395: Big Lebowski -- game is dead :(

[chaotic_diablo]

/confirm

[chaotic_diablo]

vote chaotic_diablo

[chaotic_diablo]

chaotic_diablo also, had a post in ny on the 24th, 2:21pm (after Sherlock’s post), but didn’t confirm until December 26, 2006, 10:42.am. He had eight other posts (all games btw) before he confirmed here, some on each day from the 23rd and 26th. Why would he wait 3 days to confirm, when he could have confirmed right away?

Simple, I forgot. I have other games to play, therefore my attention will be on those games, not on one that is still in the confirmation stage. Sherlock's pm gave me a surprise since I completely forgot that I signed up for this game. Still, it slipped my mind when I went to post in my other games. When I remembered, that's when I immediately went to confirm.

The reason, I believe it is scummy of them is because stalling gives them more time to talk. The mod didn’t set a limit for the amount of time to confirm, so the mafia won’t confirm right away so they have more time to talk and strategize. They got their roles and yet didn’t confirm when they had ample chance. They must be mafia.

Although it makes sense, it's still baseless. Your argument only holds in a limited fahion if you are correct that the "stalling" took place. Since opinion isn't evidence, it is questionable whether "stalling" was intended. There is no greater chance of me intentionally stalling than simply forgetting.

Everyone (save Scalebane) confirmed right away without stalling. By right away, I mean no posts in other games/threads before logging out and beginning a new session. Here is the evidence:

The evidence on the other players only include the things that you can document. While it's true that they did not post since Dec23, that doesn't mean they haven't been on the site. It just means they simply haven't posted. As a result, it can be predicted that those people will post and contribute the least.

[chaotic_diablo]

Sorry, I'll fix the problems.

The reason, I believe it is scummy of them is because stalling gives them more time to talk. The mod didn’t set a limit for the amount of time to confirm, so the mafia won’t confirm right away so they have more time to talk and strategize. They got their roles and yet didn’t confirm when they had ample chance. They must be mafia.

Although it makes sense, it's still baseless. Your argument only holds in a limited fahion if you are correct that the "stalling" took place. Since opinion isn't evidence, it is questionable whether "stalling" was intended. There is no greater chance of me intentionally stalling than simply forgetting.

Everyone (save Scalebane) confirmed right away without stalling. By right away, I mean no posts in other games/threads before logging out and beginning a new session. Here is the evidence:

The evidence on the other players only include the things that you can document. While it's true that they did not post since Dec23, that doesn't mean they haven't been on the site. It just means they simply haven't posted. As a result, it can be predicted that those people will post and contribute the least.
_________________

[chaotic_diablo]

I feel that Colonel isn't making a point at all. In the rules for this game post 15, it states the basic conduct of how town should go about lynching someone. However, the last paragraph states that specific roles may legally violate a rule. In that case, the specifics on what a role can or cannot do may only be found on the role. For example, there certainly isn't a rule that states that choices must be sent at night, so we can expect a dayvig/kill if that role exists.

[chaotic_diablo]

Circumvention of Rule 1 only states that certain roles may talk outside the thread. It does not state when or how. My guess is that the specifics are in the role. In addition, this is a mini theme game, so the usual

accepted

rules may or may not apply.

[chaotic_diablo]

Baseless, I disagree. And how are we to know if you were stalling—because you said so?
On day1, it’s all about circumstantial evidence and plenty points at you and CK. As for simply forgetting, I think it interesting that someone could compose a logical argument and be so forgetful.

Again, opinion isn't evidence. Just because

you

say it's stalling doesn't necessarily mean it is. You found evidence through controversial points that could or could not mean an intention to stall. My forgetfulness easily fits into the points you brought up yourself. Unless you can prove that your points are more favorable for your side of the argument, your points are baseless.
In addition, you forget that logical arguments take time and effort to make. If my attention is split onto other games in making 'logical' arguments, then it can easily lead to a lapse of memory. To add more emphasize, I'm even modding a mini game. I highly doubt that you're so perfect that nothing would slip your mind. How long did it take you to make your argument? 5 minutes? 10? How about 1 to 2 hours?

That may be true in general. In our specific case, it is not. Most confirmed within a day or two. That time frame is about when people log on.

Log in time and posting time does not correlate. Of course you must be logged on in order to post, it doesn't necessarily mean that posting occured during a log on session. Two days is enough communicate and cooperate with a stall, then confirm the next day. The fact that only one person must not confirm in order to stall gives no alibi to anyone.

[chaotic_diablo]

So, that's the experience I'm coming from when I say 'I need more to go on' and I'm surprised that so many people are seriously condemning players with only b_k's allegations. Usually there's at least 3 schemes going on at once for d1!

Define "so many people," then name them.

[chaotic_diablo]

I got fed up with the random voting uselessness but I didn't want to lose that first vote silliness. So the solution: self-voting. It's silly and useful at the same time.

[chaotic_diablo]

The mod placed the movie file on his myspace or something. The link is in this game. I haven't seen it yet, but I'll do so when it's required.

I wouldn't classify BK's argument as scummy. However, since it's the only argument there, I guess it can technically be the most townish

and

the most summiest thing around.

The rationale for putting out the stalling data was to generate clash and provide a starting point. In many games w/ a day1 start, the mafia do confirm later (if they are allowed to converse during pre-game) in order to strategize. I don’t think this is a bad conclusion. Does that mean everyone who does so is mafia? Not necessarily. I think it is good circumstantial evidence. As opposed to random voting, I provided a place to start, a place to generate leads and views of players. The "they did this, so they must be scum" gets better clash than "they did this, so they perhaps, might, or possibly not or who knows for sure, be scum."

Good plan, not enough input.

unvote

vote lazarusmouth

for the reasons already provided. It's a placeholder vote until I can pick out someone who I find scummy.

I request prods!!! With pitchforks and torches!!!

[chaotic_diablo]

I've also been getting the wishywashy vibe from Fircoal, but it doesn't seem quite right to really call it wishywashy.
It's clear (or unclear) in his posts that he thinks some points are (ir)relevant, such as post 67, 89, and 101.

Colonel Kurtz brings up a goint point, it might not be a fault of a scummy trick, but because of forgetfullness, or laziness, or lack of internet connection

This game though, seems to more be about if one can talk in the pre-game.

I was thinking and I don't think this arguement proves any facts

From here, we can slightly see that he's not in favor of BK's argument, or that's what I think.

We still haven't heard from Lazarusmouth.

[chaotic_diablo]

I don't see how a no lynch will benefit us, but I'll see what happens after a bit.

vote no lynch

[chaotic_diablo]

With the information I've worked with on what we should call a day one, CK and Fircoal are my suspects.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm especally looking at Chaotic Diablo and Big Kahuna, as they're experenced players who should certanly know that a day 1 no lynch is bad.

fos: Chaotic Diablo, Big Kahuna

until they explain themselves, and I want the other people who voted for a no-lynch to explain as well.

I can agree that day one lynches are not favorable, but picking at the most obvious scumtell when the base for it is alreay false isn't something you should do. Bk is town, even with his experience. Picking at me because "I should know better" is baseless.

Riktus has already explained why we should no lynch.

In fact,

vote:chaotic diablo

, as his post where he voted for a no-lynch looks especally scummy.

I don't see how a no lynch will benefit us, but I'll see what happens after a bit.

vote no lynch

Scummy in what way? That I disagreed with the majority action, yet still went with it? Being a minority has little influence over the game, unless the argument is extremely well-done. However, keeping the game alive is my main priority and "stalling" for it's death isn't something I planned to do.

As much as I disliked a no lynch, quick lynching or random lynching were the only options, and just as scummy. To me, scum could have taken advantage and could actually force a mislynch. You can yell how "no lynches are bad" but until you can explain how "lynching for the hell of it" is a better option, I'm sticking with the one that benefits town, even if it's slight.

I'm surprised that you went for both BK and I for going with a no lynch. To me, you should have gone for the person who suggested it, CK. The bigger scumtell between riding a no lynch and suggesting a no lynch is the latter.

[chaotic_diablo]

No, it's not baseless. Suggesting a no-lynch is a common newbie mistake, but I would expect a more experenced player to know that a no lynch on day 1 is always bad for the town. The fact that you went along with it makes me suspicious of you.

It's baseless. The fact that BK was experienced and he went along with it already makes your point moot. Since he turned up town, being experienced has no place in your argument.

Being experienced does not mean I have to follow a set rule of conduct. Being experienced means I will try to make better calls and judegments on particular issues. It doesn't mean I will make the same decisions on the same things over and over again.

Try explaining it yourself. Why did you vote no lynch?

I already have in my previous post. You have answered and tried to argue with them.

If you disagree with a move, you shouldn't go along with it. Going along with the majority just to blend in when you know the majority is wrong is inherently scummy.

You should know better than to just state the usual basic logic. Disagreeing doesn't mean I shouldn't go along with it. You can disagree with lynching a lurker, but be okay with jumping on one when nothing else happens.

I also don't see how voting no-lynch "keeps the game alive". Games die because people don't discuss anything; if you want to keep the game alive, you should try to find scum.

Keeping the game alive is a team effort, not by one person alone. I have already attempted to keep discussion alive, so you can't blame me for letting it die.

Lynching even semi-randomally is better then a no-lynch, because it gives you information. You're right that the scum might push for a bad lynch, but in the process it gives the town information based on who voted for what bandwagon. Now, because the town didn't lynch anyone yesterday, the best lead I have at the moment is the scummy way everyone followed the bad no-lynch suggestion.

Random bandwagons only give out information based on the people who are on it. However, no idiot will try to bring random bandwagon into fruition. Random bandwagons are baseless and can easily be excused as "an attempt to obtain information". All it does it is give scum an opportunity to justify a lynch without attracting suspicion. Even if the lynch happens, it can just be justified as "It was better than nothing!"

Um, I am CK. That is, I replaced him. I know he's pro-town, obveously.

Besides that, it's quite common to see a newbie suggest a no-lynch on day 1. You see it in nearly any newbie game. What is quite uncommon, and possibly scummy, is to see more experenced players like you follow the no-lynch suggestion.

You're being repetitive. Your post isn't any different from your past paragraph.

No, it's not baseless. Suggesting a no-lynch is a common newbie mistake, but I would expect a more experenced player to know that a no lynch on day 1 is always bad for the town. The fact that you went along with it makes me suspicious of you.

[chaotic_diablo]

No, not really; if I'm right and an experenced player voting no lynch at that point of the game is a scumtell, that only increases the odds of the people doing it being scum, it dosn't mean that they absolutly are scum. BK was town, yes. You might be town as well, but I think that move you made makes it more likely you're scum then a random vote would be, so I'm voting for you.

Then you're wrong. An experienced player voting no lynch isn't a scumtell.

Nope, but it does mean that I would expect you to know some basic pro-town stratagy and act on it, if you are pro-town.

And that is what I did. Again, I don't have to make the same decision on the same points over and over again. There is always room for deviation.

What...I should know better, because I'm an experenced player? Laughing

Actually, you should know better because you are sane enough. Half the scum community are insane, insane, or

insane

sane. The other half goes with insane, insane, and insane.

That's true, but the reason that you can be ok with jumping on a lurker bandwagon if a deadline's coming up and nothing else seems to be happening is that

lynching a lurker is better then a no-lynch.

Same goes with a no lynch. I wouldn't normally go with one, but I'm okay with it since nothing else seems to be happening.

I joined mafiascum when the games started Night one, not day one. As a result, no lynching isn't that big as a deal to me as to others. You might say that it gives scum an extra kill, however, that was what was happening back then. It did nothing to lower the effectiveness of the town.

I don't, but your justifaction for voting no-lynch was that it was to "help keep the game alive", and I don't see how a no-lynch does help keep the game alive.

Perhaps I used the wrong reasoning. Okay, how about this. Whichever action I took, the game would die because a deadline was coming. At that point, a random lynch can just as easily harm us. As a result, no lynching is only option since there is no way in hell are we going to have enough time to agree with lynching randomly.

Well, perhaps. Random bandwagons aren't great, although they do occasionally hit scum. But it sounds like you already do have an idea for how, why, and when scum are likely to join a random bandwagon, which means that if there had been a random bandwagon, you might have some idea about who to suspect today. Tell me, when would you expect scum to join a no-lynch wagon?

My point is that a random bandwagon makes no differentiation between town and scum. As a result, I can expect scum to jump on as much as I like, but I can never catch them because they are playing under the same conditions as everyone else. It's like knowing one of the ants on an anthill is poisonous, but not knowing which one out of the million because they all look the same.
If scum were to act protown, then they wouldn't jump on and would try a random bandwagon instead. Ironically, it just means the people who don't jump on the no lynch are most likely scum.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'd like other people to weigh in. This argument isn't getting us anywhere.

Why don't you do the honors?

[chaotic_diablo]

The lynch is the town's only real tool to get rid of scum. Each time the town no-lynches, the scum gets to kill a townie, and the town gets nothing except possibly some night results if they're lucky enough to have an investigative role. Each day that passes without even an attempt to lynch lowers the town's odds of winning quite significantly.

The lynch isn't what helps town win, it's the effort a townie puts into the game.

Random lynches or lurker lynches are much better then a no-lynch, because they at least have a chance to hit scum instead of the town just sitting around and letting the scum kill them off one by one, they get more information, and they're mathmatically better for the town then a no-lynch.

They also have the same chance to hit a power role.

If the person being bandwagoned is a power role, he'll generally have time to claim before the lynch happens, if he's paying attention at all, which means that even a fast last-minute lynch will probably be better then random.

Generally, it hurts town to reveal a power role day one before a last minute deadline. Again, I'm seeing the "It's okay to lynch this power role because it's justified" rationale.

All it does it is give scum an opportunity to justify a lynch without attracting suspicion. Even if the lynch happens, it can just be justified as "It was better than nothing!"

And of course you don't vote randomally; you try to put together a bandwagon on someone that looks scummy rather then just sitting back and let a no-lynch happen, or even worse actually help CAUSE a no-lynch to happen. And no, of course you don't just lynch the person who suggested the lynch just because it was wrong, that would be dumb.

A bad plan that is followed can put town into a worse situation, especially a last-minute one.

[chaotic_diablo]

Look, it is bad to reveal a town power role, yes. But if you no-lynch, you're just giving the scum a free kill, and the scum are probably going to either kill a townie or a pro-town power role, and then you start off the next day in the same situation but with one less good guy alive. How does that help?

If we reveal a power role before a deadline and lynch someone else, we have a much highly likelihood of hitting another protown player

and

losing that power role over the night. I'd rather have scum make that uninformed kill. If the power role isn't a doc, that's just one less person within scum's target range to hit the correct role.

It might, or it might not. You've got a chance. With a no-lynch, you've got no chance, it just wastes a day and brings the town one day closer to losing.

Misinformed lynches can do so as well. One mislynch just brings town

that

much closer to a losing. In fact, mislynches are the leading cause of town deaths and mafia wins.

Are you seriously trying to argue that no-lynch was the correct move yesterday? Because the post you made then didn't make it sound like you thought it was then.

A last-minute plan made at the nick of time is a bad plan. We should have time to go over it and at least decide to how to approach it. A no lynch is basically a move that does nothing, but doesn't follow any one path. I'd rather stay on that path than go with a bad one.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm not all that surprised with all the inactivity.

OOo...I need to do a read through. But I do know that B_k is dead. He was the inventor. And pro-town. The mod said so

Oh look, a comment on the night kills, scumtell!

I'd like other people to weigh in. This argument isn't getting us anywhere.

It looks like he's waiting for someone to do something scummy. As scum, it looks like he's trying to avoid suspicion while searching for an easy way to implicate people.

I suggest we start with a bandwagon on one of the two above.

vote willows_weep

He's been in the game since the beginning, so I'm thinking his "reread" posts are just placeholder posts.

[chaotic_diablo]

OOo...I need to do a read through. But I do know that B_k is dead. He was the inventor. And pro-town. The mod said so

Oh look, a comment on the night kills, scumtell!

Didn't you just get through telling us that common scumtells (ie. voting no lynch; post 161) are not necessarily (if at all) scumtells?

Vote:c_d

No I didn't. Can you pinpoint which sentence you're referring to?

[chaotic_diablo]

Then you're wrong. An experienced player voting no lynch isn't a scumtell.

Voting for a no lynch day 1, etc., is commonly (ie by at least a significant minority, if not a majority) considered a possible scum tell, as evidenced by the fact that this argument is taking place. You say that it is not a scum tell for an experienced player. It can be assumed that anyone who is not experienced is a newbie, and therefore are not subject to scumtells since they do not yet fully comprehend the game and its subtleties. Maybe the jump I take from this point to scumtells in general is a little large, but nevertheless you appear to be acting upon sarcasm (my original quote of you in conjunction with your vote in that same post), which is very odd.

It isn't a scumtell because I'm experienced, it's a scumtell because the general act of no lynching is a scumtell. Other than me, we have other experienced players who have voted a no lynch including Bk, CK, and riktus. There is no differentiation between when a newbie or when an experienced players infringes on a scumtell. A scumtell is a scumtell. Giving out excuses that someone "should know better" or that "someone doesn't know better" defeats the entire point of a scumtell. As a result, newbies and experience play no part. Yos's is implying that since I'm experienced, the scumtell relates only to me. That is completely false. Now that isn't his entire argument, but I'm just giving the general guidelines.

[chaotic_diablo]

With 10 living, it takes 6 to lunch

Lunch?

C_D, the point was that you called it a scumtell in a very sarcastic tone (at least from my POV) and then voted on it.

I don't remember posting it in a sarcastic tone. See, sarcastic would mean I'm implying the opposite meaning to what I'm trying to say. So when I say

It's a scumtell

, it really isn't. However, since I'm not being sarcastic and I said "It's a scumtell", I mean, "it's a scumtell." The point that differentiates whether it is sarcastic or not is my vote.

[chaotic_diablo]

The phrasing in

Oh look, a comment on the night kills, scumtell!

definitely

seems

sarcastic. Atticus

seems

to think so too.

The key word is that it

seems

sarcastic. That doesn't mean it is.

[chaotic_diablo]

I totally thought it was sarcasm as well, and as such dismissed it as evidence. However, since c_d has confirmed that he was serious in saying it's a scumtell,

vote: c_d

. That's a bunch of craplogic, and calling it a scumtell makes no sense at all.

I've been in multiple threads and they have the same thing, with reasoning. I don't want to get into metagaming, but players, in this game who have been with me in other games, have used this logic before. It is slight evidence, not OMG it's so big we should lynch! So I'm not too sure why you're taking it so seriously.

[chaotic_diablo]

Because I don't agree that it's a scumtell at all. I think you are pulling things out of thin air to try and create suspicion on people.

It's a scumtell to me and your disapproval is simply a difference of opinion. As I stated, there are some players in this thread who have seen this scumtell and have supported it as a slight one, hence why I placed it in that tone. It isn't sarcasm, as you assumed it was.

Let's review my post, shall we?

I'm not all that surprised with all the inactivity.

OOo...I need to do a read through. But I do know that B_k is dead. He was the inventor. And pro-town. The mod said so

Oh look, a comment on the night kills, scumtell!

I'd like other people to weigh in. This argument isn't getting us anywhere.

It looks like he's waiting for someone to do something scummy. As scum, it looks like he's trying to avoid suspicion while searching for an easy way to implicate people.

I suggest we start with a bandwagon on one of the two above.

vote willows_weep

He's been in the game since the beginning, so I'm thinking his "reread" posts are just placeholder posts.

Which part of it is poofed out of thin air? Are you referring to just that one

sarcastic

post or do you have something more?

[chaotic_diablo]

I am claiming that you are creating a scumtell where there is none. What ww said is not scummy in the least, and I believe you are spouting craplogic to convince us that it is scum.

Again, I picked up the scumtell from other games.

Claiming that this is just a "difference of opinion" doesn't mean shit, because if that meant anything, all scum could just say it's a "difference of opinion" when someone calls their actions scummy, because clearly it's just your opinion that they're scummy, even though they're actually just being protown. That's not gonna fly with me. Either explain WHY ww's post was scummy and convince me of your innocence, or just die, scum. Just claiming that it is a scumtell isn't gonna cut it.

Commenting on the night's events could simply be scum faking surprise at how it went. They kill, then gasp in shock as they see who it is and state "Oh my, Bk is dead, AND an inventor, AND protown." Information such as this is provided by the mod at the time of death and the act of surprise is just an attempt to look innocent.

[chaotic_diablo]

The "oh my" is a general term used to display a stereotypical action. If you're using it in a literal sense, then you're not understanding my point.
"OOo", that is a surprise response at how the night events have turned out. Then he goes back to reread in order to make a new assumption or idea to "contemplate" how the events have turned out. Again, it's like saying, "Oh my, he's an inventor, protown, and dead. I'm going to go back and read."

With the scumtell, I explained why I singled out WW. Did you not read my post that stated,

He's been in the game since the beginning, so I'm thinking his "reread" posts are just placeholder posts.

Other players have been replaced and require this "read". I'm not going after him simply because of a scumtell, I'm doing it because of other points as well.

Now, stating the obvious facts does not help advance the game. How is that protown? OMG, he's protown, dead, and inventor! NO F*CKIN SHIT SHERLOCK.

[chaotic_diablo]

God damnit, this is definitely going on my off-games list. Fine, I'm sadly mistaken in my interpretation. There, you happy? Now, do you want a claim since I'm at -2?

[chaotic_diablo]

Yeah, I thought so. Anyone else?

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm a mason.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm a mason with ******************. One partner.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'm a Little Lebowski Urban Achiever.

[chaotic_diablo]

I'll just ask TCS why he's voting for me. Surely I won't receive a half-assed response.

[chaotic_diablo]

Mmmm, lunch.

Anyway,

Vote: Riktus

, if TCS is scum, then riktus seems to be the one trying to pass-off his post-restriction the most.

Then logically, you should be trying to lynch TCS, not Riktus. Your argument is only valid of TCS is proven scum, so proving TCS's scumness should be a priority to support your argument.

[chaotic_diablo]

warp dragon is at lynch -2. I'd like to hear his defense.

[chaotic_diablo]

Here. Yes, I verify that Atticus is that mason.

[chaotic_diablo]

Sorry, I haven't had very much interest in this game for some reason. I'll reread and give out a better post tomorrow. I'll try to avoid a "I found nothing".

[chaotic_diablo]

here

[chaotic_diablo]

here