to act this way, but I'd like an explanation.
His reaction is fitting for someone who is used to getting himself killed D1.
This picks up the unreasonable argument Andy already questioned and runs with it: whether a player is new to the game or to the role. The hole in the argument is that a player with experience as town will play better as scum.Jahudo wrote:Also what benefit of the doubt? That you don't think before you type because you've said its stupidity? That you're inexperienced? That you're not experienced with your role?
The quote also contains unecesarry ad hom aimed at a player who was already against the ropes a few votes ago. Intended to draw further emotional outbursts? Maybe.
I very much dislike the way Jah is attacking a player who is apparently unskilled while complimenting some of us who have argued strongly. There was no linguistuc reason to name examples. It sounds like positioning to me.Jahudo wrote:
Now it's much better to get everything out in the open and try to fix yourself up. Be honest and clearly outline your opinions of me and the rest.habitang wrote:Honestly, can I redo with a clean slate? I wish I never posted anything now.Maybe outline like nureins and Ythill didif you think I've been overlooked. I have nothing to hide, do you?
This statement is very empty. Its tone says that Jah caught on to some really convincing evidence, but the case he gives amounts to very little and all of it full of holes. Jah has shown himself to be intelligent and perceptive. Why would such minor evidence change his mind so strongly?Jahudo wrote:
This post certainly changed my position of you, yes.habitang wrote:Not only am I going on a rave, I think that if I just let everything go, then maybe you will see me better.
Vote: habitang
I think what happened is that a skilled mafioso saw the town pushing his only attacker toward the noose, got cocky, and slipped up.
vote: JahudoRecord:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Please realize that "unsettling" was meant to indicateGoat wrote:I'm curious as to why you are unsettled by what you perceive to be a lack of doubt in my thoughts about Jahudo.mildsuspicion. I did explain that your lack of doubtmightbe a facet of playstyle and I am voting the target of your attack.
Basically, I'm noting the lack of doubt as something that may be revealing. If I have more cause to suspect you later, I'll do the meta to check out this lead.
That said, I will explain... Your case was sort of a PbPA in that it extensively analyzed many of Jah's posts by number. Now, if you look back at my own PbPA on nuriens, you will see that, even though I was pretty convinced he was scum, I noted some townie and null moments from his play. I did this because, as you said, there is always some doubt and I'd rather entertain discussion about that doubt than let an aggressive attack push a possible townie to the noose.
You are experienced enough to know, as I do, that an attack of this nature can sway people pretty effectively.
Now, knowing that I had decided Jah was probably town, there are obviously some tells (IMO) leading to that conclusion. Though it's possible you missed them, the theory here is that you ignored them, posting only what you found scummy. This seems like a dangerous tactic for a townie to employ, but would suit scummy purposes.
However, I know that some players purposely avoid explicit doubt in posting a case and, if you are one of those players, then this is only a null-tell.
What does the former have to do with the latter?nuriens wrote:And now, after habit stops pointing to jahudo ythill joins you.
In my defense, I had stated suspicions of #311 (which was the only subject of my case) before Goat voted Jah. I had said that I was waiting for habit to answer #311 before I explained myself and, during the interim between that statement and my case, habit had done so.
It's still a gear change but, like I said, we should let it slide because,nuriens wrote:Someone that is going down in my vibes but yet high (answering to ythill, I have not completely changed my view, "my buddy", I read your posts as more townie later, that is different...)ifyou are town, defending yourself here will give the scum too much information about how to deceive you.
My main concern with this quote is "my buddy." This is not the first time you've mentioned your own buddying, which has the potential to create confusion and mislynches later in the game. I've seen several scum use this tactic but I've never seen a townie do it.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I put this in a separate post because it's important and I didn't want it to get lost in the above.
Jah should be given time to respond to cases posted by myself and Goat before more evidence is brought against him. There's already an overwhelming amount of information for him to address and I'd rather not make it worse, in case he is town.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Are these threats? I don't intend to alter my play in any way so as to avoid your suspicions. You were wrong about my alignment and I will not consider it the fault of my play if you continue to mistake me for scum.Nuriens wrote:Do not start to see ghosts around again... do not focus so forcedly in an expression...
That said, I understand the "former vs. latter" situation now, so thanks for explaining. I thought you had been insinuating that the timing of my actions were somehow based on habit's but I see that I had simply misread your meaning.
I too saw Jah as town before #311 but, reading Goat's case, I also see that there are things I missed.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@ Jah: You didn't answer my points about the ad hom, the weak arguments, or the unreasonable difference between the tone of your vote and the evidence leading to it in #311.
Not to argue against myself but I've done this a fair amount as scum as well, so it's really a null-tell. I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong, which should tell you (and others) something about the earlier argument between you and I, where I didn't admit such things.nuriens wrote:Now Ythill also answered correctly, as he realized he misunderstood again and didnt doubt to admit it to someone with whom he had a fierce debate...
You were not "pointing out" that I was seeing ghosts (or focusing too strongly on a single statement), you told me not to do those things, which is different. Telling somebody not to do something can imply consequences. I was asking if that was what you meant... as well as telling you that no concequence you could offer would cause me to abandon what I see as optimal play.nuriens wrote:...he started the mail asking if I was threating him for pointing him out that he was seeing ghosts again...
Though I still haven't done my reread, I'm going to change my explicit suspect list to: Jah, nuriens, & Cass. Still not sure about habit's alignment but the actions around his wagon have cleared him enough to bump him out of the top three.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
I never said that they did. I said that Andy had discredited theJah wrote:I don’t catch how Andy’s suspicions addressed habit’s appeal to inexperience.inexepienced player vs. inexperienced scumargument. He did so while talking about nuriens...
About nuriens, Andy wrote:That theory about him being an experienced-player-but-first-time-scum doesn't make any sense. An experienced player would know a better approach to the game, both as scum and town (even more, if person X has been protown a long time, he knows how to think protown)
But that's not what you said. You gave three examples of potential reasons we should give habit the benefit of the doubt. The only one that assumed he was scum (which seemed to be your opinion of him) suggested that he was inexperienced with his role and was posted as opposed to him being inexperienced altogether.Jah wrote:What I meant towards habit was: what doubt should we have that your post is from a frustrated townie or scum, that we should draw a conclusion from it and, if not, what are we overlooking?
Please explain how the sentiment posted in #311 and your new rewording equate.
My point was that the argument had already been discredited. You didn't address that and therefore the argument was weak. I don't believe that a weak argument is scummy in and of itself, but when a vote change and opinion change are accompanied by only a few weak arguments from an intelligent player, it rings bells.
I look forward to your synopsis of suspicions (and, probably, to picking them apart).Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Nuriens, you roll too easily.
Jah claims, in defending against you, that he thinks habit is semi-experienced. Then he argues against me that habit obviously hasn't learned from his measly four games. Jah's playing both sides of the coin when it suits him.
Furthermore, faced with his decisive vote and weak case, he continues to back off from his surety. I've heard the "it was just for pressure" story before and my question is always the same.
@ Jah: If yours was a pressure vote, why did you bother pretending you had a case?
Also, welcome Karne. Enjoy your read, I look forward to seeing your opinions.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@nuriens: The question is pointless because you've answered it with the quote you've given. Calling somebody "more experienced than others here and still learning aspects of the game" is calling them semi-experienced.
But, more than the words, look at the angle of each argument. To paraphrase...
Q: Is habit a weak player?
A: No. He's semi-experienced and as good as I.
Q: Isn't it true that experience as town would be the same as experience as scum?
A: No. Habit should have learned to be more pro-town but it looks like he hasn't.
Welcome sirdan.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Uh... yes I was serious but you are right that I misread what Jah had written. Perhaps because of the way he uses the argument in saying that habit is not a weak player. I guess the context threw me off.nureins wrote:
Are you serious ?Ythill wrote:@nuriens: The question is pointless because you've answered it with the quote you've given. Calling somebody "more experienced than others here and still learning aspects of the game" is calling them semi-experienced.
He said "more inexperienced" not more experienced...
So my two-sides-of-the-coin argument is somewhat invalidated. However, I do find Jah's response to that argument a little odd, knowing now that I had simply misread what he meant.
Nor do I like nuriens' coaching in #413.
The question here is whatJah wrote:Now, I’ve felt that these are not great scum tells if you still think Habit is less experienced at the slow flow of these games and his impatience is the cause of these problems.youthink. Habit is not a weak player? Habit is inexperienced? Habit is scummy? Habit is just a n00b? I am honstly confused as to your opinion.
Which makes your vote less scummy how? I'd rather someone post "habit is obvscum" then try to make a weak case sound plausible. The former is lazy. The latter is scummy.Jah wrote:Out of nhats / Simenon / Andy’s votes before me, only Andy really gave support to his vote for habit as scum beyond the fake uncalled-for-ness.
Answer to Jah's mass question: I agree with some of your points, where they correspond to what I've already said about habit. It was not his #306 that cleared him a bit in my mind but, rather, some of the reactions to it... including yours.
Question for Jah: If it is true that you refrained from posting your pre-306 case in #311 because you feared habit wouldn't read it, then why do you explicitly say (in #311) that #306 changed your view of him? I seriously smell a rat here.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
The question was directed at Jah.nureins wrote:
Of course this is an interesting question. That I already answered when I commented Jahudo's case in a long post. If you make me to repeat everybody is gonna hate meYthill wrote: The question here is whatyouthink. Habit is not a weak player? Habit is inexperienced? Habit is scummy? Habit is just a n00b? I am honstly confused as to your opinion.
Nuriens is actually seeming a little more townie to me these days, though I don't know if it's because I'm getting a clearer read on him or because he's being more careful.
Good points (in #411) about sirdan's positioning. I'm looking forward to sirdan's response.
Still comfortable with my vote on Jah.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
EBWOP: #441 rather than #411. Typo.sirdan wrote:
huh? That post is Jahudo's case on habitang.Ythill wrote:Good points (in #411) about sirdan's positioning. I'm looking forward to sirdan's response.
I've noting that sirdan's response was something like "nuh-uh, look what I said".Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
This is neither a stance nor a solid opinion about habit's alignment. Why so slippery?Jah wrote:As for what I think, I have said that inexperience could explain impatience because people who have played more games should be used to playing longer days.
I don't see how your answer addresses my concern. Maybe I'm just being dense, but here's the contradiction I'm talking about. This...Jah wrote:
Since I said that post 311 was not to lynch but to question, I saw it as a starting place from where the case would be given to habit after he answered my question on using a logical fallacy.Ythill wrote:Question for Jah: If it is true that you refrained from posting your pre-306 case in #311 because you feared habit wouldn't read it, then why do you explicitly say (in #311) that #306 changed your view of him? I seriously smell a rat here.
...followed shortly thereafter by a long PbPA which identifies habit's scumtells from earlier than his #306, followed by this...In #311, Jah wrote:This post certainly changed my position of you, yes.
Vote: habitang
The problem is that you said #306 changed your mind. Then, later, you said that you had a large case at that time, much of which was based on posts before #306. So which was it? Did #306 change your mind or not? It can't be both.In #419, Jah wrote:My vote did not explain all my suspicions on habit but it would have been as long as my recent defenses if I had, and some people (habit) would have ignored them for aversion to long posts.
Explain why you've claimed it's both.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Quick post before work...
I don't agree with any of the case against Goat and I believe it may be more damning as evidence against sirdan, though I'll have to see some more of his play before I decide if it's a reliable scumtell.
100% QFT. I don't think defending another player is scummy, or even anti-town. But defending that player before he defends himself is certainly the latter.Goat wrote:@Nureins: I would very much prefer if you didn't defend other players before giving them a chance to defend themselves.
Also, nuriens, just wanted to tell you that in English "going down on" is slang for "performing oral sex on." So when you keep repeating that I'm going down on your scum meter... well...
Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Sirdan is seeming a little slippery to me.
Karne seems solid which is odd, because Matin was on my suspect list. I'm looking forward to reading more from him.
When did you perform that reread? Reference to either date and time or post # is sufficient.Jah wrote:306 changed the way I looked at habit from 288 and I needed to re-examine his posts like he was a different person...Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
"Slippery", in my vernacular, refers generally to arguing in a way that is indecisive or indirect. It is a vague term and for that I apologize.
An example of the former sense (context used in #458):Player X is scummy because he did these things but I've seen him do them as town in other games, so either he's town here or he is skilled scum playing the meta game.Some example of the latter sense (context used in #481): arguing around an accusation by pretending ignorance, making a weak case against someone and then calling him defensive for defending himself, making an argument that ignores previously raised counter-points, etc.
In the case of sirdan, stating that he seems "a little slippery" refers to his general argument style. A few examples include: the way he discussed the simplification issue with nuriens, the shifting appeal to Goat's experience, and his failure to understand a very simple and obvious point I made about his defense. I don't know if these issues are a factor of his playstyle or alignment, but I figured I'd mention the impression so as to keep my opinion transparent.
@sirdan: Look back at my scum-list, votes, and cases. Rest assured that if I vote for you or push you toward the noose, I will do so with an evidence-based case that gives you something to defend against. However, if I did so for every minor shift in opinion, my posts would become (even more) tiresome to read. In most cases, I'm willing to elaborate if asked to do so.
I don't see what's odd about this. I'd already made my opinion about conspiracy evidence clear in #101. When Karne first made mention of the possible pairing in #439, it was a brief point in a complex post and I simply let it slide because there were actual tells on my mind and I don't see the act of using on conspiracy evidence to be a scumtell, just unreliable.Sim wrote:
This gave me a bad vibe. I think it's the "somebody needed to say something" bit. What prevented you from saying something?Ythill wrote:THank you, habit. Somebody needed to say something. Let's put the conspiracy evidence on hold until we have a confirmed alignment to work with.
Then, when Karne elaborated on the subject in #453, I read it and thought to myself,He's going to keep pursuing this, I should probably reiterate my beliefs about such things.But, before I posted, I read the rest of the thread and saw that habit had already schooled him. So, me thanking and agreeing with habit was simply a conversational lead in to restating my opinion.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Okay Jah, I've considered your words carefully and I can certainly see you acting like you did from that point of view. I'm still pretty damned suspicious. I sort of feel like I cornered someone who has a silver tongue, but I don't really see so much of the case against you anymore.
I will be watching you closely.
For now, though, I'llunvote; vote sirdanilotfor the previously stated reasons. Let me know if you want quotes or explanations to go with my assertions.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@sirdan: I'm leaving for work in a few minutes, so only have time for a short post right now. Imayhave time to post that case later today, but it's doubtful because Tuesday is poker night. I will definately have time tomorrow.
For now, I will say that one of the chief reasons I put my vote on you was that Jah has defended well against me and you are next in line for scrutiny. But I do have a case (it was eluded by a couple of my posts including the definition of "slippery") and I will post it as soon as I have time. Thanks for your patience.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Yousirdan wrote:...you simply voted me after you shoved off Jahudo, like I was the next in line, and IIRC you hadn't even expressed a FoS on me.werenext in line (I even said so). I don't like to leave my vote unused unless I have a good reason, and Iveryrarely FoS at all, because they are pointless.
Anyway… I finally got some time.
Sirdan’s first scummy moment comes across in #428, 434, & 437. The FoS on Sim has two motivating factors: “vibes” (which is really nothing) and telling someone to shut-up. Sim told nuriens to shut-up in response to what was a frustrating post in which nuriens made a ridiculous assertion (only scum get frustrated) and continued to call what Sim said about Pope a “defense” (which was the subject of an earlier argument). Sim’s seemed like a very natural reaction.
Saying it was simply “shut-up” takes it way out of context. Nuriens had said that Sim’s lack of comment on Jah’s case was a scumtell. To which Sim said (and I paraphrase): ask me what you want to know or stop calling it a scumtell.
So sirdan has placed a “Finger of Shame,” later transformed into a FoS without further motivation, for basically nothing. It had the tone of someone who wanted to adopt an air of authority.
Next came the “case” on Goat. Which boiled down to a (flawed) case against PbPAs, lurking, and changing gears (even though the gear change came between early- and mid-day, when the whole game is naturally shifting in intensity), as well as vague meta. He adds in the part about Goat’s experience level, like it has anything to do with his alignment, including this gem:
…which is funny, because thesirdan wrote:Secondly, he knows that he has to add some pro-town bits (with that I mean something like: '#x - good post, town tell'), and he did.onlything I found suspicious about Goat’s play was that hedidn’t include any “pro-town bits”, which I asked him about, and he replied to. No idea where sirdan got this idea but it’s completely off base.
Anyway… much of this could be seen as bad, rather than scummy, play. Then comes nuriens simplification which I found decently accurate. It did rip out some of the rhetoric (example: it called tunnel-vision and out-of-context scumtells rather than alluding to them as such by calling the PbPA process scummy from an experienced player), but was also pretty fair. Sirdan’s reaction to it is where I started to see the warning signs.
Basically, sirdan reiterated, solidifying the claim that Goat is so experienced we can’t believe any town read on him. So experienced, in fact, that meaningful scumhunting techniques are mere scumtells from him. He answers a couple of nuriens’ accusations with no-I-didn’t (which isn’t scummy, but isn’t a proper defense either) and then, unexpectedly, accuses nuriens of “manipulating [his] posts.”
This even though nuriens explicitly said he was simplifying for clarity, politely invited corrections, is more likely than most (due to language barrier) to accidentally misinterpret, and (most importantly) did a pretty good job of representing the bullet-points of the case.
This is followed by Goat posting a very good defense to the meta accusation which was IMO the only (barely) valid point of sirdan’s case. Now, I’d expect a townie to rethink himself when faced with such a defense but sirdan just blows it off, claiming that it is stillpossiblethat Goat is scum and then going on to argue things like: Goat is scum because he did something that Goat might have done if he was scum, and Goat is scum because he’s good enough that there’s no way we can tell if he’s scum or not.
He also slips around the spot where I called him on his weak defenses by pretending not to understand. He uses this same technique when nuriens improperly uses the word “collaborating,” thereby ignoring the rest of the point.
This slippery argument style continues, allowing him to ignore some very good points that nuriens made (why is Goat’s lurking notable while others’ worse lurking is not, open tunnel-vision is not anti-town). And, in the next post, dodges nuriens defense of simplification by answering that whole point with annoyance at the word “essence.”
Concerning “random thing” and whether or not sirdan assumed that Goat was scum (which I saw solid evidence of), sirdan’s counterpoint amounts toI never said thatwhich is him using the outs left by his slippery argument style. For example, one who posts a “case,” argues against simplification of that case, resimplifies it himself, and then adds to it can be fairly said to have demonstrated an opinion. However, sirdan believes that because he never actually said the words “Goat is scum”, he can escape that opinion when it suits him. Scumtells 101.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
Since my point was that the "shut up" was natural, I saw no reason to go back further than the last frustrating post. I am not denying that Sim was already somewhat frustrated with you when that post was made, just saying that it escalated him enough to make the "shut up" seem in character.
FTR, and I don't know if I already said this or just meant to... the problem with you (nuriens) is not your habit of defending others but the fact that you do sobefore they defend themselveswhich gives people way too many outs if they are scum. On that subject, I agree with Sim.
I don't think this aspect of your behavior is a scumtell, just inexperience.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
@nuriens: LOL. At first I had attributed it all to Goat. Then, before posting, I realized that Sim had said the first part. Then I changed both names to Sim. Sorry I got confused. The real point I was making was about the timing of your defenses, irrespective of who it was I was agreeing with. Understand?
@everyone: Sorry about the wordiness below. Such is needed to combat slippery scum.
Bullshit. I had already posted reasons in #493, and cited them with my vote. Stop lying, scum.sirdan wrote:So you had me next in line, however, you did not have any reason to before you posted this post.
These questions are asinine. It's been clear all along whom I suspect. I don't need to use bolded pop-culture to demonstrate that, and you can meta me to see that I am being honest.sirdan wrote:Also, why are FoSes pointless? Do you not think it helps the town to know who you suspect? Do you prefer to keep that completely hidden to the town? How is this helpful to the town?
(1) It was scummy in context with your other play because the level of explicit suspicion does not match your reasons, relative with your other attacks.sirdan wrote:(1) How was that post scummy? (2) Do you think that mentioning scummy vibes is scummy, even while I was reading the game? (3) Do you not think this is helpful to the town?
(2) No, I do not. Nor did I claim that it was, except in conjunction with other aspects of your play.
(3) No, it is not, except that, like any other baseless assertion, it marks your opinion (pretended or otherwise). But whether or not it was helpful to the town was not why I found it scummy.
(1) Yes, in this instance. (2) Yes, in certain circumstances, including this one.sirdan wrote:(1) You think it's natural to tell someone to shut up in a mafia game? (2) Do you think it's pro-town to tell someone to shut up?
Nice job of playing dumb to overlook what was actually wrong with your attack here.
(1) I didn't conveniently ignore anything. You didn't state any new reasons when you upgraded to a FoS.sirdan wrote:(1) Without further motivation? You conveniently ignore that I was still reading the game at that time, and in that last post where I FoSed Simenon, I had finished. (2) Is it not natural for me to make up the balance and FoS the player I found suspicious?
(2) Sure it's natural. Is it natural to place a two-part FoS in response to "vibes" and a null-tell and then lead an inquisition against a different player without placing a FoS or vote? No, it isn't.
(1) I explained why. Stop pretending you can't read.sirdan wrote:Why was that 'pretty fair'? Was it fair for him to manipulate my words?
(2) He didn't manipulate anything. He simplified by removing your own misleading rhetoric. And said he was doing so. And invited you to correct him. You are the manipulator here.
(1) Just what I said. See below.(1) What do you mean, ''no I didn't' isn't a defense'? (2) I actually didn't say some of those things. (3) How do you expect me to defend myself against something I didn't do?
(2) The accusations had to do with motive, not statements. See below.
(3) A motive defense should at least attempt to explain why your stated motive was more likely than your accuser's suggested motive. See below.
"No, that's not true, I don't post a case to satisfy people, I post a case because I am suspecting them. And I stated why I fosed simenon." Here you might have elaborated on your crap reasons for suspecting Sim. You might have pointed to previously stated susppicions that didn't fit with nuriens' theory (except that there weren't any), etc. You didn't.
"No, I didn't postpone it, I didn't even notice the request until I started writing this very post. Anyway, it's above." Here you might have explained what caused you to miss the request or given a more elaborate explanation about why you felt it unimportant to talk about your predecessor. But you didn't.
To reiterate: I don't think your statements here are scumtells but I also don't think that they do anything at all to invalidate nuriens' accusations.
You obviously don't know what WIFOM means (or are pretending the same).sirdan wrote:That's just WIFOM.
Here’s another example of the no-I-didn’t defense. Here it is used to claim that you don’t slip around things, two thirds of the way down a post in which you do nothing but slip around things.sirdan wrote:I don't 'slip around' things, if I don't understand something it means you have to reword it, and not ignore it and use it in an argument against me later on. That is not protown, and you know what, I even think that's a scummy technique.
Your only defense up to this point has been to say that one of my attacks is scummy.
Yet another example of the no-I-didn’t defense. Explain how your accusations against Goat (the points you are supposedly not avoiding) lead you from a neutral read on him to suspicion. Explain how claiming thatsirdan wrote:I made sure not to base my case off the assumption he's scum...Goat’s experience level means he cannot be read as town for dropping towntellsdoes not assume that he is scum. Explain how the claim thatGoat is suspicious because he did something that he might have done as scumdoes not assume that he is scum.
Oh, I’ve noted it. And I’m sure others have too. You skipped over the meat of the entire case. You posted a bunch of questions designed to shed doubt on the case, and once claimed that an attack was scummy, but otherwise hardly defended yourself at all.sirdan wrote:Note that I left some bits out, or that I did not comment on some, so don't go like 'OMG HE AVOIDED THAT', just properly ask me to comment on them.
I see no need to chase you down on these points. You have proven my accusation about slippery arguing and have made me feel very good about my vote on you.
If you choose to go back and address the meat of the argument, I’ll certainly listen. Until then, I intend to nitpick and badger you and, eventually, see you hang because you are scum.Record:Town 10W/15LScum 4W/1LOther 2W/2LNewbie 1L
"So yeah, it is a sign from the angels." ~CooLDoG-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007
-
-
Ythill Fabio
- Fabio
- Fabio
- Posts: 4892
- Joined: November 10, 2007