Mini 701 - That's a Wrap! (Game Over)

[mykonian]

Hi, I'm here.

Sorry, forgot to mention that mykonian replaces RealityFan, effective immediately.

[mykonian]

Now you can: a summary!

Page one: random voting... Vollkan and Ecto try to get the game going.
page two: discussion, yay!

Interesting theory discussion.

I very much like Ecto's post (41). I think he got it right.

Let me try questioning more directly:

1) What is your opinion of my self-vote: pro-town, anti-town, scummy, neutral?
2) Why?
3) Are the arguments people are making not relevant for determining alignment?

1. antitown
2. it could give newbies like me a wrong impression of you, it could give a theory-discussion. It could result in a wrong lynch. The third point is unavoidable by any play, the first and second can be. The game is about lynching scum, and until now, I can't even say who is more likely town, and who is more likely scum.
3. so, ehh, no.

I have to agree with vollkan on gut-votes. It is just an easy way for scum to mislynch.

page 3: SpyreX doesn't like Ecto's aggressiveness and thinks him scummy for that. Weak reason... Yet I have read 2 games with Ecto, and in both he proved to be a very good scum player. This is something I can't say anything about now.

Why is Springlullaby following Spyrex (she says Ecto is scummy), but votes Vollkan?

page 4: I don't like the discussion what the attacker and the defender should do. I skipped it.

vote Springlullaby

for bandwagoning (although she didn't vote Ecto). The closest I can get to a non-random vote.

[mykonian]

Any questions?

[mykonian]

I don´t like how SL said she thought Ecto also scummy, without any reason. Even if she doesn´t vote for ecto. Her vote seemed to me a "jokevote". It not a reason to lynch, but it is certainly no strong play.

[mykonian]

Hi springlullaby,

Unvote, Vote: vollkan

Lol, at least you seem to be consistent with yourself.

IMO self-vote is clearly antitown because random votes, beside the joke-ness, is meant to signify a willingness to catch scum. Self-vote however is an entirely selfish act, which give nothing about yourself and who you are willing to vote. However I do think that given the present state of the meta, even though the 'you have no proof you can't lynch me' state of mind is IMO best left to scum, people who self vote are equally likely to be scum than town.

What is left is judging the self voter's character. I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

Vote Vollkan

You've been talking lot, tell me, have you gained any insight on people's alignment from your discussion?

That said, I also don't like Ectomancer, there is something muffled in his toeing the line of aggression with Vollkan.

The post I reacted on. I thought this a weak post, because:
a. What is the purpose of this vote? She doesn't seem to be serious to attack Vollkan, and pressuring isn't going to work here.
b. She keeps the options open to choose Ecto, the other side of the discussion. Yet, why is Ecto scummy? She only follows Spyrex. Did you really think I would vote for someone just because that person had two suspects?

-------------------------

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 74

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku

Juls

- 0 ()
orangepenguin - 1 (Spyrex)
ortolan - 0 ()
RealityFan - 0 ()
springlullaby - 1 (ortolan)
Ectomancer - 0 ()

vollkan - 2 (mrfixij, springlullaby)

SpyreX - 1 (Ectomancer)
mrfixij - 1 (vollkan)
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 4 (orangepenguin, Mama_Ku

Juls

, TDC, mykonian

RealityFan

)

Also, I updated the vote count in the first post of page 4 to incorporate Mama_Ku. Juls's vote on orangepenguin no longer exists.

[mykonian]

First, I really don't see the big problem with Ecto's play. I think he has been quite reasonable. I don't think Vollkan could pull the breaks. After such a big discussion, where he keeps disagreeing with Ecto, his only option was to vote Ecto.

Vollkan, you disagree with that one sentence, and I know I should have posted it some other way. But do you also disagree with the explanation of that sentence?

[mykonian]

Let her post the reasons for it, not simply follow Spyrex in case there are not enough votes on you! She has just chosen the two persons that make this game now, that argue, and she does like she chooses a side, yet I don't know what to make of her vote against you (is it even serious). If the general opinion shifts against Ecto, she has kept all her options open, because she found Ecto scummy.

And about your vote against Ecto. I thought that from previous experience. Two townies had a big discussion day one, and it wasn't resolved. It determined the play throughout the day. I expected at least one vote from you or Ecto for the other.

[mykonian]

The post I reacted on. I thought this a weak post, because:
a. What is the purpose of this vote? She doesn't seem to be serious to attack Vollkan, and pressuring isn't going to work here.

How did you conclude that she wasn't serious (for page three standards) about it?

I thought this sentence:

I think you may just be pretentious enough to be the type to play on the 'you can't prove what I did is bad' thing.

b. She keeps the options open to choose Ecto, the other side of the discussion. Yet, why is Ecto scummy? She only follows Spyrex. Did you really think I would vote for someone just because that person had two suspects?

But if she has two suspects, what's wrong about voting one and commenting about the other?

comments are ok, but why is she suspecting Ecto? She only keeps the option of following Spyrex in case Ecto gets into trouble.

and I have already said that this isn't a strong vote, it was just the best thing I could go on. The discussion between Ecto and Vollkan doesn't help me to determine allignment. Spyrex his vote wasn't so scummy to me. He basically does the same as I did, making a weak vote.

[mykonian]

@springlullaby: could you explain why you are voting Vollkan then?
could you also point out why your suspicious of Ecto (quote?)

I found your accusation of Ecto quite similar to that of Spyrex, only then in one sentence, just after you have voted Vollkan, and I think I don't understand why you voted him. And please, don't be irritated... I just want to know why you think people suspicious, because:

1. I should know about a good case, so I can vote too.
2. Scum have to lie about there reasons. The more scum lies, the easier to catch them.

I'm just suspicious of every suspicion without a reason. Like gut votes, or "I think Ecto is too aggressive" without any quotes, and explanation why it is scummy.

[mykonian]

Man, massive posts! I admit they scare me.

But here I go.

What I find ironic in this is that I took the early position that 'gut feelings" are a perfectly acceptable manner of playing mafia. Both Vollkan and Spyrex took opposition to that form of play. But when pressed, the actual reasons they give are what boils down to "gut feelings".

"It wasn't what he did, it was how he did it".

Argue otherwise if you would like, but when others do not agree with your assessment there, what it comes down to is that your gut doesn't agree with how I did what I did. I know it galls you to hear it, but your assessment of my alignment comes down to an entirely debatable "gut feeling". As I said, they can be valid, so I dont discount it as a reasoning at all. I just find it funny that you would discount it if it were coming from someone else.

You're completely wrong here. My attack on your "How" was an attack upon the way that you presented your case - strong rhetoric which ends up being just hollow rhetoric. That isn't scummy for "gut" reasons. It's scummy because it reflects a lack of sincere critical analysis on your own part about possible motivations for my actions.

I can see the words hollow rhetoric as gut. Maybe you don´t feel that way, but it seems you are talking between each other, because:

In a game of incomplete information, there is always going to be a need for inferences to be drawn (nobody can ever prove that a certain action is definitely scummy). As I have done in my argument against you. The point is, however, that inferences have to be based on a genuine analysis of various possible explanations and likelihoods and so on. That's in stark contrast to a suspicion based purely on "gut". Maybe the "gut" has gone through the inferring process - and maybe it hasn't. That's the problem with basing a case on "like", "feeling", "gut" etc.

You could see the first sentence as playing by "gut". Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with this one, but it isn't like Ecto is completely unreasonable like some people say.

The implication of "the enemy" sets a tone for it. It wasn't "this statement could be causing confusion" or "Your self vote is confusing"

It was: The enemy loves confusion after the implication that his voting himself was, in fact, confusing. Thus, he would be the enemy, no?

Could you explain to me what the big point is here? It seems to come back a few times, but I don't see the relevance to a scum player.

After a whole post of "I am right and you are not", Spyrex votes, warning us not to call it OMGUS.

Why not? The whole post screams "OMG ECTO YOU SUCK". Why can't we scream back? Your attack on Ecto wasn't bad after your play, but you don't want to say, that all you posted there proved that Ecto is scum?

[mykonian]

mod, you missed my vote on Springlullaby

but it doesn't matter:

unvote vote SpyreX

See the previous post why. Your post simply didn't make any sense to me, and still you manage to say it is the case against Ecto for you.

-------------------------

Vote Count - Day 1 - As of Post 124

With 10 alive, 6 votes is majority.

Mama_Ku

Juls

- 0 ()
orangepenguin - 0 ()
ortolan - 0 ()
RealityFan - 0 ()
springlullaby - 1 (ortolan)
Ectomancer - 2 (vollkan, Spyrex)
vollkan - 1 (springlullaby)

SpyreX - 3 (mykonian, mrfixij, Ectomancer)

mrfixij - 0 (vollkan)
TDC - 0 ()

Not Voting - 3 (orangepenguin, Mana_Ku

Juls

, TDC)

If I get no response from Mana_Ku within 24 hours, I will be forced to find a replacement. It's better now than too late in the game.

[mykonian]

I think it is wrong. I have seen points going from shifting the others point, to theory discussion what is gut. Kinda agreeing with each other, but using different words so there is a little difference. To your "tone of the attacks". To me the last was only an the common " scum like confusion" but in other words.

You are going after Ecto, seemingly only because he opposes some of your idea's. I think that is wrong, even if you thought you didn't do it.

In my second completed game, a newby had a big discussion day one with an other player. He countinued to find that player scummy, and as you well know, when you want to find something scummy about a player, you are going to find it. It lost town the game.

[mykonian]

It wouldn't be my choice of a case. I don't think it should be yours. That's all.

I think this whole discussion to be weird. It is mostly about theory (the self vote, what is "gut") and there are only a few people actively posting. Personally, as noob, I'm quite scared by the huge posts, but what I get from them, doesn't seem to be worth the effort, as it doesn't tell me a lot about the game itself. From that, people suddenly find scum. That is why I vote.

[mykonian]

[quote="TDC"

I think this whole discussion to be weird. It is mostly about theory (the self vote, what is "gut") and there are only a few people actively posting. Personally, as noob, I'm quite scared by the huge posts, but what I get from them, doesn't seem to be worth the effort, as it doesn't tell me a lot about the game itself. From that, people suddenly find scum. That is why I vote.

I don't know.. do long exchanges like this ever

not

lead to the participants voting for each other?[/quote]

Vollkan says your statement is wrong, I am afraid it is happening here, but I don't have the experience to tell if it is always the fact. I would love to have the discussion shift to "who is scum" in stead of theory. It really doesn't help.

[mykonian]

I have a hard time following this guys. Posts are just a little to big.

The tone of the attacks is relevant because, if you missed it, it shows that Ecto was speaking from a prejudiced position.

I missed it, and it is more your perception of Ecto's play (let's call it "gut")

I should vote Ortolan if I want to be consistent, but

FoS Ortolan

, I don't like people saying: "I agree, but I don't understand all that happens. Vote". Yet I have to agree with you, it is hard to find anything usefull in this.

[mykonian]

I have to agree with orto that the length of posts just blinds me from any tells. Some people don´t know what a small post is.

Here we go again.

mykonian wrote:
I have a hard time following this guys. Posts are just a little to big.

vollkan wrote:

The tone of the attacks is relevant because, if you missed it, it shows that Ecto was speaking from a prejudiced position.


I missed it, and it is more your perception of Ecto's play (let's call it "gut")


Look, the way that people keep trying to draw an equivalence between inferences and "gut" is incredibly frustrating.

Mykonian, when a person only justifies something by "gut" or "because I think it's scummy" they provide no objective explanation. When I say it shows prejudice I am drawing an inference based on, variously, the words he used, his subsequent remarks, etc etc. I am not saying "My gut tells me Ecto is doing this". I am giving reasons that the rest of you can follow.

Go right back to my policy list. I don't require scientific proof that a person is scum in order to justify an attack, but I do require objective reasons. Inferences are fine, provided bases are given. Simply saying "gut" or "feeling" lacks any objective explanation.

So end the equivalencing, okay?

I appoligise for annoying you. I'm afraid I knew that could happen. Still I don't agree with you. You simply explain Ecto's behaviour, without any points why. Just saying that I shouldn't have missed it. You avoid proof that way. More people go after Ecto because he is "too agressive". Also explaining the behaviour, without telling where, and if this is scummy.

And Ecto's point with the sheep is valid. It is not weird people would pick on you, because you made yourself special. The reactions from you that followed Ecto thought scummy (I really don't know if agree with them, seem weak), not the vote itself. Your defense assumes he votes for the selfvote.

Even if OP can't point the finger to it, and I can't too, I feel the orto wagon went too fast. Not right on this moment. It is on weak reasons, bad posts from orto.

Orto, post 178 is from the start just plain unreadeble. I don't know how to say it in English, but the form doesn't make it clear. First sentence is good, but are you advocating that the first day you shouldn't try your best to lynch scum?

Conlusion: I wasn't too sure about Spyrex, and Orto looks scummy, yet I feel the wagon on orto is going to fast to be healthy. I keep my eye on you both.

unvote

[mykonian]

but you did. Why did you want to advance the bandwagon? How would it help us?

[mykonian]

As I said, I had, at the time, a slight preference for Ectomancer. I was then asked to justify it, so tried. I believe there's a psychological phenomenon whereby if people believe something, irrespective of whether it has any factual basis, they will attempt to rationalise it by coming up with supporting arguments. I'm also of the belief that some people often go on hunches or even more sophisticated reasoning than that they actually announce to the town- because there's certain accepted conventions in mafia that irrationally make some ways of argument more "accepted" than others. One example is putting a vote on an existing bandwagon without what is felt as acceptable reasoning by others, as I did. Then if you stay on it, you're asked to give better reasoning. If you unvote, you're portrayed as distancing yourself from your initial vote. So it can often almost directly lead to your own lynch, just as for example self-voting can in other games (sometimes even if done during the random phase).

A reductio ad absurdum of your confirmation bias argument would lead to the conclusion that we shouldn't expect any votes to be justified, since people are ultimately just voting based on emotional presuppositions. The assertion that we are all playing according to subsconscious biases is unfalsifiable. If this game is to be anything other than just a random slew of votes, we need to play on the presumption that we are all acting rationally. That means that proper reasoning is required from all players. If a player cannot show that they are actually thinking about who is scum, then the most reasonable conclusion will ordinarily be that they are themselves scum.

If you give valid reasons why you do something (vote/unvote/FoS), nobody will attack you. With your vote, the "valid reasons" part lacked. So you are attacked.

And Ecto's point with the sheep is valid. It is not weird people would pick on you, because you made yourself special. The reactions from you that followed Ecto thought scummy (I really don't know if agree with them, seem weak), not the vote itself. Your defense assumes he votes for the selfvote.

This isn't true.

As I have said repeatedly now, I don't take opposition to self-voting as a scumtell (that would be absurd). Ecto challenging my self-vote was not scummy in and of itself. What followed, and the reason I challenged his question requiring an explanation, was to see why he thought that self-voting needed justification. As I have said, it became apparent that his attack was all bark and no bite.

If we then apply that later evidence back to the initial question, we see that the initial questioning of the self-vote, it becomes apparent that, whilst somebody might have legitimately been inquiring for good reasons, Ecto was not.

Even if OP can't point the finger to it, and I can't too, I feel the orto wagon went too fast. Not right on this moment. It is on weak reasons, bad posts from orto.

How do you reason that it went "too fast"? It hasn't had a conclusion yet

And what about the reasons do you consider weak?

The first quote is mine too, not ecto's. And of course you say the reasons against you are weak, but I'm sorry, we can see that different (I don't say I do, I just have no read on you). But you made yourself "special" by the selfvote, and you get attention for that.

The orto bandwagon is going too fast, because within a few posts 3 votes are on him for a weak reasoned vote. With me it would make 4, or L-2. It could very well be a newby mistake (it quite looks like that to me).

It's speculation about my motives rather than any coherent and internally consistent case for me being mafia.

I could say for example "vollkan's gambit was intended purely so he would have a device for continually launching suspicion on different people- firstly he could launch suspicion on those who called him on his self-vote, then he could launch suspicion on those who called the caller on his self-vote etc., basically a mafia's dream". However this is just an interpretation. It is ironic however that the people who attack me either aren't aware of or deliberately ignore the fact that what I am being attacked for- making a subjective determination, is exactly what they're doing in attacking me, they're just better at pretending they're not being subjective.

This is also very relevant to springlullaby's case against me:

(The statement I quoted was "Two non joke votes, two vote that sucks." and asked for an explanation for it)

lol, this is clearly not my quote Vollkan... I don't think I ever used the words "internally consistent", "coherent", "device" or "subjective determination" in any mafia game. Clearly Ecto's.

ok, that semi-claim seems to confirm orto. I would believe them.

[mykonian]

If you give valid reasons why you do something (vote/unvote/FoS), nobody will attack you. With your vote, the "valid reasons" part lacked. So you are attacked.

Who is this addressed to?

to orto. I tried to explain what went wrong in his reasoning. He said he was pretty unable to vote, or unvote because everything looked scummy.

The first quote is mine too, not ecto's. And of course you say the reasons against you are weak, but I'm sorry, we can see that different (I don't say I do, I just have no read on you). But you made yourself "special" by the selfvote, and you get attention for that.

I assume you mean Ecto's reasons for opposing the self-vote. This isn't simply a matter of opinion, he gave no reasons other than what was, effectively, "I dun' like it".

Being special doesn't mean justification is required.

being special means you are looked at. After that, Ecto thought you scummy, for reasons you think not valid. After that, you vote him. (I'm not going to say OMGUS). That you don't see the reasons for a vote on you is allright, but it is not like you are going to say they would be good.

The orto bandwagon is going too fast, because within a few posts 3 votes are on him for a weak reasoned vote. With me it would make 4, or L-2. It could very well be a newby mistake (it quite looks like that to me).

Simply stating the speed of the wagon doesn't demonstrate it is going "too fast".

(The reason I labour this point is that it is very common for scum to snipe at a wagon from outside with such attacks. That isn't an accusation against you; it's simply to explain why I consider this an important enough matter to discuss)

I'm not going to put a someone on day 1 within 1 page. Also, that Orto's vote looked like a newby mistake (be honest, an experienced player would never have done it, and if orto-scum did it on purpose, he would be a great player), and that most of it was based on one piece of evidence didn't convince me. I'm happy that orto would prove mason. That would solve this whole thing.

bolded is mine.

[mykonian]

A bandwagon that grows fast, means people that jump on easily. I don't like those people, so I don't like fast bandwagons. And at least some people saw this could be a newby mistake, and that only makes it more wrong.

[mykonian]

we all love you for it

I got also a few things that make me think that the masons are true, but TDC's post says it a lot better. I don't believe they are scum. Now is the time for you to play and find scum. You have little to fear now, only nightkills. With a doctor in the setup, you could become pretty important.

[mykonian]

One moment, you have a very active game, right from the start, the other moment everybody is gone...

[mykonian]

Do we really have no other idea's then vote ecto, or vote vollkan? As good as it started, voting for the major players is still kind of random.

[mykonian]

TDC is a doublevoter?

[mykonian]

Do we really have no other idea's then vote ecto, or vote vollkan? As good as it started, voting for the major players is still kind of random.

I don't believe I have yet advocated lynching Vollkan.

If we assume the two O's are town, then scum would have known it. Not recalling who brought it up at the time, I would wonder about quick votes on the wagon, or of course, the person who first complained that the wagon was "building too fast".

This is where orto would react with, If you do one thing, you are scum, if you don't do it, you are scum, and if you keep quiet, you are lurking scum. I have given my reasons why I thought a quick bandwagon on a small reason was wrong and why I wouldn't participate in it. Did you like them? If not, explain why, and maybe I can clear things up.

[mykonian]

How about the scum that kept quiet and didn't talk about it? the lurkers, or the active lurkers, the people that don't talk about the important topic, afraid to show there allignment. Now you can easily say: everybody that reacted was wrong. Indeed, I was just as wrong the people that were on the bandwagon. I thought orto scummy too, who didn't? But within one page bringing a person at l-2, that is barely town. As long as there is no deadline close, you got to discuss who you want to lynch, not just do it quick "I think orto scummy because of that awful vote". Or even better "he doesn't defend his point good", and still better "now he gets under pressure, he retracts his point"

Kinda obvious isn't it? His vote was weak, and when people pointed this out, THERE WAS NO DEFENSE. He knew it too. So what does a logical player do? He says:"sorry guy's I was wrong...". And some people manage to make that a scumtell. He would be so scum when he had actively defended his point, and not retracted it.

I know the above is WIFOM, but thinking about it is way better then screaming "OBV SCUM, vote orto".

I know it better, if I said this earlier, the only thing scum would do was screaming: "WIFOM, let him answer for himself, 2 obv scum!", to completely deny the point.

But after this happened, like Ecto said, we should look at what happened around it, and just blindly go back to the big players, the people that actually made this game the first pages. It is too easy, and has little basis. I know it isn't always right, maybe even wrong, but I like active players better then lurkers.

[mykonian]

@ Mykonian: Your last paragraph is also confusing, I can't help but feel that you made a typo there and skewed what you meant to say, because I don't get it.

Could be. I'm not very good on English, so maybe I stated it a bit weird. Could you quote the part you don't understand, then I can try say it in different words.

[mykonian]

Vollkan, ever lynched someone meta based day 1? But I have to say, on this moment, you could either be town, or scum hiding behind nice words and pretty logic. A logic player is very hard to catch, as you can vote for a towny based on logic pretty easily. Expect my vote on you, when your logic is wrong

[mykonian]

To react on mrfixij, I put my views on mafia:

1. Lurkers are more dangerous then active players, because you can't get a good read at lurkers. Active players, however good they are, can always be more or less protown.

2. active players are looked at more. By posting more, you can find more small "tells", assuming you can find a tell in everything. Attacking an active player for a lot of very small reasons, is just as usefull as attacking a lurker for a little amount of very small reasons. You shouldn't do the last, you shouldn't do the first. Ecto's and Vollkans posts are looked over closely by everyone, and of course you find things against them. That doesn't mean it is reasonable to vote them for that. I think the cases are weak. No wonder Orto couldn't find any better, because there is no good case on the moment. Don't pretend there is one.

3. logic in this game is always based on assumptions. You can choose them right, you can choose them wrong. There will be many reasonable assumptions. The logic that follows can be right, and nobody will find something there. A logic scum player can post his wrong assumption so that everyone will think it natural. That's why a player who's play is mainly based on logic close to unreadable.

I think I have read two games of vollkan. In both he was town, but if he plays just like that as scum, he can be antitown without us noticing it.
I have also read two games of Ecto, in both he was scum. If he plays always like that we will catch him soon enough. In both he hammered a uncounterclaimed powerrole... But more dangerous, in both he got away with it.

In both cases, I think meta won't help me.

[mykonian]

I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.

I would say, "leading the wrong way". That's why we need to look at what happened around your bandwagon. At least four people reacted on it. The way we are going now is helping more. That's why I don't like people going back to their old votes. Just because that voted originated from a discussion that wasn't about scumhunting and that those votes were clearly just for the people that talked the most.

@vollkan: If you know which assumptions are wrong, and which are right, I know you could pick out the best wrong one and show us that it was the best.

autolynching vollkan is wrong. A. He is valuable as town: he talks a lot, and gathers a lot information out of the game. B there is no case against him, only that his scumplay would likely look like his town play.

I was discussing why there is a need for reasons - to expose underlying assumptions. Your post, in contrast, was attacking my suggestion that lack of reasons is scummy and casting an assertion that my logical play was a ploy. That's only tangentially relevant to the point I was making.

I thought your defense weird, vollkan. well, defense... You seemed to attack orto more. A claimed, and likely mason. Seemed the wrong way.

[mykonian]

Ecto, I feel that the same applies to you, that there is little difference between town ecto, and scum ecto. (based on reading games)

But doesn't everybody know that meta is not a very strong way of research. You have to get scum on the way they choose. If vollkan scum makes a habit of making bad choices, then we lynch him. If vollkan makes a lot of good choices, we lynch him in the end just after his buddies. That is the way you can get every scum.

[mykonian]

Ecto, I feel that the same applies to you, that there is little difference between town ecto, and scum ecto. (based on reading games)

But doesn't everybody know that meta is not a very strong way of research. You have to get scum on the way they choose. If vollkan scum makes a habit of making bad choices, then we lynch him. If vollkan makes a lot of good choices, we lynch him in the end just after his buddies. That is the way you can get every scum.

Wait, if Vollkan makes bad choices, we lynch him, but if he makes good choices, you still plan to lynch him in the end? On what grounds?

If vollkan made the towniest choice everytime as scum, he is going to have a very hard game. assuming we find him sometime we lynch him in the end. Scum is not exactly as town, because certain choices affect the outcome of the game.

scum wants the antitown choice, and will try to make the town choose that. (here we can catch scum). But if they want to look towny, they are actually choosing the choice that makes them less likely to win! To look at the extreme: If scum made town vote his scumbuddies the first days, he would look very town, but would he win the game?

I hope this answers your question. It isn't important, and quite obvious.

[mykonian]

I'm tired and will look at this later. Just too big posts for me on the moment, but this is important for orto:

I am also not suggesting that you are motivated purely by revenge. I am saying that your perspective on me may be tainted by revenge - that you might be prejudiced against me based on my prior attacks on you.

really, he is right on this one. On the moment I can't understand and look at everything he said in a scumhunting manner, but the statement above is very true. I don't know if you are, and if you are you still won't know it yourself, but watch out for it.

[mykonian]

Am I the only one that thinks it weird that mrfixij suddenly goes after spring for a weak reason after spyrex has promised a case?

I agree with this point:

3.) She parrots my sentiment of Ecto's aggressiveness.

Spring votes vollkan, but fos'es ecto, without a reason for the last.

Most of the case seems to come from small contradictions, and the rather weak reasons for suspicion on some players.

I can't check this, but from feeling I also got the idea that OP and Orto would have lurked. You are right about town killing itself, IF vollkan and ecto are town. The starting discussion was a lot of activity, but it really killed. Suspicions only went to the main players, and it was hard to get between them. Orto and I have complaned that it is sometimes hard to read those massive posts, and they don't invite to posting. I think you would find the lurking with more players then SL. The first part of your case was better.

I don't get all the things said about Ecto and Vollkan being scum together. It would solve our problem rather easily, but I really doubt it.I see now that spolium kinda says what I think

I think that people who's votes suck are scum.

mrfixij is says the case on spring is quite solid. I don't agree. There are good points, but I'm certainly going to look at you.

fos mrfixij

.

[mykonian]

I think that people who's votes suck are scum.

Yes and no. 'Suck' is a very relative term. People who votes for reasons X,Y,Z when none of the

reasons

make sense are scum. Thats part of this whole 'gut' discussion - people who vote for 'gut' are voting for a reason that cannot by nature be analyzed and that makes them scummy.

we agree completely

I think you would find the lurking with more players then SL. The first part of your case was better.

Ohh there are more players that are lurking. There is also a direct correlation between the players that are lurking AND the players that SL didn't mention. I cant go chasing them all around until I have proven my hypothesis correct with SL being scum however.

here the sheep metaphor works again. People that are active are more talked about. That is partially the use of lurking. I would have been surprised if SL talked about a lurker constantly

[mykonian]

doesn´t unfalsible mean that you can´t prove it is wrong?

You are way to late to call the selfvote of spring confusing now. It had its purpose, but didn't alter the play.

and let's put some meta in. Previous game we lynched spring day 1, and for as I recall much the same reasons. I don't think we should do this fast...

Also, I have not read all the large new posts. It is a bit too late, and I couldn't comprehend everything.

[mykonian]

Dare I say it, but I have a strange gut feeling about Ixfij. By no means am I saying he is suspicious or anything, but it is my intention to reread him more closely in the near future to work out why I am worried.

Conjecture - I have much disdain for this category. This includes things like "gut" (when used as a justification for suspicion/vote), a declaration that "something seems fishy/ungenuine/etc." The reason is simple: claims of this nature CANNOT be challenged or rendered unreasonable. They depend entirely upon what the individual making the claim thinks (or, in the case of scum, purports to think). I cannot prove I am not "ungenuine", for instance, or even prove that is not a reasonable explanation. Because it is one wholly subjective interpretation of my play.

This is your most shameless inconsistency yet.

And please don't say "I didn't actually say he was scummy, I said I'd read into him further". You made a very, very deliberate choice to say emphatically you get a strange "gut" reading from mrfixij, without backing it up. Why? We have little interest in hearing about your private introspection, and as you say anything announced without explanation amounts to conjecture, which you despise. Why did you say this rather than wait until you could actually dredge up the "reasons" underlying your gut suspicion of him?

come on, you know that this is not inconsistebt. He is just explaining his thouhtprocess. He doesn´t say he has reasons for a vote on mrfixij, only that he is going to look for reasons that could explain his feeling about mrfixij.

I have no idea what to do with the previous post from vollkan. It tells me nothing...

[mykonian]

wasn´t springs selfvote a protest vote against vollkan?

Springs defense seems right. I still don't really know why there is such a big case against him. Most point boil down to: "you work too much on gut", or "you are inconsistent". I personally don't like the lurking part, because that would mean a big part of this town could be scum.

Spring is actually attacked for his view on the random-voting stage. It was just his personal input to the game, with no consequenses and I really have no idea how that ever could be a scumtell.

Saying that there was an option of ecto and vollkan both were scum also worked against her. Most people here think it unlikely, but when she doesn't continue the point she is thought scummy. Not a scumtell to post possibilities that you think unlikely yourself, actually a little protown in this case.

and the poor spyrex is confused by the selfvote...

after all this, spyrex says "obv lurker scum!" and we have a new bandwagon. Don't expect me on it.

wow, what a post from orto! (324). I'm going to read that closely later.

[mykonian]

You know just as well as I know that I never tried to strawman you, I just not copied the whole of your case, I reacted on the points where I don't agree with you. You know just like me, that the case is mainly build on theory discussion, the use of gut. SL has given to little reasons (or bad ones) for her voting. that is scummy. However, giving a possibility and not following it is not scummy, and that selfvote is not a contradiction. You say: SL said selfvoting is antitown
SL selfvotes

SL must be scum.

It doesn't work that way. SL's selfvote can't be compared with vollkans, as it was a reaction. Now that I pointed that out, you throw some words at me, do cynical, but there is no way that this is scummy. This is a null-tell, and a clear one. That you missed that once can be forgiven, but that you want to defend it is bad, and that you say that I shifted your point is a lie. I never said SL's lurking was your main point, you used it only as support. What I said was, that when you leave the theory discussion and the selfvote out and other contradictions in her play (the vollkan-ecto scum thing) you are only left with the weak reasons for her vote and her lurking. That is not a strawman, that is my opinion of your case, and if you don't like it, so be it.

[mykonian]

ok. I can see how you read that as a strawman. It was not the intention. I told you what I thought of that argument in isolation. That its support to your case couldn't be big.

there is no final part. The lurking and the weak reasons for her votes are there. However, you come up with a really big case, where I think a lot of points are null-tells used as scumtells, and I don't agree. Lurking, the selfvoting (vollkan's really is something different then springs), maybe more. I think you really believe spring to be scum, and when you think that you are going to see scumtells everywhere. You are not my main target in this. mrfixij is. He jumped on spring in a very ugly manner. Voted after you, provided his reasons after you. Copied most of your case, and added his own weak scumtells to it.

I can't see scum be that obvious, so if mrfixij is scum, you are probably not.

unvote vote mrfixij

[mykonian]

about mrfixij.

post 291: spyrex votes spring, tells us something big is coming.
post 292/293: mrfixij votes spring for voting reasons, quite random from that post. Same reasons would have counted for spyrex, yet he says he'll stop going after spyrex. mrfixij waits for spyrex's case.
post 294: spyrex his big case
some talking about it.
post 304: mrfixij likes spyrex's case (we could guess that...)
post 307: I state that I don't like mrfixij's play around the case of spyrex.
post 313: finally mrfixij's reasons for his vote. partly copied from spyrex, following him, mrfixij added: inventing new words for bad reasons, springs nonchalange, timing of mid day voting (if vollkan had been lynched, spring would have been on a scummy place...), another "shocking contradiction". After that he comes up with some points against spyrex.

Now you say: you can't vote me for bad timing, as springs was bad too.

Guess what, I can. Spring would be in the middle of a bandwagon, if vollkan had been lynched. Too many possibilities. You hopped on a wagon, that didn't need to be logical for you, and you tried to go with the flow, and follow spyrex until I told you I didn't like it. After that, you come with your "reasons" that consist mostly out of spyrex's case, and the weak reasons stated above.

[mykonian]

I'm sorry, I got the word, misspelled it.

your quick defense was indeed not good. The timing of spring is something different then your hopping on spyrex's case, without giving any reason, until you were pointed at that. Then, the reasons you presented, looked a lot like spyrex his, added a few weak tell (I think I addressed them shortly in the previous post). On the moment you vote, you give one reason, the fact that you

assume

makes you conclude that one of vollkan, spyrex or spring must be scum.

Don't blame me for thinking it is weird that you said:

I think after Vollkan's point about the subjective logic for her vote on Ort, it's good enough for me to abandon my vote on Spyre and at least see what comes from Spyre.

and I know your timing isn't defendable, so would hammering a claimed cop be. It is something that has been done, and it is something that scum would do. I'm sorry to disappoint you here...

[mykonian]

Yes, I don't agree with everybody just following spyrex.

vollkan, ecto and mrfixij just see a big post, with lot of argument, and they hop on the bandwagon. Is it so hard just to check out how valid the points against spring are? Yes, his votes haven't been that strong, but really, is selfvoting to make a point and accusing vollkan of starting with a selfvote such a contradiction? I can't see town people make a point of it.

based on meta: last game I was in with spring, he got lynched the same way day one. He actually was spot on with finding scum, he only put his reasons the wrong way, and he found scum out of small tells. I and more people didn't believe him, saw his votes the wrong way, and we had our first mislynch.

I don't want to make the same mistake again, and I see history repeating itself here.

Just look at the way mrfixij and to lesser extend vollkan hop on. Now ecto is doing the same. You just say: these three people I want to be lynched. No reason, nothing. In case more people vote spring, you can just hop on. In case I can convince town in voting mrfixij, you can say you agreed all the way. I also would like to hear what you think scummy about me. I am certain I can explain it.

[mykonian]

vollkan, ecto and mrfixij just see a big post, with lot of argument, and they hop on the bandwagon. Is it so hard just to check out how valid the points against spring are? Yes, his votes haven't been that strong, but really, is selfvoting to make a point and accusing vollkan of starting with a selfvote such a contradiction? I can't see town people make a point of it.

It's really rather a mischaracterisation to say that Ecto, Ixfij and myself just hopped on a wagon after seeing a "big post". I went through the reasons (many of which I had expressed previously myself), and found they added up.

you know I don't agree with the adding up part . But anyway, you did the best job of the people I named. How mrfixij hopped on was really ugly, and until ecto explains why he is doing it now also, it is the same.

To me mrfix stands out. I will vote him. there are a few people I have no read on: spolium, vollkan and TDC. Ecto is not helping my view about him, I thought him protown earlier. orangepenguin is lucky he is a mason, because his play hasn´t helped us a bit. orto, your play has improved after you got confirmed, well done.

I mainly got to see what happens with the lynched person, and what happens at night, to find a top 3 scummy players.

[mykonian]

ok, lets see if I can answer this.

I didn't defend myself, because there was no case yet. I stated I thought it weird, but waited for this. Mrfixij I vote, not just because he votes spring, but the way he jumps on the wagon. Could you please look at that again?

And tell me, why would I vote Spyrex? because he makes a case? because he believes he is right? I would think it very unlikely that both Spyrex and Mrfixij were scum, Mrfixij is very scummy in my eyes, so Spyrex is not very suspected. Also, Spyrex got this town alive again, posted a big case (doesn't matter if I don't agree with him), clear pro-town behaviour.

It is true I didn't like that vote of spring in the start, and I still don't like it. but like I said:

The closest I can get to a non-random vote.

and like I stated, that makes most of the case, joined by lurking. People jump too easily on that. The "contradiction" you think you have found, is not really there, but still it is the point that keeps returning against spring.

You ask me where that turnabout comes from. I think it happened a bit unconcious. Between my "fos" against spring, and spyrex his case, the game spring and I were in ended, and after game discussion started. The point how we (and me in special) were wrong (you won't find how I was wrong, but I felt like I was the person that started it) came across there. I don't know how to post links, so it is in the game C9++, and if you isolate at me, from post 59 you can find most of the case. A bit of a weak vote, a small contradiction, some bad used words, and using votecounts got spring lynched. Look what happens now. It is so similar.

But is also that I just don't agree with most of the case that spyrex posted. Small things about it I do agree with, but it is not as strong as it looks. But in stead of discussion the strength of the case, people hop on easily. You certainly don't want me to let that happen?

I've been accused of this before, of defending an other person, and I have sometimes defended the wrong person, but I'm not going to sit and watch a lynch happen based on a case that I don't agree with like it seems to be expected. It looks like it is not appropriate do discuss a case. I don´t know if I want to change my play in this, although it gives me pretty much every game problems day 1. I know you don´t have much to go on day 1, but still you can try to make the best of it, and I feel we won´t with a lynch of spring. mrfixij is much more scummy on his own, and plz don't strawman me by saying that I vote him for voting spring, I vote him because of the way he voted.

[mykonian]

pfff. That last point of you, I really got to think about that. I don't think scum-mrfixij would have thought about it, but I will look at it tomorrow. It's too late for that now. Maybe I place this vote back tomorrow, but

unvote

.

And you are again turning a minor point, into a major contradiction. You are comparing the stance I take, day 1, in my first post, with the stance I take on page 13. Do I have to stick with my first impression? I certainly hope I can change my opinion about someone.

[mykonian]

...

You know meta wasn't the first thing I had against the case, I have pointed out why most of the arguments against spring were null-tells. I said only lurking and a weak vote I saw left of the case after I let those "null-tells" out.

A weak case was left, and then, only then I used meta to explain why nobody should vote. As soon as you can show me why most of your case that I dismissed is valid, meta can never hold my defense against your case, and I won't try.

[mykonian]

spyrex, could you point out where I dismiss a major point, just like that? If I remember well, I have looked at the individual points and given my opinion of it. You should be able to tell where I went wrong.

And mrfixij: I didn't see any possibility for a gambit not that experienced as you are I guess. But anyway, why did it take so long for you to post reasons for your vote? why did you wait for someone to point out that you hadn't given any?

[mykonian]

@ spyrex: I can see now where you thought me using meta again. Wasn't it in the part I talked about defending some other person, and that I was attacked for it more? The point I tried to make is that I think it weird people get attacked for it, not to make that it is something that doesn't count for me only. If I were scum I would do it too.

The ideal protown group should in my eyes all come up with there own ideas, and after that try to get to some sort of consensus. A group discussed choice is most often better then any of the invidual choices. Then what needs the ideal protown group to do? They need to discuss their thoughts.

Here is the point I think we go the wrong way. Spyrex comes up with an idea, and without any questions or discussion the case is accepted. I point out where the case is not strong, and on what points it lacks. Does that mean I'm never going to vote spring? No, it means that I want to discuss the case. If Spyrex, or any other, could point out where my logic goes wrong, why those points are valid, you have a logical strong case. However, there is no discussion about what I said, only that I defended spring.

I presented something against mrfixij, he reacts that he did make a case, I say it is mainly a copy of spyrex's with 2 extra null-tells and a discussion. There it stops again, until TDC questions something about my "case". Does that mean TDC is defending mrfixij? Doesn't seem to be like that. It looks to me he is trying to make the best decision.

[mykonian]

I was a bit vague I see. Too little words, to many generalisations. Let's do it better now. I can see why I look bad, now let's see if I can make you see my point.

You start with the selfvoting business. Spring selfvotes, and later accuses vollkan of starting with a selfvote.

You are confused by it. I say the selfvote of spring had an other purpose then that of vollkan, and there is little contradiction in this.

next in your quote of post 114 you find the above "contradiction" again. However, in this post spring weakens her own point against selfvoting. (I never brought this up before)

quote of post 144. We agreed on this one. Spring doesn't give enough reasons for his vote.

after that, spring feels the "contradiction" thing is over, but you think not.

Spring seems to be accusing orto for a weak vote from orto on spring. Anyway, even if this wouldn't be true, would you make this a scumtell?

279 is mostly a gut-vote, (maybe some problems reading vollkan, but it is not me to tell that), a few lines about his thoughts on some other players. Spring proposes a ecto-vollkan scumpair.

287. In none of his options, the ecto-vollkan scumpair exists, and we have found our second "contradiction". Further this post of spring is mostly a continuation of the previous quote. He comes with semireasons, and some feelings about vollkan. (unclear perspective, ungeniune).

289 spring talks a bit about the ecto vollkan scumpair. Spyrex sees his "contradiction"

Do you agree I won't talk about the lurking part?

So what is left is weak following of opinion at the start (not in this case, must have been somewhere else), and two weak votes. Both more gut, and shoddy reasons. And the lurking, of course, if you want to count that.

I generalized this as: mostly based on small contradictions, with some weak votes and lurking. You answered on the contradiction part, that you expected logical coherent players. We aren't all vollkans. I find it hard to explain, but do you think the selfvote of spring and his accusation of a selfvoter are connected?

Most of the direct reaction further we agree. Those votes weren't the strongest. Mainly poor worded, gut based.

[mykonian]

If I summarise the vollkan and spring posts like below, have I understood it?

Spring votes not on strong reasons (maybe a bit gut), but thinks vollkan must be scum for that reasons, vollkans says that spring has no reasons.
talking about the "contradiction"
theory discussion, how you should play.

On the mrfixij case: It still stays a very weird move of mrfixij, but 26 hours is not that long. Still I had to ask for a case, before it came. Would it also have come if I didn't?

Talking about that: Ecto, I have still not heard why you think spring and mrfix scummy. Could you please do something about that?

@spyrex.

selfvoters are scum.

unvote vote mykonian

. Would you vote me for it? Does this selfvote have the same use as that of vollkan? Would I see my selfvote as scummy? would it be part of the point I'm making. Would it be a joke? And slightly wifom, would scum be this way, putting such an obvious contradiction in play?

Quote:
Anyway, even if this wouldn't be true, would you make this a scumtell?


Contextually, yes. It fits part of the larger puzzle. As a generality - no, but few things are.

That would give easy to make cases. Find a slight scumtell, find a bunch of nulltells, put them together and you have your mislynch. This is my problem with your case the whole time. You have two slight scumtells, and a bunch of things that are mainly nulltells and you tell me you have found scum.

[mykonian]

unvote

before people think they have caught scum...

[mykonian]

still my best shot would be mrfixij.

The way he jumped on your case, so fast, and then 26 hours later, after he is asked, He posts his reasons, and those reasons consist mostly out of your case, and 2 extra null-tells, and a discussion on your case. Little input, I think.

You believe your case is true, and that is fine, but why are there within a few posts 3 votes on spring. Was everybody suddenly convinced? If mrfix was so convinced, why came the reasons so late?

That is everything, I guess. I forgot to vote again

vote mrfixij

and spyrex, if you made that selfvote, would you have considered yourself scummy? What would be your explanation?

[mykonian]

I missed the softclaim.

on the self-vote, what my problem is with the whole theory, it is not that black/white as you say it is. I've been quite clear in one of my first posts that I thought self-voting antitown. I still think it is. Yet you saw me do it a few posts ago. However, would I, or should you, consider this selfvote the same selfvote I said was antitown? I think not.

Now I'm busy writing this, something is wrong here. If spring knows this, why go after vollkan? the same applies... And I know spring that you have other reasons, but if I'm right, this was your starting point for research, wasn't it?

[mykonian]

making yourself usefull to the game gives you towny points in my eyes... And if spyrex is scum, it is much easier to find if he posts a lot, then if he lurks.

And what about agreement with a case that is not that obvious? Personally, I would discuss it first, let spring defend, and look what I could do then. But it is easier to just hop on the bandwagon.

[mykonian]

to volkann, the last post.

[mykonian]

personally I thought MK was already replaced, and that the replacement wanted to be replaced again...

I have some time later on this day to look at the insane amound of words vollkan manages to get in to this thread.

[mykonian]

from post 403

post 403. Explicit agreement is problematic, because you have no way to tell the person you agree with isn´t scum. You should make up your own mind.

post 404. Personally I don't know what the whole discussion on deductive vs inductive logic is, and it seems a lot like theory discusion, so I don't care.
I think vollkan is right in the part where orto accuses him of double standarts. There is nothing wrong with a story that explains what happened, you only got to prove that story is the most likely.

post 406. This was a pretty obvious softclaim, wasn't it? But you didn't think logically about it, because you had to follow your policy, isn't it vollkan?

post 411. And that willingness to find scum gives you at least 1 towny point.

post 412. Orto, if you got a feeling someone is scum, the correct way to play this, is to say you have that feeling, and to go search for arguments that would explain your feeling. Vollkan did it right here.
I don't care how often you use the word prejudiced, I want arguments I can look over. This doesn't tell anything.

post 413. Vollkan, there is no need to insult orto. Or you are town and you are going to argue every point with him, or you are scum that tries to do the same, because he wants to look town, but this is not the way. But you still posted it, so it has a function. I think I know how to translate it: You are wrong, because you are dumb, I don't have to argue with you.

I really don't know what to think about you vollkan. One moment you can make clear why something is right or wrong, the other moment you go to subjective argument, like you have no better. And all the theory discusion, is it really helping? From all your posts, I really have to search for the important points, because there is so much that is close to irrelevant. Is that a strategy?

[mykonian]

Vollkan talks too much, but other then that, he seems quite reasonable. The only weak point in it is that I feel he thinks he is above arguing with his attackers.

Spring has had a few weak votes, and went back in to lurking. Let's not make more of this case then it is.

Mrfixij. Jumped on a bandwagon, gave reasons after there was asked for it.

Mykonian. Should have sticked his first feeling, and shouldn't have tried to move the points view about a case.

I think those are the people that are in the hat now.

[mykonian]

EBWOP Mykonian. Should have sticked his first feeling, and shouldn't have tried to move the towns view about a case.

[mykonian]

You had something against the case, and I needed sleep.

So I reviewed my opinion, and after that, I still thought mrfixij the scummiest.

[mykonian]

But it is not like there is any better around now, so I'll stick with this.

[mykonian]

by SL it is that the votes are half based on gut. By mrfix was the time, and the time he gave his reasons weird.

[mykonian]

Ecto, since when is a vote good, when it is based on one shaky post, where one person is voted, and one FoS'ed, and where for the FoS weren't clear reasons. I'm not going to stick with that a whole game.

And, I went to far in telling you the case was worthless, as it is more or less the reasons for my first vote, but then about 3 or 4 posts, with lurking. But I had not the feeling you were listening.

[mykonian]

I hope you weren't waiting for a modkill SL...

[mykonian]

What was the use of asking orto for that PM? If she wanted to know if they were unconfirmed, she could have asked that. Now she asked from orto to test out the mod.

[mykonian]

So, problem solved, no need to annoy the mod, and lets look for the correct lynch.

[mykonian]

I agree with orto in the trap business. This proves nothing. It never could. Just from your starting play you should have known people could react like that Vollkan. The amount of traps you have made in other games doesn't change a thing in that.

Just two hypothesis:

a you are town, tried to trap scum in a slightly weak trap, and you cought a mason. Bad luck.

b you are scum. You tried to open your possibilities in case there came more votes on mrfix, and you expressed your direction. On the moment you get attacked for that by a confirmed person, you say: "hehe, it was a trap".

I personally think b more likely, as it assumes quite good play, while the first assumes not looking at the possible reactions on your "trap", or simply throwing a trap in, without knowing what will happen, without having thought about it.

While the action of mentioning your gut wasn't scummy on itself, your explanation just seems off.

[mykonian]

I agree with orto in the trap business. This proves nothing. It never could. Just from your starting play you should have known people could react like that Vollkan. The amount of traps you have made in other games doesn't change a thing in that.

Just two hypothesis:

a you are town, tried to trap scum in a slightly weak trap, and you cought a mason. Bad luck.

b you are scum. You tried to open your possibilities in case there came more votes on mrfix, and you expressed your direction. On the moment you get attacked for that by a confirmed person, you say: "hehe, it was a trap".

I personally think b more likely, as it assumes quite good play, while the first assumes not looking at the possible reactions on your "trap", or simply throwing a trap in, without knowing what will happen, without having thought about it.

While the action of mentioning your gut wasn't scummy on itself, your explanation just seems off.

Well, I disagree with you, but I'll say first up that I am pleased to see an argument in precisely the format I like

Now, the first point I take issue with is that I "should have known people could react like that". Certainly, I knew that people could react like it. The question was "Would a 'reasonable townie' attack me for it?" There was very clearly no contradiction in what I said. The express repudiation I made of it having any bearing on the game only bolstered this. Attacking me for the post would have depended upon drawing a false equivalence between using gut as a justification as using gut as a "pointer".

Also, your hypothesis a) suffers from the minor problem that I did, in fact, expressly consider the chance of "catching" Orto as most likely. As I said in my immediate justification of the trap (a post which I have really just been having to repeat again and again):

of course you would never gut vote, but when you came up with a case against mrfixij when there were already 2 persons on the him, nobody would have considered it weird, you said you would look him closely. If you hopped on the bandwagon while you had never been suspicious of mrfixij, we would look closely at your actions. So the scum part could still be.

And as town, why would you want to catch orto, and orto being town, couldn't it have been that other townies would also react on it, in a manner scummy in your eyes? What purpose had the trap if you actually knew it could catch town just as easily as scum? From the traps you have mentioned it is everytime obvious that a scum player did something very antitown. That is why the traps worked. Would a player that says: "vollkan detests gut, and now he uses it" and attacks you for it do something antitown? would it be scummy? What you are implying is that attacking you is scummy, because there seems to be no other reason.

Vollkan, the other traps you mentioned were well thought out. Why not this one?

[mykonian]

He said he thought it most likely that the trap would catch orto. Orto is town. Why wouldn't other towny's apart from orto also get trapped?

[mykonian]

What if you are scum vollkan. Orto would have been on the right track all the time, but here you got him trapped. You say he is prejudiced, and suddenly, we don't have to listen to orto when we don't like it, and we also don't have to listen to spring, because she is clearly not good enough to argue with you. You are doing a good job of defending yourself, by putting labels on your attackers.

[mykonian]

I haven't defended myself "by putting labels" on attackers.

I've shown that Orto is attacking me prejudicially. That by no means invalidates his arguments, but it does serve to undermine the instinctive tendency to trust him by virtue of his claim.

As for SL, I've never said anything like that you shouldn't listen to her or that she isn't good enough to argue against me. On the contrary, I've argued with her plenty.

You have implied it by insulting orto, that was the most obvious one. There was no need to say it, and everything you say seems to be well thought over, so I take that as disqualifying your attackers.

[mykonian]

I'm here, get moving, so I can react. This way spring is the most likely to be lynched, followed by vollkan. Do you agree with this? I think nobody does. We got to get some consensus here. I know what happens when I was going to vote: ecto would call it a 360. But also I'm not tempted to do it. If you want a spring lynch, point out where she is scum. Then you get town moving.

Dismissing the case on vollkan is the wrong way. Allthough bad worded by orto and spring, vollkan's play is not perfect. Why not attack him on that?

And some people are quite gone also, that doesn't help us getting this moving.

[mykonian]

@vollkan

You called it, or them ridiculous in post 62 (isolated view).
And the part with conspiracy what you accuse Spring of. Her arguments boil down to consipiracy??? post 57 (isolated view).

I hope this proves the feeling I had about your posts.

[mykonian]

I'm going to need a lot convincing don, because I really think you are going nowhere with your case on Spyrex.

And vollkan, both times you use a (negative) word to charactarize the play of an attacker, while you also could have defended without it, as in the first post you defend against the attacker right after you call it ridiculous (see the or in my post? I think if you call a post of spring ridiculous, you could be giving spring a label), and in the second word seems just to be taking one possible explanation, and using that as the truth. Again, why would you use the word conspiracy. While everything you say is thought out, you are using (negative) subjective words to characterize your attackers, and I wouldn't think you above it that you do it on purpose.

[mykonian]

don, as town, it is your job to convince us about who you think is scum, or town. Keeping ideas for yourself is not helping. Show us where you find spyrex dodgy and we may vote with you and lynch scum. BTW same counts for OP:

Hereby I feel orangepinguins reasoning seems off.

vote OP

a. do you think this will convince anyone?
b. if this will become a lynch, would you consider it random? Would you consider it protown?
c. is any discussion about such a statement possible?

and would you please become a little more active? then you don't have to complain that you are not that involved. See this as a pressure vote.

[mykonian]

Could you also react on the part of my post that was directed to you?

And I'm more or less expressing my annoyance with OP's play. He is quite confirmed, so this would be the moment to take risks, to express everything you feel, without fear that town will understand you the wrong way. But what does OP? He is inactive, and comes out with a statement that is little better then a random vote. I want him to talk, to give his reasons, to play this game.

[mykonian]

orto got under some pressure, and he claimed early.

and that vote has maybe no use, but maybe, maybe it helps. At least my vote doesn't just sit around, doing nothing. And don't be afraid, my vote will be back to mrfixij when that is needed.

And the about notes you presented, I'd like to hear how you got anything out of that, as I don't see it.

[mykonian]

don, I think I want you to reread. I will wait with the questions I have until you are on the same point as we are. Then the game can go on like it should (when a few people also want to put some effort in this game...).

[mykonian]

I agree with you spyrex, but I want don to make an effort to explain himself. I'm not going to vote him yet, I want him to wrestle through vollkans posts, and after that he can finally say something about the game. Just give the replacement some room until he is really in the game. You know this game isn't easy to catch up in.

[mykonian]

and be happy guys, claiming mason day one stops us from mislynching twice. Not only for scum the players they have to choose from became smaller, also for us. So don't be that harsh on orto, don.

[mykonian]

I didn't get the answers I want on the questions, and that makes you normally a vote. However, you are special, being a replacement, so take your time to read everything, and then come up with a good case. Then, maybe I'll vote you, if it isn't to my liking.

[mykonian]

I will look this mess over tomorrow, loads of time then. First observation on don is way from strong. I thought he had answered almost nothing, There is no case on spyrex, that is clear to me. To me it seems don came with a series of quotes that should show that spyrex is scummy. Most of them came from first pages (didn't check this).

However, Spyrex, what are you doing here? We don't get far when you vote the person that attacked you for making a case with weak reasons. I know you are going to fight this, but this is OMGUS. "your case on me sucks, vote: X". It is not like you made a case on him. You just don't like his play against you. This is not very constructive.

[mykonian]

sorry. My eyes are half closed now. I will look at it tomorrow.

[mykonian]

I don't think I would call it a trap, but don hasn't answered anything of those questions I would want to know.

unvote vote don_johnson

and orto, it doesn't help when you say: "we don't have enough votes to vollkan". You have to make people vote vollkan if you are so sure. Give arguments we can see, and that lead to the conclusion that vollkan must be scum.

[mykonian]

orto, after a shaky start, I can't say that I think you play bad. You are much more helpful then OP, TDC, mrfixij on the moment. Good find here above.

[mykonian]

I thought I had mentioned that I really had no idea how you could get anything out of the quotes don presented, how that could ever become a case. I wanted him to explain what was so bad about those quotes. And what happened to the omgus bit? it is one strike against spyrex, same counts for the bits I have said against vollkan, I'll remember.

By the way, what do you exactly think about the last page?

[mykonian]

don, as town, it is your job to convince us about who you think is scum, or town. Keeping ideas for yourself is not helping. Show us where you find spyrex dodgy and we may vote with you and lynch scum. BTW same counts for OP:

OK, it wasn't the clearest question, but here I really wanted to know what you got out of that series of quotes of yours, and how.

[mykonian]

ok, I'll restate my question: What are your toughts with those quotes, what do they tell you?

[mykonian]

to summarize, he dodged questions while he said it was scummy (I think it is).

but I think he weakened the vote on you, when he said the case on you was close to nothing. He hasn't answered, but can he? This whole wall you present, with beautiful words in it, is it that great? Are we accusing scum that picked a wrong target and get's caught now, or do we have not that experienced towny with little reread time, that get's caught in this game, like it happened with orto.

On this moment, I am not sure, but I hope we have scum here.

It is a shame the other persons that I attacked in the last days aren't here to react. Hello vollkan, mrfix! Would you care to react?

[mykonian]

It could help if you reposted your case, with what you think of what happened last, and what my defenses of it were, maybe I can talk it out of your head day 1, otherwise, I'm sure I can day two. At least we agree on the fact that we absolutely don't need a deadline now. Town is just talking in front of themselves. Orto and Spring see only vollkan, you want only me, I'm mostly busy with mrfixij, and Spyrex is on don. don has weakened his stance, so I don't know what he is thinking now, and the rest I even don't know who they want to lynch. Maybe it could be a good idea to get some sort of consensus here...

And mrfix, I know you are online now, would you care to play? I'm not forgetting you while cases on vollkan and don make the play. Please don't hope I will.

[mykonian]

I love vollkans post 606.

And ecto, the way you present it there you do two important things: first, you assume that my first attack on spring was a strong one, which it wasn't, I criticized a weak FoS from spring. Really not a stance I would like to stay long, luckily I didn't have to, because it was my first post, day 1. Second, you only name the scenario's where I am scum. Not surprising you end on the conclusion that I'm scum everytime.

And I certainly hope you are not the vig

[mykonian]

orto, you got to focus more on reading. I see in the last view posts that you are misreading things, like this post from spyrex.

[mykonian]

Personally, I'm more irritated with a mason that doesn't take the lead (Hello OP!). With orto we can at least listen to what he says, he is at least trying to tell us something. We can not agree, and we don't have to follow him, but at least he gives some input. You can tell he is trying his best to scumhunt, the only thing we need to do, is to give him some directions, no need to get irritated.

OP seems a bit to think that after he claimed mason, his job was done. Orto gains the advantage from his claimed-masonship, by saying everything he thinks (you are a bit tunnelvisioned orto, could you do something about that?), without constantly having to think what other people would think about him.

In stead of constraining orto, we should encourage him, give critics on his cases, so that he may get to something. I'm liking orto's play much better then OP's.

[mykonian]

if you are very lucky, I can post something about the last post tonight, if not, I'll be posting tomorrow.

[mykonian]

and so ecto opened the possibility of lynching a mason, and vollkan doesn't disagree with it? You are making it far to easy for orto to confirm all his theory's.

All I can say with the whole don business, is that I'm on spyrex his side. He has been protown in my eyes. Don is completely attacking the wrong person.

and too many persons here are attacking the person that attacks them.

[mykonian]

If mrfixij wasn't so obviously hiding, don would be my first choice.

and sorry vollkan, I missed that statement.

[mykonian]

I tend to forget mrfixij, so yes, it seems a good tactic for him to be gone for a while...

I think don should know that his case is rubbish, while he says now that he actually did. The case against spyrex was a dead one, and it would be very scummy if he had kept it. I've got to reread the situation to see if my vote on don is justified. In case not: mrfixij, you will see my vote back on you.

[mykonian]

Then I did something wrong You have determined for yourself that his action wasn't scummy, but I didn't. Anyway, some pressure seems now to be usefull. Tomorrow, I'm going to reread don, and maybe I'll vote mrfixij then again.

[mykonian]

Ecto, are you really pushing for a mason lynch? I do not agree. I agree with TDC, although his math is not completely right. Maybe a vig-kill could be used, but we really don't need that yet.

Really, ecto, what do you want? lynch one, and kill the other?

Mrfixij, bit of overkill to respond at a lurking accusation isn't it? . Just come and play

DON, would you plz reread for once and stop coming up with close to, or completely caseless votes.

anyway, new top three:

Don
Mrfixij
Ecto

[mykonian]

maybe I shouldn´t do this this late, but what is happening here. Missed that ecto called it a gambit.

all this are ecto´s quotes, chronologically.

vote OrangePenguin

Their claim needs to be tested and confirmed. I'm not going to fall for a VI scheme.

"Hey, if we get into trouble, let's claim mason so town wont lynch us and then play scummy so that "scum" wont kill us. Haha!"

At the very least, Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels need to be neutered. Take out the inactive one.

TDC wrote:

What would've happened had anybody jumped on?


That's the 64 dollar question isn't it? Encourage more to join?

You can either ignore the "lynch OP today section", or you can press me for the details. All I can say is that it is a gambit rooted in psychology. I realize that people get nervous around gambits, but if you want a weird Ecto townie read, you can check out http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &start=500 (not the same situation here!) or http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... highlight= (Got first scum, but HackerHuck owned me in endgame. My guess rooted in psychology in that situation was that the real cop would not try to counter my soft claim.)

In between we have a softclaim without reason.

Now we get the discussion again, like with vollkan, is this a gambit, or is someone trying to get away with antitown play because it is a gambit.

a few points: sometimes, ecto seems a little serious about the vote. Wants to pull us over. On the moment he tells us it is a gambit, he must have gotten his information, yet he doesn't tell us. The information would have been taken out of psychology, or said different, would are easily influenced by the way you are viewing things. So, ecto claims it is a gambit, says he has information, and even if that information would lead to a mislynch, he doesn't have the be the next obvious lynch.

[mykonian]

actually, don´s post 706 begins to look like it.

Spyrex´s action (asking for a deadline) was very scummy. And he points out what we all know about vollkan: his post are close to unreadable, and most of it tells nothing about the game. Vollkan uses subjective arguments. I haven's checked out the post don mentioned, but I believe him on that. Simply because I felt it before. I don't think vollkan-scum is to good for using strawmanning. As long as you don't get caught it is fun, isn't it?

Spyrex's post 707 points out unvoluntarily what my biggest problem with vollkan is. Vollkan is good at this game, tells us he plays logically, yet takes his resort with subjective arguments, he hides everything that could be a scumtell in massive post and keeps omgus attacking his attackers. How often haven't we seen that vollkan finds his attackers scummy, or at least suck, because he finds the attacks on him rubbish. Nice way to push them in the defensive.

That's why I absolutely have no problem with orto's play. Even after he had claimed vollkan kept doing the same (that was pointed out there) but the fun thing is, orto doesn't need to defend. Orto did assemble a lot of small points against vollkan (would you have expected more?). Now, because everybody loves vollkan, orto is laught at. I feel that is wrong. People say he doesn't do his job. He does. Even if vollkan isn't scum, we have everybody talking about it. Orto played active, made cases, and in general tried to find vollkan-scum.

I'm going to reread vollkan. lol.

[mykonian]

OK, I'm stretching the defintion, but you attack people based on the fact that their case on you sucks. If you attacked me, I could do that too.

and the "I felt that before" thing is based on the point that I attacked you before on it. Some doubtful sentences, that were, if they were placed with an intention, placed to make your attackers seem dumb. That is one instance. Also the fact you call it bullshit, why I called it a minor scumtell. It doesn't deny my point, but you still respond on it in this way. That is purely subjective vollkan. You put in that sentence in, and why? That is also my question with the insulting orto business. Why?

[mykonian]

I think I didn't ignore it. I gave two things that were clearly subjective, and you have even tried to answer them.

I know it was not ad-hominem, that lable would be wrong. You don't attack orto there, you try to disqualify him, and people buy it. Calling someone stupid doesn't make him wrong, yet the general feeling here seems to be like that. That is subjective vollkan.

And I also explained already what I meant with the lable omgus, I explained it in the next sentence.

It is not yet strawmanning what you do here, but you don't want to read everything, and you seem to have problems understanding me in the previous post.

Because of this:

I never said it was ad hominem, that was not even what you were attacked for. I attacked you at disqualifying your opponents. You defend by saying it was not ad hominem. point for you: you also say emotive language should have its place (I don't agree here...)
I used the word omgus, and explained in the next sentence what I thought was wrong. You defend by theory discussion, and saying it could never be omgus.
You say I didn't answer your question, while you answered the points I brought up to answer it.

[mykonian]

Maybe I misused the word subjective. Any argument that is not based on facts, derivatives from that, autorities (probably bad spelling here), etc, but on feelings, denying proof etc is subjective. So calling someone stupid is moving the feeling of people against that person, so you win the debate. This would be bad. That is why I felt you shouldn't have insulted orto, not have called there arguments bullshit etc.

Don mentioned strawmanning and subjectivity. I attacked you on the second, but like I said, I think you could easily have strawmanned. There already I don't say I have found it, but I could believe it.

I used the word strawmanning in the previous post, because you came close to it. I didn't want to fully accuse you of strawmanning, because you could have read it wrong, or you could just have evaded the point I made, but it didn't have big consequenses here. Plus that it is too easily used for someone that doesn't understand what you are saying. With the ad-hominem business this seemed to apply, so I'm quite happy with this weakened statement.

If you had placed the blunt "this is not omgus" part in the previous post, you could just have defended against the accusation I was making after it. Would have been a lot easier.

[mykonian]

denying proof is the wrong term: I meant giving a statement, and by some construction say that proof is not needed (for example "it should be obvious that vollkan is scum, because he has the longest posts in the game"). You probably have a better word for it. English is not my first language, the above comes from that.

From the first post where you reacted on vollkan, I have never given any example where you were strawmanning, and I have never given the intention to look for it. You could have known that from the first post you reacted on, but it really had to take this long. Now you have first made my point seem too strong, you attacked me hard on the fact that I used such lables, and now suddenly you get back to that post, and tells everyone my point was easily defendable. "well, myko, why attack with it like it is strong?". When I restate what I posted there: "backpedaling". Vollkan, you are setting me up here.

You are cleverly putting me in to the defensive, and while you weren't really on my scumlist, let's see what happens now:

unvote vote vollkan

. Why play your game and get defensive, if I can just disagree with you and let town decide about the mess you are making here.

[mykonian]

you haven't done that, it was just an example of what I learned as subjective on school.

Just to restate: I did believe don, just because I felt, and attacked you before, on subjective plays. I wouldn't think you too good for a little manipulation of the opponents argument.

And yes, I see a certain pattern: nobody that attacked you wasn't attacked by you. You didn't care about my play throughout the whole game, no big accusations, but now I attacked you, you find a weak point I made, the statement above, and after a few posts, you come to the conclusion that this is not a good point against you, and that I pressed it too hard. It is not more then normal to declare that my case sucks, and see, you have managed to put me in the defensive. This of course with the vote included. I'm not the first, and everytime it happens again, vollkan. Let's see what the others do (although I admit I didn't know you were already at L-1).

[mykonian]

sorry vollkan...

I would have hammered you...

unvote

before I ask the mod the question:
how can don have to unvote if he isn't voting anyone? And what happened to orto's unvote. I think I remember he did that somewhere.

Correct, don_johnson hasn't voted anyone so he doesn't need to unvote. This has been corrected in the latest vote count.

You are correct about ortolan's unvote. This has also been corrected.

The last thing we need is someone lynched by mod-mistake.

[mykonian]

did I freakin know that I could have hammered him? I only knew spring, orange and don were on. I absolutely didn't like how he set me up, after I pointed out the facts I didn't like about him. Pressure was at least needed, that he could not do everything, and so he knew I would look him closely on those kinds of plays. Look how he cleverly uses the fact that I make one weak statement.

and in my defense, even vollkan didn't know it was the hammer. I admit, L-1 is quite a lot pressure, and don still deserves my vote much more seen his play in between the myko-vollkan conversation. He only makes empty statements.

Plz don't think I wanted to lynch vollkan. Well, I felt like it after he voted me, but it is not like he is close to being as scummy as don.

[mykonian]

don_johnson - 0 ()
orangepenguin - 1 (don) (still juls´s random vote, I guess)
ortolan - 0 ()
mykonian - 2 (vollkan, spyrex)
springlullaby - 0 ()
Ectomancer - 0 ()
vollkan - 3 (mrfixij, OP, spring)
SpyreX - 0 ()
mrfixij - 0 ()
TDC - 0 ()

noone - 4 (ecto, mykonian, orto, TDC)

What I think the votecount is now. With don on, vollkan's count would be good, but there was no chance I could have hammered vollkan. Mod, plz look good at those votecounts, you have cost me a few years of my life.

[mykonian]

I mainly restated my view on vollkan like I also tried to express in isolated post 72, after the trap business, where I also didn't agree. And it is true, those were minor point against him, so nothing big.

But in that whole post, I make a weak point, and vollkan manages to move that within a few post to make that vote-worthy, thereby pushing me in the defensive, and trying to make us forget what the rest of the post was about. I simply don't agree with such play, as it is scummy.

[mykonian]

the OP vote was an reaction on the bad post from OP. The vote meant nothing, it was to resemble OP's post.

And is it so weird I am on don? He is the scummiest player in this game! He has voted twice, and both times he can barely get a case together. I asked Spyrex about the OMGUS character of his vote, but I can see the scummiest player of them two, can't you? And you are not sneaking away from my attention. That is what I mentioned, but again, you are not close to being as scummy as don.

And no, I've never played with vollkan before. From this whole game, I only played with spring. But then, he may be frustrating, but does that give him an excuse for setting me up? You can clearly see what is happening there. I have a weak point in my analysis on don's post about vollkan, vollkan makes it seems a strong point, and after that he reveals it is a weak point, almost saying nothing. I can do that...

And eh, indecisive? I think I've been very clear that my vote will be on don, at the end of the day.

[mykonian]

Nice following on mrfix, don! A pity I already answered the issue of my use of my vote. As long as you don't have any objections to that answer, I would like you to stop accusing me of it.

That has been your problem all the way don: loads of accusations, but little proof. You try to get a case on spyrex together, but it looks like nothing, and gone you are again. You build a case on vollkan, but again, you have trouble getting examples and proof together. Is it weird I think you are the scummiest player around? Has nothing to do with spyrex, just the fact that we reacted both almost as fast on your weak opening. So stop accusing me of that, and don't do it yourself.

[mykonian]

And no, I've never played with vollkan before. From this whole game, I only played with spring. But then, he may be frustrating, but does that give him an excuse for setting me up? You can clearly see what is happening there. I have a weak point in my analysis on don's post about vollkan, vollkan makes it seems a strong point, and after that he reveals it is a weak point, almost saying nothing. I can do that...

I didn't "set you up". Saying I "set you up" presumes that I deliberately laid a trap and, thus, presumes I am scum. The believed thing was an expressed inconsistency in your own posts which I pointed out.

I indeed think you did that deliberately. The sentence use the word "feel", not think, know, etc. It was already weakened, and showed what my view, based on only my feelings, on you was. The word feel acts as a marker that the sentence given includes a very weak point.

You, however, first say that it is a big point. Not entirely changing my point, but only shifting it in strength (I don't dare to call it strawmanning anymore). Then, after a few posts arguing you say triomphant: That big point in his post is based on almost nothing, therefore myk must be scum!

vote don_johnson

No cases, twice attacked on that, and now he tries the scum trick of telling us all it was a gambit. Yeehaa.

[mykonian]

@vollkan

Now we are getting somewhere!

The statement I placed there was not strong: we agree
vollkan could use strawmanning (probably just not enough to get caught):we agree
vollkan uses subjective argumentation, uses sentences with the only use of getting the town to look positive at him: We don't agree. But on that moment, and still, I think I have found them
There is a link between subjectivity (playing with the words you use to tip the discussion in your favor), and strawmanning (playing with the argument of the opponent, to tip the discussion in your favor). I don't know if we agree here.

The last point is the only point you seem to miss in that whole business. I assumed, and still assume, that a person that handles his language well enough to use subjective language and manages to get an positive image (while you don't deserve it, as it is earned by subjective language), would also use strawmanning, maybe not in the clearest way, as he could try to conceal it. This is the problem that is left.

[mykonian]

And why only breadcrumb your role after having been on L-1?

I didn't do it early game. When I realised that I was going to likely be in a position whereby I had to claim, it made sense for me to breadcrumb, so it at least looked less spur of the moment.

Why do breadcrumbs help a true claim vollkan? Because they show you knew way before you got into trouble that you had that role, to show us that it is not something to escape from a lynch.

What you do here, is after you get into trouble, you set up a fakeclaim. Crumbs help for that too, you know... And here those crumbs completely lose there protown use, because you only thought up your role after you got into trouble. After you got into trouble, you suddenly realized we came a bit too close, and hastely tried to make a fakeclaim.

vote vollkan

[mykonian]

Yes vollkan, I probably would have thought it more normal that you would have claimed without the breadcrumbs. You are trying to show us that you claim is strong then it is. It was a claim, set up after you got into trouble, and now because you have "breadcrumbed" you ask us to believe you. The breadcrumbs make a fakeclaim more likely, as they were posted after you got into trouble, just to save you.

Orto: your masonclaim was crumbed a bit better (earlier), and you had OP backing you up. Look at it yourself, you can't compare it to this... You pointed it out yourself: why would vollkan only breadcrumb after L-1? I think this most likely: because he is scum, and suddenly we came to close to his lynch for his comfort, and he had to set up a fakeclaim to fend us off.

DC: yes, I am quite certain that vollkan fakeclaimed, and unless he is gambiting again (what I don't believe), that would mean he lied. This is just a badly set up fakeclaim, and that is why I vote vollkan.

if I were to vote DJ, it would be because he had two weak based cases. Scummy indeed, but now he is my second scummiest person.

[mykonian]

Like I said, the breadcrumbing was better. Not only from orto, but also OP began with defending orto. That means scum would have thought it out before the game started. Not an on the moment thing.

With you, you want to tell us it was not a spur-of-the-moment thing. But wasn't it? It was to late to help vollkan. It only helps your claim if we can tell with it that you knew you were that role before. Here you try to push your fakeclaim through with breadcrumbs that have to tell us... what? It makes no sense vollkan.

If you are to late with breadcrumbing, you are too late. It won't help anymore. Why were you late? because you forgot to do it? Or because you only read your role-PM after you got at L-1?

No Vollkan, the likeliest option is here: you made it up then. That's why you must be scum.

[mykonian]

I set him to L-2.

Lets see if scum would rush to that lynch, I would love to see it.

Orto, all I did is making my decision about that claim of vollkan. I don't like it -> I vote vollkan, because I think him most likely scum.

[mykonian]

Yes, without the breadcrumbing, this would have been better. just saying, "sorry people, I forgot", is much better then "look, I must be the doc, because I breadcrumbed", while there are objections to that. It is not obvious, and the way you try to get past us there is scummy. Why do you think I vote you?

[mykonian]

We'll have a lot fun in this game if there is no doctor...

Look at that claim yourself, is it that strong? What do I see, what you can't?

[mykonian]

I'm not entirely certain what to think about the doc claim. On one hand, I don't like to meta roles. On the other, it's beginning to look like a really stacked town. However, I don't want to lynch a claimed doc without a damn good reason for it or a CC. As such, I think mykonian is our best bet. He has voted for a claimed mason, a softclaim, and a claimed doc AFTER their respective claims. If not scum behavior, it is certainly antitown. I say lynch it.

I voted OP, yes: reasons, there said: pressure, to make OP do something. Like I wanted a mason lynch. I have been against that all the time

I voted you, biggest target in the start, and I'm sorry, but I have missed your softclaim. Was it before I started attacking you?

Vollkan: I'm quite sure he fakeclaimes. The way he posts, how he set it up after he got in to trouble. Everything points at a fakeclaim.

[mykonian]

Spyrex, you also seem to know that spyrex soft-claimed. I a searching for it, but I can't find it. Could you tell me what or where he did it?

[mykonian]

EBWOP: it's about mrfixij, of course

[mykonian]

OK, I'll search there.

But if it is there, I'm guilty anyway. I've sticked to mrfixij longer.

[mykonian]

I couldn't find it from page 8 to 15.

Let's see if I can find it with mrfixij in isolation.

Is it in his 41st post?

[mykonian]

OK, found it: post 313

I FoS'ed him just before that, but most of the attacks I made on mrfixij were after it. So yes, I'm guilty on that.

Now everybody can show me as the powerrole hunting scum. "see, he voted mrfixij, OP and vollkan, he must be scum".

No, I'm not. OP I didn't want to lynch. It was still mrfixij I had on top of my scum list. In fact, I've never doubted the masons. That vote was to show his fault in his reasoning, and to get him to do something. My vote on mrfixij was because I wanted to lynch him. I don't like how he hopped on to the spring wagon. I hadn't seen his softclaim, but I don't know if it had mattered much at that moment. It is not really falsifiable, is it? I would have thought the same as I do with vollkan now.

yes, vollkan, I want him lynched today. No chance I'm going to move my vote again. Don was scummy, mrfixij had his mistakes, but vollkan is just scum that wants to push his fakeclaim through. He is doing it cleverly, and you buy it all, but I won't.

[mykonian]

He is doing it cleverly, and you buy it all, but I won't.

Buying the claim and not wanting to lynch him Day 1 are two very different things.

Is it? I don't buy his claim, so I want to lynch him. He is the person I am the surest about, and it would be foolish not to want to lynch the person that is the likelyest scum. Why risk a bigger chance on a mislynch?

[mykonian]

Claim time, I'd say.

I see it now. Well, I have to do it anyway, and to scum it is probably already clear.

I'm the doctor. No breadcrumbs, nothing.

Can we lynch vollkan now?

[mykonian]

Someone mentioned a softclaim from mrfixij then. I didn't know he did that, and I say it then. I looked for it then, but I couldn't find it. I have now, for the first time, seen what the sentence was that was the softclaim.

Then I haven't calculated it in, and after that I have forgotten it. Like I said, it wouldn't make a big difference in what I thought on mrfixij on that moment, because I could imagine scum doing that also, but I admit I forgot and when I later accused mrfixij when I thought he was lurking, and I wanted some attention on him. Point against me I'm afraid.

[mykonian]

I saw vollkan reading this. Did anyone else?

[mykonian]

There you are...

and yes, I didn't want to counterclaim you right away, I wanted to try if I could lynch you without it first. At the moment I got votes, I tried to push harder. On that moment it was clear to you already probably, but it was worth trying to do it this way.

The best situation would have been that the town would have followed, and scum didn't really know who the doctor was. Small chance, I know, but I had to take it. No last scum attempt, just clever waiting until I had to claim.

[mykonian]

breadcrumbing can be usefull for a doctor. It makes your claim stronger, as it proves you knew you were the doctor before you claimed. However, it also works for a fakeclaim. If you plan to fake a certain claim, you can breadcrumb before it, to make people believe you.

the problem with my breadcrumbing, is that I didn't do it. You'll have to determine my allignment on my play.

the problem with vollkan's breadcrumbing, is that it has no use. He breadcrumbed when he got too close to a lynch for his comfort, and then it can't prove he knew he was a doctor there. He just faked it then, when it was needed. Later, vollkan wants to "prove" his doctorship by providing his "breadcrumbs". Not that there is any use for it, he just wants to push his claim through there. His breadcrumbs tell nothing. His claim is not stronger then a claim without breadcrumbs.

[mykonian]

that's what I mean. Vollkan's "breadcrumbing" is said to be something positive. But why would he only know what his role was until he was put under pressure. The breadcrumbing is absolutely useless.

I wouldn't believe two docs too. That would be close to bastard modding, I think.

[mykonian]

I didn't counterclaim, for this simple reason: I have to give up a powerrole.

I can take three ways from the point vollkan claimed.

1. no counterclaim: I make a mess of it, and we are going to loose.
2. counterclaim right away: town gets a fifty-fifty between vollkan and me: I am going to be nightkilled
3. take my chance and try to lynch vollkan without outing my role. If it happens, I have the chance that scum kills a mason, and I have a chance to save a mason. If it doesn't happen, I claim before I get lynched, and we go to way 2.

Now I ask you, would you really want me to play 2? I make the best choice here by taking three, it is just taking an extra chance, thereby increasing the chance. So I try to get you to vote vollkan, and if that doesn't work, I'm going to claim.

[mykonian]

I like it the other way around... Let scum take me. Don't use a mislynch that easily.

I know vollkan is a better player then I am, but don't make him move your vote that easily.

what should I have done different then attack vollkan hard after he claimed doc? Why would I do it as scum. Everybody got a feeling I must be scum, because the case on vollkan was weak on its best. Off course it was, I didn't need more evidence, I just didn't want to give all the evidence I had.

But everybody has a feeling that I must be scum, for that action, while it actually was the most protown way of doing things.

Lets go to a slightly wifom based argument: Why would I, if I was scum, attack a un-cc'ed doc with some murmuring about weak breadcrumbs? The only reason would be to be lynched fast.

But if I was the doc, what would I lose if I tried? NOTHING. It was again his word against mine, I only tried to do it first without directly telling scum that I am the doc.

[mykonian]

I thought I reacted on ecto there. Ecto saw no other way of lynching vollkan, then with a counterclaim. That was not exactly what I wanted. I tried to push a lynch of vollkan through without having to counterclaim.

Ecto would accept every claim witout a counterclaim, seen from that post. That is too easy. I shouldn't always work like that. I had the small chance of moving ecto's vote this way, and I have token that chance.

[mykonian]

How could ecto vote vollkan if I didn't want counterclaim and ecto needed a counterclaim.

well simple, to try to get ecto of his believe that he needed a counterclaim, or to counterclaim.

[mykonian]

@vollkan

Of course you are going to say my way wouldn't make sense.

You tell us: It could have been so easy, just counterclaim you, and you would have been lynched at once. Nobody would have been sceptical, noooo, they would just have lynched you.

I didn't think that. I think it makes little difference when I would have counterclaimed, when it was at least today. Both times, town would have to decide who they thought towniest, whos claim was the best. I only tried with an attack on you to take the chance of lynching you without a counterclaim. It would be a shame not to have tried it.

[mykonian]

so orto, what do you want? you are confirmed, and that was exactly the point you were trying to discuss. You got the prove above.

[mykonian]

OK, call me smart (thank you!), but this is the first time I even could counterclaim. The first time I got a powerrole except mason. I thought this was the way.

and orto, the top post here is the answer on that question.

[mykonian]

why not? what would be the big difference between a direct counterclaim, and a delayed one? both times, everybody is going to look at the past to see who must be scum. Nothing has changed.

[mykonian]

Last thoughts

There are people who seem to see how I played. There is one that only keeps talking about how bad my counterclaim was. Well I know that now, won't do it again. But there are more people that think it is a bad play, but still see that I would do it as doc. However, Spyrex can't. Yet spyrex has been close to vollkan all the time, would scum do that? Spyrex you confuse me here.

Don would have done some massive distancing by now, so apart from far from optimal play, he actually is probably town.

I forgot most about SL

TDC and mrfixij. Have been reasonable most of the game.

Ecto. I had a protown feeling here all the game.

O, and I missed the masons: confirmed.

[mykonian]

mod, can we have a votecount?

I would love to hear more of vollkans opinions on other people. I know you liked to attack don, I want you to say something about your scumbuddy too. Now you are missing some persons

[mykonian]

So don't hammer until he has talked about everyone. There will be some use in it, even if it is wifom.

[mykonian]

and there we lost our opportunity to make vollkan say something about the town.

OP: WHY? There was no deadline, we had the time, and we could only get more information. He could have had to point out concisely what he thought about players, and then we wouldn't have to look through the whole game for his links with people.

I and Ecto ask for it, why did you not listen?

[mykonian]

yes, mrfix, I would also like to know what you are

[mykonian]

Thank you for the doc-protect mrfixij

I would love to hear if there was a vig that shot me

[mykonian]

BTW, you can lynch me whenever you want, but what is the use of doing it today? All you get with it is an extra nightkill. While when you leave me in the game, you can lynch someone else, and with that you would make the amount of possible scum smaller. When lynching me, you only give scum a free kill on a confirmed player. Think about it, is it that usefull to lynch scum when you got him for sure? Does it matter if you lynch him right away? I think it does, you loose the opportunity of using the towns best weapon for

searching

, as you have already found me. The only thing that stands between you and a win, are my partners, you only need to find them, you could lynch me anytime...

[mykonian]

Ignore Myknonian and don't be goaded into anything. I'll have more time in awhile.

Can I have a last wish? Plz spell my name right with the votes

And really ecto, it seems you haven't thought it over. It is better then just auto-lynching me.

[mykonian]

You want to know what I would get from it?

Maybe I like to be lynched... I can't say that I have no chance to win anymore. What has town grown wiser after next day? Nothing! You lynched the person that talked way too much, that was a power role! You actually managed to lynch the person that was protown. Who is to lead the town now?

[mykonian]

ah, come on! You guy's don't think! It is just auto-pilot back to night...

and a jailer jail himself, nice paradox...

Have you thought about it what happens when there is a serial killer in this game? Would it help to weaken the mafia, or would you hope for cross-kills? Maybe that person even wants to shoot me and claim vig, wouldn't that be fun?

[mykonian]

Great improvement from your early game Orto.
Everyone else who read his post and didn't get it, it doesn't matter if he is town or scum at this point. He does what Orto said, period.
If scum decides not to kill to setup WIFOM, awesome. One less townie dead while we unravel the string.
We need to focus on another target and worry, or not worry about MrFixij tommorrow

Finally someone sees how orto is playing. He plays like a confirmed mason should. Congrats Orto, you finally convinced more people. The vollkan lynch was a good thing for you.

and Ecto, nice of you to tell us who not to kill

[mykonian]

Wow I was all ready to get crazy on the thread and then I realized its Myk talking.

So, who are you going to recommend to SL tonight? Hmm?

DJ obviously, he seems to be her biggest competitor

[mykonian]

And you are so rude...

can't we all live in harmony?

[mykonian]

lies, all lies!

[mykonian]

Vote:mykoninan

you want to kill me, fine...
even if I haven't done anything but lying about my role.

But could you at least spell my name right?

[mykonian]

yay!

I really can't believe it. This should have been a town win. Night three, both scum teams know what is going on, where the other is. Why didn't they shoot each other?

And don, well played

as far as I can see, little is wrong with the setup. It got a lot of people confused, but that is also by the surprising little amount of cross-kills. People might argue that you should have given the seperate mafia's different names, but I don't know if that was really needed. Setup seems quite balanced, only a lot things went in favor for scum: the doc was outed early, no cross kills...

I don´t know this for sure, but from the start of the game I had the feeling this was the first game you modded, Rage. You should be a bit more confident, and a bit more a natural leader.

Like the self-vote rule: on that moment, I got the feeling that you were feared that something bad would happen to your game. This felt like panic. There was no real need for such a rule, and changing the rules late should only be done in extreme situations, as it shows you are not completely in control of the game otherwise (same counts for scumteam 2's late rule that one must send in the kill. For the game this makes no difference, and this only gives a wrong image of you). And while you seemed to have the idea everything went wrong, we were playing nicely, still you had to excuse for your modding. There was no need to.

and then the modkill-threat. When you couldn't find a replacement for Spolium, you came up with that idea. I send you a pm then. While I still expected we were the only (2 person) mafia in the game, and a modkill day one would simply make it close to impossible to win, you knew that there was a second group, and that a modkill didn't necesserally ruin the game. Seen afterwards, that was not a completely correct statement. It didn't make any difference this time, because we are not smart enough and nobody saw it coming, but that was probably the only thing people could accuse you of.

So really, not that bad, you just need a little more confidence

[mykonian]

and Don: congrats with the best fakeclaim of this game

[mykonian]

I must agree with mrfix: JK is not that out of the ordinary, just like mafia roleblocker (it would have fit nicely in this game...): springs simply doesn't belong in a normal game common sense may be expected from the players.

[mykonian]

At least that explains the TERRIBLE VOLKAN LYNCH. Seriously. All 4 scum and the masons. If this was a 12 player game I think we'd have lynched down that line and won.

did I really break the setup by counterclaiming and giving the other scumteam its reason to vote the most protown player in the game?

anyway, town also needs to question itself how it can be that three of the four powerroles are already outed day 1, and that day one didn't end up in scumteam a attacking scumteam 2. Better playing masons could have saved a lot.

[mykonian]

can you imagine how organized scum was united by a common enemy. Vollkan was scary for every scum player here.

[mykonian]

so, be honest, if vollkan never got into trouble, both scumteams would have had to gamble at their NK, the lynch would probably have ended with spring or DJ, because town was quite organized. It's not like this was impossible to win.

in the end, scum plays suboptimal, because when they played optimally, they would have killed each other. Because for both, they would win it for sure if the other killed a towny. DJ had no need to kill the cop, and could see that the other scumteam would have been (unfair) if that one consisted out of {roleblocker, godfather}, so spring must be the other scum.

spring was more likely to make the mistake, because the cop threatened to investigate her. She also had a small disadvantage, because she didn't know what the other scum would be: TDC could still be a godfather.

So that she would have killed TDC would not have been so wrong (gambled and lost), but this way, by killing the cop, she could only win if the other scum killed the other towny. The same thing that happened if she gambled wrong.

Conclusion: even after this, after everything went wrong day 1, town should have won night 3.

[mykonian]

lets say that you were a great team.

*hides*

[mykonian]

Ah! I actually thought we were going to end up winning the game. It is partly my fault for lynching vollkan day 1, instead of mykonian, but at that point, I was so confused, and didn't know who to believe. I was also hoping that I was going to be NK-ed instead of ort, since ort was doing a really good job in this game, whereas I pretty much sucked. Sorry. Luckily, both scum teams thought I was a good lynch, sadly enough. You would think one of them would attempt to go for ort, since he was better for the town.

I think that both teams had the idea they were losing . So while orto was clearly going to wrong way, he also looked the best. And if it isn't going good, why not trow in some extra wifom?

[mykonian]

after thinking it over, the setup wasn't that great. If a superior town can still lose, the setup (which I still think balanced, but swingy), didn't promote skill enough and our win was mostly based on luck. People helped that (super-fake roleclaims, lynching a very protown doctor, getting the masons outed day 1).

[mykonian]

Aww, give me a break myk, JK isn't a bad claim by any means. Forensic on the other hand... dear god.

should have removed the -s, I already stated that yours wasn't that bad (only TDC thought that on that moment based on a list). anyway, you get the point.