Mini 1086 - KGB Mafia Game Over

[Zdenek]

Vote: Empking

Obvious claimfishing.

[Zdenek]

Vote: Zdenk

- How did I rolefish?

I said claim fishing, and you did it by asking for a massclaim.

Do you have reason to believe that the setup will be so bad that a mass claim will break it?

[Zdenek]

Zdenk: I don't think the game would be broken just ourd odds of winning increased.

Why?

[Zdenek]

Puts the town in a better position to judge claims and it puts the scum into a position they'd rather not be in (which is where they actually slip up.)

It seems that there are too many things that can go wrong. Several scum (maybe all of them) will just claim VT, then we will be left lynching VT's while the scum pick off power roles, and if there is a protective role, either he'll claim, and be the first to go, or he'll claim VT and could end up being one of the early lynch targets.

I've never been in a game that's started with a massclaim. If anyone else has, I'd like to hear their input about it and what happened when they tried it.

[Zdenek]

Aw, that's a shame, Empking. I thought you were baiting scum to overreact on rolefishing, rather than actually being serious.

Yes, townspeople never react to rolefishing.

Unvote
Vote ChannelDelibird

[Zdenek]

Aw, that's a shame, Empking. I thought you were baiting scum to overreact on rolefishing, rather than actually being serious.

Yes, townspeople never react to rolefishing.

Unvote
Vote ChannelDelibird

Not what I said.

You voted me, saying nice work Empking, that you weren't random voting, and that you thought Empking was trying to bait scum. Care to explain?

[Zdenek]

My vote for you was an entirely serious one, yes. Your post didn't really seem to consider Empking's possible motivations before voting.

Oh really? I voted him for claim-fishing. I was clearly considering a possible motivation, even though at the time I voted him I was just looking for a game related reason to vote. Your post indicates that you don't think that there is a chance that he was claim-fishing, and hence that you know his alignment.

[Zdenek]

Zdenek's vote for EK showed he wasn't considering possible motivations of people when he voted and, instead, was voting based on a boilerplate scumtell (claimfishing). I've checked his history, and he's been in enough games to know better. The point that then comes up is that his reasoning is somewhat contradictory: he is voting CBD for failing to consider a motivation, when he himself failed to consider the (rather obvious) baiting motivation behind EK's pos

And Empking's been in enough games to know that town is just as likely as scum to react to role fishing, most likely even more because scum will probably immediately suspect that they are being baited, so I assumed that wasn't his main motivation. I am not voting CDB just because he failed to notice a motivation, it's because of the specific motivation he ignored.

I approve of this bandwagon.

Wagon hopping noted.

[Zdenek]

Zdenek's vote for EK showed he wasn't considering possible motivations of people when he voted and, instead, was voting based on a boilerplate scumtell (claimfishing). I've checked his history, and he's been in enough games to know better.

I'd also like to point out that scum do get caught for rolefishing/claimfishing and other "boilerplate" scumtells (wagon hopping, active lurking, quick hammering . . .), so to take them off the table as reasons to accuse people is a bit strange.

[Zdenek]

And Empking's been in enough games to know that town is just as likely as scum to react to role fishing, most likely even more because scum will probably immediately suspect that they are being baited, so I assumed that wasn't his main motivation. I am not voting CDB just because he failed to notice a motivation, it's because of the specific motivation he ignored.

zdenek+2

First, you've just shifted the nature of your attack against Emp. In post #9 you attacked Emp for "obvious claimfishing" - ie. Emp is scummy because he is trying to our PRs. When it was indicated to you that Emp was most likely just trolling for reaction, the basis of your attack changes to what we see in the above quote - ie. Emp is scummy because he is setting bait that is likely to trap town.

Unless you want to count almost any early vote as an attack, I was never attacking Empking,

I was just looking for a game related reason to vote

and as soon as something new came up, I unvoted. Moreover, you are blatantly misrepresenting my post that you just quoted as an attack on Empking.

Second, the new ground upon which you are attacking him doesn't make sense.

There is no new ground on which I am attacking him.

Wagon hopping noted.

You could also have noted his use of proper punctuation and grammar - but you didn't.

So, I ask, what is particularly noteworthy about wagon hopping?

I'd also like to point out that scum do get caught for rolefishing/claimfishing and other "boilerplate" scumtells (wagon hopping, active lurking, quick hammering . . .), so to take them off the table as reasons to accuse people is a bit strange.

I don't deny that somebody who subtly tries to get people to claim might be scummy for that. But that's completely different from imposing an inflexible principle that claim fishing, even when done so brazenly as "Hai doods, let's massclaim", is scummy.

Likewise for wagon-hopping. There are plenty of good reasons why, especially in the first few pages of a game, town would want to jump wagons as much as possible. In fact, I actively encourage people to do it: it provides all the more basis for assessing their consistency and makes it all the more likely that scum might make opportunistic slips.

Then on this we are in pretty much in agreement, and you've answered your own question: what's noteworthy of wagon hopping is that it can be scum making an opportunistic slip.

[Zdenek]

CDB: no I don't find Empking scummy at the moment.

That doesn't make any sense. Scum don't suddenly become more intelligent than town players. If you think scum are likely to immediately suspect baiting, then you have to think that town are likely to immediately suspect it too.

Scum have more to worry about than town, and might avoid commenting on something for precisely that reason.

Vollkan: the vote was early game silliness, I was just looking for a reason to put a vote on some. However, I was also perfectly willing to discuss the merits of a mass claim.

So what? Because you abandon one lousy vote for another, you're somehow absolved?

Absolved from what?

My statement:

And Empking's been in enough games to know that town is just as likely as scum to react to role fishing, most likely even more because scum will probably immediately suspect that they are being baited, so I assumed that wasn't his main motivation.

is not an attack on Empking, and I can't see how it could be interpreted in that manner. All I am saying is that I thought trying to bait scum wasn't was his main motivation for proposing a mass claim.

My vote on CDB is because he blew my RVS vote out of proportion, then he accused me of not considering Empking's possible motivations before posting. Which is just BS, why should I be scared of commenting on something that someone does in RVS, plus if he read my vote, it's clear that a possible motivation of Empking crossed my mind, so this statement is false. Additionally, there is the chance that he simply ignored the possible scum motivations for a mass-claim (for instance, they could have arranged claims pre-game that they think will help them or the baiting town to secure a mislynch) because he already knows Empking's alignment.

[Zdenek]

Were we supposed to read your initial vote as a joke?

My initial vote was an RVS vote. I prefer to make a game related RVS vote rather than just vote for something completely arbitrary.

town isn't worried about being baited so lets him/herself fall for it?

There is no "falling for it" if you are town. It is simply discussing something.

So why didn't you discuss the merits of a mass claim in your initial post?

I have never been in a game with one, so I didn't think I had much to contribute.

Could you clarify where and how I blew your vote out of proportion? How random was your vote supposed to be? (You said you were after any game-related reason to vote, but "obvious claimfishing" looks like a pretty serious accusation.)

Stop lying. If you thought it was a serious accusation, you wouldn't have voted me for making it.

[Zdenek]

Could you clarify where and how I blew your vote out of proportion? How random was your vote supposed to be? (You said you were after any game-related reason to vote, but "obvious claimfishing" looks like a pretty serious accusation.)

Stop lying. If you thought it was a serious accusation, you wouldn't have voted me for making it.

What? That's exactly my point, it reads entirely serious to me, that's why I'm voting for you.

Then explain how you thought at the same time both: one, that I seriously thought he was scum claimfishing and two, that I am scum.

[Zdenek]

Zdenek: I don't think you're gambitting so I'll answer. A serious vote is just opposed to a random vote. Scum can make them and so can lying town it has nothing to do with seriously thinking something.

He said serious accusation, not serious vote, it might be a matter of semantics, but isn't that the entire point.
Why can't honest town make a serious vote? For instance, someone proposing a policy lynch in RVS could be serious, town and telling the truth.

My suggestion is that you looked like scum trying to gain town points by making an easy, buzzwordy accusation of claimfishing, not that you genuinely believed that he was scum claimfishing.

Oh the symmetry: my suggestion is that you look like scum trying to gain town points by making an easy buzzwordy accusation of overreacting to claimfishing, not that you genuinely believe I am scum overreacting to claimfishing.

I'm not explaining my vote on Empking again.

Anyway, I don't see scum making a post like your 61. They would have been happy to fill the thread with this argument, and either have it lead to an early lynch, or make a read through of incredibly day one tedious.

Unvote CDB
Vote Leech

Useless early active lurker post.

[Zdenek]

From that, and the thrust your attack on CBD, the implication is that you think the best explanation for Emp's actions is that he is scum baiting newbtown. Am I wrong?

Yes. I've already said that I don't find Empking scummy, and I think Empking was being serious when he proposed the mass claim.

[Zdenek]

Viral, I'd like to second bvoigt's questions. I'm also curious, how much mafia have you played?

Mod: I will be V/LA from Monday Nov. 29 to Wednesday Dec. 1

[Zdenek]

Viral, you've played eight games, and you think that the way to get a wagon on you to disperse is to shut your mouth?

[Zdenek]

I will be V/LA until Wednesday Dec. 1

[Zdenek]

Like I said, it just seems like a bs wagon started by scum.

Who do you think is scum and why?

[Zdenek]

Sorry I meant to write quote tags there:

Like I said, it just seems like a bs wagon started by scum.

Who do you think is scum and why?

[Zdenek]

V/LA until Wednesday

I think it won't be too limited, but just in case.

Blood Queen, who are the two players who might catch your attention in a negative way if they don't post properly?

[Zdenek]

My V/LA continues because of a delayed flight due to bad weather.

[Zdenek]

I don't have much time right now, but I will come back with more soon. I just want to dispel one thing immediately. CDB, I wasn't agreeing with Vollkan in my 77. The yes, was in response to his question, "Am I wrong?"

[Zdenek]

Blood Scum's contributions so far:

Post 1: Obvious newbie provocation
Post 2,5 and 6: Useless
Posts 3 and 4: Attempting to over-assert townieness
which brings us to:

Post 7: his catch-up post.

He asks me a question I've already answered, attempts to rekindle an argument that wasn't helping town and doesn't bother commenting about Vollkan.

He also raises some dubious arguments against tumescence and bvoigt.
BQ, what's scummy about lynching someone who's not playing like he's town?
What's scummy about trying to pressure lurkers into posting by voting for them early?

Unvote
Vote Blood Queen

[Zdenek]

zdenek: What is your main point against BQ? Why is it scummy?

There is no main point. It's his play taken all together. I also am not suggesting that I am certain that he is scum, but I'd definitely like it if he posted more, so that I could get a better read on him.

First of all, he hasn't contributed much, so while some of the things are not necessarily scummy, in the context of his posts, they look worse to me. For instance, his random vote was on VM, a new player. This can be a good move to get the game started because of the possibility of a reaction, but it can also be a way for scum to try to get a mislynch. The fact that he vanished for so long could mean that he was happy with the result coming out of RVS: a small wagon on VM and the long drawn out argument.

I think he was also trying to over assert townieness especially here

links to topics from MD discussing it?
Disagreed, btw. Analysis > Night game > outguessing the mod.

This sort of town teaching often comes from scum, but isn't necessarily scummy.

It also bothers me that he never bothered you about actually providing those links.

In his catch-up post his attempt to rekindle the argument between CDB, Vollkan and I stands out as being scummy to me. I think the argument was bogging down the thread, and it helped me get a read on CDB, so it had served its purpose as far as I am concerned.

[Zdenek]

Empking, care to say why your voting Viral?

As I've reread, Xdaamno has started bugging me:

I think Xdaamno's argument that BQ was exhibiting scum-typic confidence is a terrible argument and makes no sense. I can't see why town could not have made those posts. The scummiest thing in them I think was the town teaching (which I pointed out above, but Xd doesn't even mention that specifically).

In the same post, he declared leetch to be town based on not bookmarking the thread.

Also, when Xd voted BQ, he carefully kept his option to go back to VM open. This I really don't like.

[Zdenek]

Unvote Blood Queen

He went back and looked at my meta to try to clear me, which is a pretty good town tell, since it's an easy thing for scum to ignore.

Vote Vollkan

semi-lurking and tunneling.

In a town where there is little consensus, when the deadline comes, we'll have to switch to someone, and switching to the person who has the most Vollkan-points is a natural move. So by tunnelling, he's on the wagon early and always which is a good way for scum to hide and makes VC analysis difficult. By tunneling he avoids conflict.

[Zdenek]

Vote Vollkan

semi-lurking and tunneling.

In a town where there is little consensus, when the deadline comes, we'll have to switch to someone, and switching to the person who has the most Vollkan-points is a natural move. So by tunnelling, he's on the wagon early and always which is a good way for scum to hide and makes VC analysis difficult. By tunneling he avoids conflict.

1) Why the hell would people switch to the player who I have given most points to? You're basically saying that the natural result is that people will simply adopt my suspicions for no reason. That's ridiculous

2) Persistently attacking a single player is

not

"tunnelling". It is only tunnelling if you are ignoring points against other people or playing with confirmation bias. I am doing neither. The fact that I suspect you strongly is not a scumtell.

3) *facetious* VC analysis is always difficult, because it's a load of crap *end facetious*

Don't play dumb. You've been in enough games to know that one confident wagon pusher day one is enough to lead to a lynch. Moreover, that is not my point; even if I am not lynched today, you won't be scum suspect tomorrow because your vote will have been on a single person of unknown alignment. The way you are playing is a good way for scum to play.

Vollkan attacks me with:

Zdenek's vote for EK showed he wasn't considering possible motivations of people when he voted

which is not a scum tell.

He ignores the fact that my vote on Empking was essentially random, and then decides to misrepresent a future post I make as an attack against Empking so that he can say:

First, you've just shifted the nature of your attack against Emp.

to make me look scummy.
He also says

You could also have noted his use of proper punctuation and grammar - but you didn't.

which is irrelevant spaghetti flinging, and is quite scummy.

Finally, when it comes to my post about BQ, it should have been reasonably clear from the first paragraph that my vote was there for partly for pressure because I wanted him to post more, so I could see if he was actually scummy or not.

I see Vollkan's attack on me as an attempt to paint me a scummy and not one to determine my alignment.

Preview edit:

After calling him "Blood Scum," and making a long case, you're letting him off the hook already?

Yes. I don't see any scum motivation for trying to clear someone through their meta, and his responses to people in his catch-up post seemed genuine.

Vollkan has already responded to this new case, and to me it seems less like an actual case and more like an attempt to undermine the person who strongly suspects you.

Hopefully, what I've just written will constitute more of a case.

[Zdenek]

Don't play dumb. You've been in enough games to know that one confident wagon pusher day one is enough to lead to a lynch.

Yeah, but that's completely different from saying that the natural result today is everybody switching to my #1 suspect.

Not when you're one confident wagon pusher.

Moreover, that is not my point; even if I am not lynched today, you won't be scum suspect tomorrow because your vote will have been on a single person of unknown alignment. The way you are playing is a good way for scum to play.

The way I am playing is to push my highest suspect. It's not my fault that my suspicion of you is not widely held.

I don't see why the second statement is irrelevant.

Vollkan attacks me with:

Zdenek's vote for EK showed he wasn't considering possible motivations of people when he voted

which is not a scum tell.

Well, first, that wasn't what I attacked you with:

Zdenek's vote for EK showed he wasn't considering possible motivations of people when he voted and, instead, was voting based on a boilerplate scumtell (claimfishing). I've checked his history, and he's been in enough games to know better. The point that then comes up is that his reasoning is somewhat contradictory: he is voting CBD for failing to consider a motivation, when he himself failed to consider the (rather obvious) baiting motivation behind EK's post.

My point again: you went for a boilerplate scumtell and ignored an obvious null motivation. Not only is this scummy (shows you aren't genuinely trying to separate scum from town), but as I go on to say, it's in direct contradiction to the fact that your very reason for voting CBD is failing to consider a motivation.

I reacted in RVS to Empking's suggestion of a mass-claim, which is not scummy. I think that it is a heck of a lot more likely that scum would try to jump on that reaction, and use it to push a lynch, which is why I voted CDB. After arguing with CDB, I decided that he is likely town.

He ignores the fact that my vote on Empking was essentially random, and then decides to misrepresent a future post I make as an attack against Empking so that he can say:

First, you've just shifted the nature of your attack against Emp.

to make me look scummy.

More BS.

From the above discussion, the first basis I attacked you on was failing to consider motivation + contradiction.

Then you shift suspicion (on that same point) when I push you to - and you now make the argument that Emp's actions were scummy not because they were claimfhising but because he was baiting in a way likely to catch town.

Failing to, or seeming to fail to, consider a motivation, is not a scum-tell. My vote on Empking was essentially random, so there could not have been a contradiction, and I never attacked Empking after that.

He also says

You could also have noted his use of proper punctuation and grammar - but you didn't.

which is irrelevant spaghetti flinging, and is quite scummy.

Nope; you've just misunderstood me, probably a consequence of you again ridiculously snipping my posts.

Wagon hopping noted.

You could also have noted his use of proper punctuation and grammar - but you didn't.

So, I ask, what is particularly noteworthy about wagon hopping?

My point is pretty obvious - you "note" wagon hopping, which necessarily implies you think it is somewhat scummy, but you don't go all-out and actually commit yourself to that view.

To make that point, you did not have to point out my poor grammar, but you chose to, and doing so is a scummy attack.

Finally, when it comes to my post about BQ, it should have been reasonably clear from the first paragraph that my vote was there for partly for pressure because I wanted him to post more, so I could see if he was actually scummy or not.

Meaning what?

Meaning that I knew my case against him wasn't great, but I still wanted him to respond to my questions, I wanted to keep some pressure on him, but I also wanted to respond to Empking's request.

[Zdenek]

Tl;dr:
Vollkan's style of play would be particularly convenient for scum.
I don't feel as though he is interested in determining people's alignments.
He uses opportunistic interpretations of some of my posts to create contradictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------

The manner in which Vollkan is playing could be scum hiding: he's kept his vote on me all day, and has scarcely mentioned anyone else, and no one else has scored a single point. If I am lynched today, his vote on me was in early, and it won't attract attention, if I'm not he'll be free to continue my pushing my lynch tomorrow. I find this play to be common with scum, and it doesn't suggest that he is interested in determining people's alignments.

I think it should be obvious that my initial vote on Empking was not serious. Vollkan continues to interpret it as serious. He also interprets later statements I make as attacks against Empking, for instance this one:

And Empking's been in enough games to know that town is just as likely as scum to react to role fishing, most likely even more because scum will probably immediately suspect that they are being baited, so I assumed that wasn't his main motivation.

which was only an explanation of why I didn't think that scum-baiting was Empking's main motivation. Just to be clear, I still think that Empking was serious about wanting to mass claim.

He uses his interpretation of my vote on Empking as being serious to accuse me of using contradictory reasoning when I voted you. First of all, his interpretation is wrong, and secondly, even using his interpretation it's not contradictory because I think scum is more likely to react to my reaction to Empking's mass claim suggestion than to the suggestion itself. I believe he is inventing reasons to push for my lynch.

He continues to push the idea that by voting for Empking I was ignoring the possible scum-hunting motivation, which is not a scum-tell, and is very bizarre, even though it might sound nice. As if scum would be more likely to fail to consider that people might be scum hunting.

He acts as though accusing people of making accusations based on "boilerplate scum-tells" is scummy. There is obvious scum motivation for attempting to take such arguments off the table.

Then there is the irrelevant comment about my grammar. I've found that such attempts to discredit someone are generally come from scum.

[Zdenek]

Short response to Vollkan's post (if someone wants me to say more about anything I will, otherwise I'm just going to leave it at this)

His points 1-4 at the top of his post completely miss the point. I never actually made the argument that he addressed in the sixth point, that he could avoid being on the lynching wagon, but it's a good point. Thanks Vollkan, even more scum motivation for your play than I thought.

By the way, yes, I think scum is more likely than town to settle on a single person and stick with him.

I never meant to suggest that pushing an unpopular candidate is scummy. If I did, it was an accident.

If Vollkan refuses to accept that my vote on Empking wasn't serious, there is little that I can say at this point, except that his reason that he doesn't, that my subsequent posts indicate that it was serious, is poor: being willing to discuss the merits of a mass claim does not point to me thinking that Empking was scummy and I unvoted when something better came along. All of the contradictions that he wants to point out stem from this assumption.

Fine, but why should that excuse a poor case?

On day one almost all cases are poor. I pushed a case to get a reaction, I got what I wanted, I was satisfied with it and I moved on.

[Zdenek]

His points 1-4 at the top of his post completely miss the point. I never actually made the argument that he addressed in the sixth point, that he could avoid being on the lynching wagon, but it's a good point. Thanks Vollkan, even more scum motivation for your play than I thought.

Don't play dumb. You've been in enough games to know that one confident wagon pusher day one is enough to lead to a lynch. Moreover, that is not my point;

even if I am not lynched today, you won't be scum suspect tomorrow because your vote will have been on a single person of unknown alignment.

The way you are playing is a good way for scum to play.

Herp derp.

Well, okay, but at the time, I wasn't suggesting that it was scummy, but just a matter of fact.

By the way, yes, I think scum is more likely than town to settle on a single person and stick with him.

I haven't "settled" on you. The point is that you are my #1 suspect. You haven't once pointed to any instance of me ignoring somebody else or applying inconsistent standards. Once again, you are attacking me purely for the fact that I suspect you.

No I am not, and you have ignored almost everyone else in the game. This is part of what makes me think that you are not interested in determining other players alignments.

I never meant to suggest that pushing an unpopular candidate is scummy. If I did, it was an accident.

Righto. So your case against me is an "accident"- because that's the core of your case.

No it isn't, and I am not going to repeat myself.

If Vollkan refuses to accept that my vote on Empking wasn't serious, there is little that I can say at this point, except that his reason that he doesn't, that my subsequent posts indicate that it was serious, is poor: being willing to discuss the merits of a mass claim does not point to me thinking that Empking was scummy and I unvoted when something better came along. All of the contradictions that he wants to point out stem from this assumption.

As you yourself said:

Oh really? I voted him for claim-fishing. I was clearly considering a possible motivation, even though at the time I voted him I was just looking for a game related reason to vote. Your post indicates that you don't think that there is a chance that he was claim-fishing, and hence that you know his alignment.

It was a weak early vote, but to say it wasn't serious and to deny any respnosibiltiy is just ridiculous. You followed up with questions and, both in your attack on CBD and the above, it is clear that you were attacking Emp by reference to a

possible

scum motivation - which, by the way, is exactly the same as what you are doing to me now.

You've taken my quote out of context. It was a response to CDB saying that I wasn't considering any possible motivations that Empking might have had, which was obviously false.

[Zdenek]

Furthermore Zdenek’s 166 is horrible. Although I respect vollkan’s play I hardly think his scum-o-meter is going to be the go-to method as a theoretical deadline approaches.

While I still think that I am right about that (look at Snake's vote), whether Vollkan's play this day results in my lynch is hardly the point.

You really think vollkan’s analytic to a fault, argumentative style would be too convenient for scum?

I've never played with Vollkan before, but since he's "The Interrogator" I'm guessing those parts of his style are just the way he usually plays. It's the sort of analysis he is doing and the sort of arguments he is making that are bothering me.

Give it to me straight – are you scum looking to betray us all?

LOL scum-slip: scum killing town is not an act of betrayal.

[Zdenek]

2) The en-reddened part of the above is very clearly attributing to me a possible scum motivation for my actions

No it isn't. My point at the time was just that the end result, whether I am lynched or not, is not important.

Your case, in a nutshell, is vollkan is scum because he is pushing an unpopular candidate, which is something scum might want to do for two reasons I pulled out my nether-regions.

The popularity of the candidate involved is completely irrelevant.

Where, in your posts, was any evidence that you had genuinely reflected on the myriad motivations that Emp might have had for fishing, or prtending to fish, rather than you reflexively attacking him for "claim fishing"?

This is such bs. I never claimed to reflect on the myriads of motivations Empking might have had, and to suggest that one's failing to make it clear in his posts that he has reflected on all the motivations players might have had is scummy is bizarre.

Whose scumminess do you think I have ignored?

I am not interested in making a case on anyone else at the moment.

[Zdenek]

So then why am I "hiding" on your wagon?

Because you were on it early and you have discussed little else.

Good...And what, on reading your post, was the impression that any reasonable reader would get?

What are you trying to accomplish by asking this?

I don't know what reasonable readers might think. What I care about is what happened, which in my view was scum over reacting to an RVS vote and trying to use an opportunistic interpretation of it to push a lynch.

I don't want a case. I want a name.

Stop deflecting. I don't care what you want and I'm not interested in going down this road at the moment.

Yeah I think he's been dishonstedly flaining underneath Volkan's attacks.

I think any appearance of dishonesty was an invention of Vollkan.

[Zdenek]

First of all you've changed your request, as I anticipated that you would (even though I didn't state this prediction in the thread), from asking me to give you a name, to pointing out something you've missed. I am still not going to oblige you. The reason that I am not going to answer you, is that you have created such a high standard for what is scummy that there is no point trying to suggest that you might have missed something.

Allow me to hold you to that same standard. Just so we are clear it's

A scumtell is an action that is more likely to come from scum than town.

In practice, the only way to really judge that is to ask whether a townie, acting reasonably, would be unlikely to do a certain action.

Would a townie acting reasonably be unlikely to try to get a reaction by voting someone for suggesting a mass claim?
Would it be unlikely for a townie acting reasonably to not mention that he's considered the various motivations that someone have had for their actions?
Would a townie acting reasonably be unlikely to attack a lurker to get him to post more?

I'd say that the answer to each of those questions is "no."

The other times that you have given me pluses are for reasons so far removed from reality that I can't even address them in this post.

[Zdenek]

Well. vollkan is town.

Will you say why?

The inherent hypocrisy here is telling. In 166 you suggested vollkan was scum for among other factors Tunneling. Yet this statement says that you are not going to look at anyone but vollkan … ie you are going to Tunnel on him. Scumtastic.

Are you reading the thread? First of all, I have interacted with many other players already. Secondly, I am not interested in responding to Vollkan's requests for a reason for that should be completely clear after my last post: Vollkan has set an impossibly high standard for what he will except as a scum-tell, so high, that even the things he's been using as scum-tells don't appear to satisfy it.

How exactly is vollkan hiding again? He’s been the strongest proponent of you as scum. Are you suggesting (based on earlier statements) that if he tunnels on you, really doesn’t look at anyone else, and then you were to flip Town that he wouldn’t receive any sort of scrutiny?

He's hiding in the sense that he is not moving his vote around, he was first on the wagon and he is not interacting with anyone else, and yes I think if I were lynched today, he would receive no scrutiny. People in that position almost never do, since day one mistakes are common.

[Zdenek]

@Xdaamno: You said that you wouldn't be led by DGB, but your vote relies entirely on her reasoning.

Town

bvoigt
DrippingGoofball- Her latest post seems very pro-town.
Xdaamno- actively scumhunting, and defends himself well in #143.
ChannelDelibird- for the early-game stuff with Zdenek, and case on theplague42 in #182.
Empking- His views of VM and Zdenek are similar to mine.
vollkan- makes a great case on Zdenek.

Iffy

MagnaofIllusion- Theplague42 looked scummy, but Magna has not.
SnakePlissken- is lurking.
tumescence
Blood Queen

Scum

ReaperCharlie
Zdenek

Sorry, I'm half done, but will finish this later.

It looks like you've decided where to slot people in and plan to come up with reasons for it after the fact.

[Zdenek]

What on earth is your point here? You clearly understand what I am seeking from you, so being "clever" and pointing out what is in essence a semantic difference seems utterly irrelevant/

Let's review, you asked me to provide the name of someone who's scumminess I thought you'd ignored. I refused on the grounds that I didn't want to make a case against someone. You responded with, I'm not asking for a case, I'm asking for a name. Now you respond by saying there is only a semantic difference between providing a case and a name.

If the difference is so small, why didn't you notice it in the first place and simply consider my refusal to provide you with a case, as a refusal to provide you with both a name and a case, which by the way is exactly what it was.

@Zdenek: You can't simultaneously say that my non-recognition of other scumtells is a product of my (admittedly) restrictive views while also saying that I am scummy for ignoring other people. In essence, you are therefore making a playstyle attack.

No I am not because I additionally think that the scummy things that you have suggested that I have done don't satisfy your requirements for scum-tells.

But as I've aleady indicated, that's not what an objective reading of your posts indicates was your motivation. The line of questioning you took with Emp clearly indicated that you were targeting the boilerplate motivation.

The fact that this incorrect and hardly telling point serves as one of the main bases of your attack against me is ridiculous.

Now, you invoke, in the above two questions, the possibility that you were voting him to get a reaction and that you had considered his possible motivations.

First point is that there is no extrinsic evidence to support you on this.

There is clearly evidence that I was trying to get a reaction: I voted for the person who reacted. As far as considering motivations goes, all I am arguing is that failing to demonstrate that one has considered all of a players motivations does not meet your requirements for a scum tell.

Second point is that your CBD vote was for his apparent failure to consider the prospect that Emp was scum baiting town. It's striking that, despite you implying that you knew of this motivation and, from your CBD vote, that you consider it significant (FWIW I think it's complete WIFOM), you turn your vote to CBD when, if anything, Emp would appear scummier on your own logic.

Saying something doesn't make it true. I wasn't voting CDB for just that reason, and I can see no reason why I should have thought that Empking was scummier.

Where did I give you points for attacking lurkers?

My attack on BQ. You can say that the points were for a bad argument all you like. I am not trying to maintain that it was a good argument. I wanted to pressure him into posting and telling a lurker that is what you are doing greatly diminishes the effectiveness of the attack.

@MoI You can see with ease from my ISO by searching for + the exact reasons I suspect Zdenek. Do you agree or disagree with them?
...
I'll ask you the same question I asked MoI (It's actually for the same reason, but I'll get to that later): Do you agree with my Zdenek case?

Here we see Vollkan asking two people who almost certainly agree with him what they think of his case. Waiting to hear your reason . . .

[Zdenek]

Are you saying that vollkan hasn’t interacted with other players? Read his ISO and then try to tell me otherwise. If you aren’t tunnelling then neither is he.

He's interacted more with people since you, RC and DGB entered the game. Prior to this, aside from some early votes and comments about mass claiming, scum-tells, repeating people's posts, here they are:

Agreement with CDB in ISO 5
Asks Empking a question about a typo in ISO 7
Asks VM some questions in ISO 8, 9
Asks BQ about completed games in ISO 9
Responds to Snake asking for point count in ISO 10
Responds to a question from bvoigt regarding VM in ISO 11
Gives Xda a tl;dr at his request

I feel as though the only interactions here that are of any consequence are his questions to VM and BQ.

Here we see Vollkan asking two people who almost certainly agree with him what they think of his case. Waiting to hear your reason . . .

You're actually wrong on the first sentence, and that's the reason I asked them

I'm pretty sure that I'm right, and that you're either a liar or not reading thread:

Vollkan asks MoI and bvoigt what they think of his case in post 246.

bvoigt in post 245 (9 hours earlier):

vollkan- makes a great case on Zdenek.

Magna votes for me upon entering the game and clearly expresses agreements with some of your points:

Furthermore Zdenek’s 166 is horrible.

As far an alliance goes, considering most people's views on me, me being in one probably won't be an issue.

[Zdenek]

I think I agree with RCs pings. Reading through, it's mostly clear what earned them; however, I didn't look for consistency (make sure that the same things earned points each time they occurred), I just wanted to see that there were actual events that earned them.

Anyway, I think Vollkan is scum, but if no one else sees it, I see no point in continuing to vote for him right now.
So

Unvote

Not at all. You'd be a prime candidate for an alliance, for reasons I posted earlier, which I hope you read.

I did and I'd be fine with joining an alliance. In the spirit of this, I'm going to

Vote bvoigt

All of DGB, MoI and RC were suspicious of him upon their read-throughs and they are all people who's reads I am willing trust.

However, is anyone else bothered by DGBs top three scum reads matching Magna's two through four?

RC, To what extent should the alliance have/ avoid having lurkers? My guess would that an alliance should have at most one. I can see not including them because an alliance of people who don't talk isn't going to work all that well, but on the other hand, being able to control a lurkers vote could be incredibly useful.

[Zdenek]

Which is conduct entirely consistent with me genuinely suspecting you.

And also entirely consistent with with not really scum hunting, but just being content with getting on a wagon and sitting there, slowly pushing a lynch.

Vollkan is attacking me with arguments that even he knows are false. Let's review:

Lurking increases the relative uncertainty about a player, but it doesn't magnify scumtells,

but using this system

I am considering moving to:
Overall score = Sum of points * (Number of posts earning points/Total number of posts)

we see that fewer posts (i.e. lurking) would indeed result in a higher score for the same scum-tells.

Vollkan has asked me many times to point out any inconsistencies in his reasoning. Let's review what he's given me points for my vote for Empking, my vote for CDB, my argument against blood queen, my argument against him.

In almost each of his arguments, he suggests that am voting for people for things that he does not consider to be scum tells, and it seems to me that in his opinion this is the main thing about my behaviour that he finds scummy. However, Vollkan does not think that anyone else has done anything scummy in the game, but he has not given anyone else any points for voting for people for things that he does not consider to be scum-tells. So there is at least some inconsistency in Vollkan's actions.

[Zdenek]

This is a clear case of going with the easier bandwagon and not even bothering to include original reasoning.

Since you asked so nicely:

I think bvoigt's interaction with VM was an attempt to push what would have been an easy mislynch against a new player because he harasses VM, asking him "You seem a bit concerned with one vote" when it was fairly clear that VM's comment was just a joke referring to the reason for Xdaamo's vote on him and had little to do with concern. Later there's: "You sound like you are afraid to place a vote," which feels like an obnoxious attempt to discredit him, rather than pointing out something that is actually scummy (for instance, he could have suggest that VM wanted to keep his options open, which is interesting because . . .)

bvoigt keeps his options open in his ISO 6: "That being said, my case on VM is not set in stone."

In his ISO 10, he asks:
"1. How can you scumhunt without posting? In other words, how does it help the town to keep your mouth shut?
2. Why do you find Empking scummy, apart from the fact that he is voting you?"

The first question is similar to one I'd already asked, and he should have known the answer the second. In fact, I'm pretty sure that VM never said that he thought Empking was scummy for voting him. Since he was attacking VM quite aggressively, he should have been aware of these things.

Moreover, since RC has taken VM's spot, we see a complete change in bvoigt's demeanor: he's pretty much just asked RC questions. Now, it's unlikely that he could get away with the earlier arguments that he got away with when he was pushing VM's lynch, but if he genuinely believed that he'd caught scum, wouldn't he be working harder to lynch RC?

[Zdenek]

Why would you defend Vollkan. He hardly needs it. Do you have a non-meta reason that makes you think he is town?

Yes, so it's consistent with both - what's your point?

That the idea that he genuinely suspected me is not a good defence.

No it wouldn't, because presumably if you make less posts you make less scum-tells as scum - this system would track the rate of scum tells rather than the number of them.

That presumption is probably wrong, but you are missing the point.

With the new system, lurker makes 5 posts, 3 scummy ones, for ease, let's say that each is worth one point.
Score: 3/5.
Non-lurker makes 20 posts, 3 scummy ones.
Score 3/20.
We see that the scumminess of the lurker is much greater. This is what I mean by a magnification of the scum-tells.

OR, he is not paying as much attention to other players - which is entirely forgiveable - OR other players haven't been doing it as much.

He should be paying attention to other players; the fact that he isn't is one of my main points against him. Vollkan isn't arguing that they haven't done it as much, he saying that they haven't done it at all.

[Zdenek]

Yay, I got dragged into this.

Dragged? I'd say, walked right in.

If I'm missing something I apologise, but I don't think I am?

So the point is this. Earlier I said that I thought blood queen might have looked scummier because she had made relatively few posts, so that the things that she said appeared scummier than they really were. Vollkan responded by saying that someone lurking couldn't make the scummy things they did look scummier, but now, he is proposing a system that does exactly that. So he clearly knows that it can happen, and he is trying to discredit me using an argument that he knows is wrong.

[Zdenek]

Are you 100% certain about your case?

Nope, but I think that it is more likely for scum to make sure that they have a backdoor that they can point to in the thread.

However, since VM hadn't given any real reasons for suspecting Empking, OMGUS was a reasonable conclusion.

Yes, I know that is what you said, but I don't buy it. I think you just wanted to discredit VM for whatever reasons you could find.

However: why didn't you provide that case right away? To me, it looks like you're trying to make up for a scummy vote by coming up with a case after the fact.

I'd just read through the thread keeping track of RC's ping points and there was the argument against you from DGB, so I knew there was a case to vote you. Also, it's not as though I needed an original reason to vote for you (just because one person points out a scummy thing does not preclude another from agreeing with it). I also think it's a bit ironic for you to be calling a bandwagon vote scummy.
-------------------------------------
Do you believe that RC didn't know he replaced in for VM?

////Ahhh, sh*t. I replaced in for VIRAL MAZE? ... wait... No actually, that's kind of good news, because now I know things I couldn't know otherwise. This will require a bit of rethinking, actually a lot. But never mind my sadface. ... *continuing on*

I ask because I don't think anyone brought it up, but it seems to me if someone was serious about pushing an RC or VM lynch, they would have questioned him about it.

[Zdenek]

Yes, but it wouldn't be treating lurking as a scumtell; it would be correcting a bias that the existing system may have, if not used correctly, that would treat posting as an effective scumtell.

You are just reaching ridiculously here. Zd+6. If you had paid any genuine attention whatsoever to the discussion Xd and I were having, you would know very clearly that I was trying to address an issue in my system. Instead, you opted to spin my actions in a way that you can paint as a contradictoin.

But under the new system for the same scum tells, people who post less, will score higher. I don't understand why you are accusing me as reaching because this fact seems plainly clear to me.

"You sound like you are afraid to place a vote," which feels like an obnoxious attempt to discredit him, rather than pointing out something that is actually scummy (for instance, he could have suggest that VM wanted to keep his options open, which is interesting because . . .)

bvoigt keeps his options open in his ISO 6: "That being said, my case on VM is not set in stone."

But I want to point out that, again, you are creating a BS contradiction. Admitting that a case isn't rock-solid is not at all scummy - in fact, it's good play. This is particularly bad given that bvoigt didn't even mention "keeping your options open" - that was you in the previous paragraph.

So, basically, bvoigt is scummy because your hypothetical suggestion for what he should have posted is inconsistent with your ridiculous interpretation of a reasonable post that he actually made.

Zd+6

First, not only was I not trying to create bs contradiction. There isn't even one in my statement, So Vollkan is just making things up.

Second, I'd like to point out bvoigt says my suggestion as to what was actually scummy was (at least partly) right:

I just thought that saying "you are afraid to place a vote" made it clear that I thought he wanted to keep his options open. Obviously, you were able to figure out what was scummy about it.

Zd is not saying that lurking means we should be careful about comparing players. He is saying that the fact that a player is lurking means that things which aren't scumtells can be treated as scumtells.

Another misrepresentation. All I've ever said is that when a player posts less, the scummy things they do look worse. Not that things magically become scum tells.

[Zdenek]

bvoigt

@Zdenek: haven't you been complaining that, because vollkan is "one confident wagon pusher," people are likely to follow him? You've said that his playstyle of being "on the wagon early" is "particularly convenient for scum." If this is the case, I think it's pretty hypocritical to follow the people who are confidently pushing my bandwagon. Also, there is a difference between a page 2 bandwagon vote and a page 11 bandwagon vote.

As for your last question, I didn't find anything in that statement that could be a tell of alignment, so I didn't see the need to bring it up.

Your wagon was not born out of RVS being pushed by a single person, so the comparison is poor. Also, I think that the case against you is reasonable; I hope I've made that clear.

Next, I didn't ask you if you thought that the statement could be a tell of alignment, I asked you if you believe it. I think this misinterpretation was you just taking advantage of an opportunity to buddy with Vollkan by using his scum-tell criterion.

Magna

I'd like everyone to see that Magna no longer lists bvoigt or tums as scum, and has given no reason for this change of heart.

Your feelings on the matter don’t excuse the fact that you stated he wasn’t commenting on other players and was Tunneling you. Your response here, where you attempt to hand-wave away other interactions, pretty much solidifies that isn’t the case.

I apologize for the exaggeration, but my point that he has had hardly any meaningful interactions with other players still stands, and it is all I need to make my point.

My god the Cognitive Dissonance here is overwhelming. Look carefully at the two sentences.

1. DGB and MoI are people whose reads he is willing to trust.
2. He’s bothered by the fact that DGB’s reads of scum and mine are similar.

First of all, just because I am suspicious of someone for such a small reason, hardly makes them scum, and if they happen to be scum, then they could very well be bussing, in which care their read will be fantastic. So there is no cognitive dissonance.

Vollkan

*sigh* You've made me pull it out:...
The basic issue in that analogy - and it's the same here - is that the change is not creating an unfairness but, rather, correcting a pre-existing unfairness. Why is that so hard to understand?

I've never once said that it didn't correct an unfairness. However, in correcting the unfairness it introduces the phenomenon that I described earlier, of making the scummy things lurkers say look worse than the same scummy things coming from someone who posts a lot.

But I want to point out that, again, you are creating a BS contradiction. Admitting that a case isn't rock-solid is not at all scummy - in fact, it's good play. This is particularly bad given that bvoigt didn't even mention "keeping your options open" - that was you in the previous paragraph.

So, basically, bvoigt is scummy because your hypothetical suggestion for what he should have posted is inconsistent with your ridiculous interpretation of a reasonable post that he actually made.

and you haven't responded to this reasoning at all.

The second point is a complete non sequitur. What he actually meant is irrelevant to the question of the reasonableness of your attack.

I don't see the contradiction.

I think that scum say that their cases aren't rock solid so that they have a way to back out of a case that is recorded in the thread.

I mentioned the "keeping his options open" thing because that is something that he could have said that would have been a legitimate scum tell. Moreover, this hypothetical suggestion is one that he agrees with, and I don't think that my interpretation is ridiculous.

So, in the topsy-turvy Kingdom of Zdenek, "things which are not necessarily scummy" are the same as "scummy things"?

Sorry, I forgot the word "that" and should have said, "Things which are not necessarily that scummy."

[Zdenek]

It's morning, and I don't have time to make a proper post, but to address Magna's fisrt point:

Huge misrep. Please quote where I say either bvoigt or tums is scum. Please. Because you can’t because I NEVER DID!

we have

I’m also interested (in a thinking they are possible scum way) in bvoight, Tume, and Snake.

[Zdenek]

Mod: I will be V/LA until Monday

[Zdenek]

I'm V/LA, if there's a willing hammer, I'll claim as usual.

If anyone has anything they'd like to ask me, please do so not in a wall so that there will be a good chance I'll see it in a quick read through because I won't have much of a chance to read carefully now.

I'm really shocked that people think Vollkan's play's been pro-town.

[Zdenek]

Anyway, since I'm not at L-1, I won't claim now. I don't think there would be any benefit to the town for me to.

I don't like that CDB was avoiding the game.

[Zdenek]

I agree with RC's case on bvoigt, and I am still okay with my vote on him.

MoI, I announced V/LA until tomorrow.

[Zdenek]

Zdenek: Claim, please.

I am a Vanilla Townie.

[Zdenek]

So CDB is scum for avoiding the game, and once he flips we can lynch Vollkan for this:

He's declared VLA outside of this game, but if he is still posting elsewhere on site, he needs to either read up asap and give this game priority or replace out. The first rule of this game is to play to advance your win condition, and I don't see how, if he is town, CBD would seriously think that continuing to play in the manner that he has been (ie. not giving this game priority) does that.

Obvious coaching with a threat to reluctantly bus.

[Zdenek]

So CDB is scum for avoiding the game, and once he flips we can lynch Vollkan for this:

He's declared VLA outside of this game, but if he is still posting elsewhere on site, he needs to either read up asap and give this game priority or replace out. The first rule of this game is to play to advance your win condition, and I don't see how, if he is town, CBD would seriously think that continuing to play in the manner that he has been (ie. not giving this game priority) does that.

Obvious coaching with a threat to reluctantly bus.

That's lynch-worthy obvious, in your mind?

If you are talking about CDB, I think there are very few reasons for townspeople to suddenly stop posting in the middle of the game, and I agree with Magna that the timing of when he started doing it is suspicious.

If we are talking about Vollkan, then I already think that he is scummy. After that post, if CDB flipped scum, then I think Vollkan would be an even better candidate for a lynch.

What are your thoughts?

[Zdenek]

How is the statement made by vollkan in any way a suggestion that he will ‘reluctantly bus’? He doesn’t mention voting for CDB at all, only that CDB is not playing to his win condition if Town and should either contribute or replace out.

I feel like you answered your own question. If CDB fails to start posting, he must not not be town because by Vollkan's logic, if he was town, he'd replace out.

As far as your point 2 goes, do you not think that Vollkan would look scummier after that post if CDB flipped scum?

My top three are Vollkan, Bvoigt and Magna.

[Zdenek]

Reaper Charlie: I'm of the view that there are two possibilities about the Zdenek wagon. Either Zdenek is scum or scum are already on the Zdenek wagon. Its clearly not the latter so it must be the former.

Ah, I should have written "THE scum" rather than just scum.

"THE SCUM" is all of them "SCUM" can refer to just one.

So either I am scum or all the scum are on my wagon? That is a false dichotomy if I've ever heard one. It's also a pretty bad reason to avoid giving your opinions on other people's cases.

To the contrary, it's an easy way for scum to back down from something.

And just so you know, I'm perfectly aware that I replaced BQ. I'm simply questioning Zdenek's reasoning for backing off.

I also do not think that BQ was being opportunistic in looking for reasons that I might be town. There was no pressure for anyone to back down in their attack of me at that point.

[Zdenek]

Empking, scum not wanting to hammer town is a possible reason for me not being lynched. Why is Xdaamno scum?

[Zdenek]

[quote+"Empking"]
Preview: Wouldn't buy that explaination in a million years. Why wouldn't scum not want to hammer?
[/quote]
So that they don't draw attention to themselves.

[Zdenek]

Preview: Yeah not buying it.

Coming from someone who thinks that either I am scum or all the scum are on my wagon that doesn't carry much weight.

[Zdenek]

Despite being lynched day one, I'm not too unhappy with my play. I was right to be suspicious of DGB and MoI, and my town reads of CDB and BQ were right. Sorry about bvoigt and Vollkan though. I also regret not pushing Xdaamno over his "exhibiting scum confidence argument" from earlier in the game.