Mini 546: House Mafia - Game Over
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Vote: Trustgossip
Every Phoenix Wright game I have played (the first 2) isTrustgossip wrote: ((Sorry for delay, been playing Phoenix Wright constantly for the last few days. I like to read up on tort law when I'm not devouring biochemistry))criminallaw, not tort law. Not only are you clearly concocting an outrageous lie, but the lie involves hiding something criminal.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
The case is divided up into two stages - "brainstorming" and "final diagnostic", with a "twist" between the two that "will affect voting mechanics, give you role abilities, or they may just be for the flavor" (according to page 1). I'd assume we are in the "brainstorming" stage at the moment. Thus, the most likely effect of the teams is to somehow impact upon the twist.shafted wrote: OK so anyone want to guess what the heck the teams are for? Fives not a lynchable majority so I don't really know what purpose they could serve.
The most obvious (not really the most likely, though) result would be that the team which does not lose a player gets more/all of the twist's benefits than the team from which the lynchee comes.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I don't quite follow your line of reasoning here. I appreciate your description of me, but how is related, as you imply it is, to me seeking to "rally players"?TG wrote: I believe how the two "team-leaders" stepped up to rally players was an action borne of their personalities and are independent of whether they're town or scum. Pooky's nature is to lead a group of people (see Battle Royale) in courses of action. Vollkan is an excellent analyzer of behavior in both town and scum roles.
That was a random vote jokey thing. I didn't and don't think it is a valid tell.Adel wrote: was the tell volkan identified valid at all? i thought it was, plus he is on my team, so I went with it.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Time for some argument methinks:
Dean votes TG for lurking, despite not having actually made any meaningful contribution of his own. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and peg this as a random vote...albeit for a dubious reason.
After a few noise posts, Dean states that the bandwagon on TG (3/6: Dean, voll, Adel) is a suitable size to get TG "talking". Now we have what was a random wagon being called a pressure wagon by Dean - the same Dean whose contribution to that point was basically just a string of noise.
Then, to top it off, Dean says:
Obviously beg the question "Apply pressure over what?!". Moreover, however, Dean's vote did not "help apply pressure" - since he was the first to join the wagon and a single vote is not pressure and definitely does not "help apply pressure" (which implies that he is aiding other people, which he wasn't because he was the first).Dean wrote: my vote was to help apply pressure, the not posting for half of the thread thing was just a bit of sarcasm.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Pardon?Pooky wrote: I like how Volkan is focussing suspicion on members of the other team.
It's pretty pro.
The only player on LU I have expressed any suspicion of was Dean - a far cry from "focussing suspicion on membersof the other team".
Could you explain what you mean here? I gather it is your certainty that players are town or scum...but I don't know which.armlx wrote: I'm about 80% sure on Adel & Shaft. 20% on Volkan. 60% Pooky. 40% Karmadog.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Could you please respond to this Dean?vollkan wrote:
Pardon?Pooky wrote: I like how Volkan is focussing suspicion on members of the other team.
It's pretty pro.
The only player on LU I have expressed any suspicion of was Dean - a far cry from "focussing suspicion on membersof the other team".
Could you explain what you mean here? I gather it is your certainty that players are town or scum...but I don't know which.armlx wrote: I'm about 80% sure on Adel & Shaft. 20% on Volkan. 60% Pooky. 40% Karmadog.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
How do you figure I am "all instinct"? What does that even mean?armlx wrote: Volkan is all instinct and a teeny bit the fact he diverged first form the Pooky group. But not much.
Moreover, why is my refusal to join LU a scumtell?
I know you only gave me 20%, but I can't see how the "all instinct" remark applies to me, or why not joining LU is a scumtell at all.
Oh, and if it wasn't noticed, my previous post was totally messed up, in that I quoted the wrong post by myself for Dean to respond to.
Dean, please respond to this:vollkan wrote:Time for some argument methinks:
Dean votes TG for lurking, despite not having actually made any meaningful contribution of his own. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and peg this as a random vote...albeit for a dubious reason.
After a few noise posts, Dean states that the bandwagon on TG (3/6: Dean, voll, Adel) is a suitable size to get TG "talking". Now we have what was a random wagon being called a pressure wagon by Dean - the same Dean whose contribution to that point was basically just a string of noise.
Then, to top it off, Dean says:
Obviously beg the question "Apply pressure over what?!". Moreover, however, Dean's vote did not "help apply pressure" - since he was the first to join the wagon and a single vote is not pressure and definitely does not "help apply pressure" (which implies that he is aiding other people, which he wasn't because he was the first).Dean wrote: my vote was to help apply pressure, the not posting for half of the thread thing was just a bit of sarcasm.
Could you elaborate a bit on this, shaft.ed?shaft.ed wrote: OK I'd like to aim the bandwagon at you since I'm not liking some of your choices and reasoning thus far.
unvote vote: Adel
My read of Adel is classic random wagoning. As she said, "stirring the pot". I want to know why you seem (from this post) to have actual issues with her wagoning behaviour.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
The difference is actually that he seems to be doing an "innocent until proven guilty" (every starting at 0%) whereas mine is "neutral until proven either way" (with everyone starting at 50%).shaft.ed wrote: vollkan I think you're reading armlx's percentages backwards. He does it the opposite of you with town =0 scum =100.
Shaft.ed, I know you're an intelligent player - smart enough to know random wagoning from dodgy vote-hopping. I find it very hard to believe that you would mistakenly take issue with Adel's wagoning - and then try and peg it on meta rather than on the fact that it was apparent random wagoning.shaft.ed wrote: As for my Adel vote, it was more a pressure vote, I didn't like her bandwagoning. But I guess your right. Meta'ing her a bit more, she seems to play like this often.
FoS: shaft.ed
I don't think her chaos-wagoning is a towntell or a scumtell. I see no reason, in principle, why it should be more likely to come from either.
That said, this criticism can't be applied to you alone:
The same goes for Pooky in #82. I haven't played with Pooky before, but I doubt someone with so much experience really can't distinguish chaos-causing behaviour from scummy behaviour.
TG in #85 bases it on her wagoning being team-based (I don't think this is a scumtell) and on the wagoning itself (which he says he disagrees with - not a scumtell). This position suffers from the same lack of distinction as shaft.ed's and pooky's.
I don't like any of the attacksforbandwagoning.
What response are you talking about?shaft.ed wrote: I clearly was wrong with the wording of this comment. I should have made more clear what I was referencing at the time, and that from your response I could see that you were playing for reaction.
Also, what was your impression of Adel's wagoning when you saw fit to express your dislike of it? I want to know how it is that you failed to spot random wagoning.
I'd like Pooky and TG to answer this also.
Poor little TG doesn't like my vote: roll: There is no higher purpose. Anyway, random stage is obviously over, soTG wrote: vollkan: teeheehee, it's just a random jokey thing! Then why are you still voting me? *frowny* I hope there is a higher purpose. Also what's the deal with just having a little aside conversation with Dean for like three pages? This isn't Shakespeare.
IGMEOY: vollkanUnvote.
Oh, and as for Dean, that's because I asked him questions which he still hasn't responded to-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Ah, but the example you give doesn't refute my point that reasons are crucial in law.Pooky wrote: Reasons are also overrated in the Law Room.
For example, let us say a man commits rape, but the police get the evidence through an illegal search.
Then they would be obligated in a court of law to let this rapist go free due to their illegal procedure.
We can not let the bindings of law constrain us, we must meet the Mafia with swift action and merciless attack.
Even if the evidence was legitimate, the alleged felon would not be convicted unless there was a good case.
Thus, whilst you are correct that the legality of the means of gaining the reasons is also necessary, it is not sufficient because reasons are also necessary.
But there are not 100 people in this town. There are 10. Town can only win if it eliminates the mafia first. To eliminate the mafia first, good reasons are necessary. Our situation is closer to the court of law one except we do have a means of finding out the scum - by giving our reasons and discussing.Pooky wrote: Let's say there are twelve people, you know that the 8 mafia are within these twelve people and the game has a total of a hundred players. If you have no way of figuring out who among those twelve are mafia, then it is a perfectly acceptable and indeed and good strategy for the town to kill all twelve of those people in order to gurantee a win for everyone.
Now consider the same scenario in a court of law, if we were to know that there are 8 criminals among twelve people but that 4 of them are completely innocent and we had no way of figuring out who was who, we would have no choice but to let them all go, we can't punish the innocent in order to insure that the guilty are also punished.
This is different in diagnostic medicine, if a patient is dying and it could be due to failures in twelve possible areas, and you know that one of those areas is causing his illness, then it is definitely a viable option to give him a blanket treatment for all possible areas.
Or, maybe I am wrong. How do we apply your 'diagnostic medicine' approach here in such a way that it is actually more beneficial than the 'court of law' approach?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
But the scenario you posit (100 people and the scum are known to be among a selected 12) never comes up in the game of mafia, generally.Pooky wrote: The question posed was not as to whether this game of mafia was more like diagnostic medicine but mafia in general.
Obviously the evidential standard here is lower than in a criminal trial. It has to be.Pooky wrote: The obvious answer is that in Mafia, we do not need to prove guilt beyond any doubt, whereas you would need to show that in a court of law.
This is also true in diagnostic medicine, the doctors do not need to prove it is due to a specific disease or cause beyond any doubt, but rather can act on a fairly good guess.
You can apply my diagnostic medicine approach by lynching Shafted.
Now, you say the diagnostic medicine approach simply needs a "good guess". What determines a "good guess" from a "bad guess"?
Why is "pushing a shafted lynch without voting for him" FoSworthy and not voteworthy?JiveMachine wrote: FoS: Pooky for strongly pushing a shafted lynch without voting for him-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Oh, really?Jive wrote: catching scum, obviously.
But if you're too busy killing me, that's a wasted lynch. Since it's in the best interests of the town for the townies to be alive, self preservation/damage control has to be somewhere on my priority list, right?
Now, ifJive wrote: Anyways, I didn't initially vote for pooky because it would look like votehopping, which it basically was.catching scumis "obviously" a higher priority, as you have just declared it to be, it really begs the question as to why you didn't vote Pooky initially.
If you genuinely believed Pooky to be scum, then (by your own admission) you should have voted Pooky rather than worrying about your own welfare. In reality, you only voted Pookyaftersome pressure was brought to bear on you for not voting, proving that your main concern was actually your own survival.
In other words,Unvote (if I am...), Vote: TheJiveMachine-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
What's your point? If the suspicion merits a vote, you vote.FoSing rather than votingfor fear of consequences to self is no different to simplydeclaring suspicion rather than votingfor fear of consequences.
I think you are trying to play word-games with this:
It should be plain enough that votes and FoSes are not equivalent. What I mean is that if you suspect someone, you vote or FoS depending on what is appropriate for the level of suspicion.vollkan wrote: If you suspect someone, you vote/FoS them if the suspicion is strong enough. Fairly banal, really. (Obviously, LYLO with a risk of quick-hammer is one situation where you don't do this - but this is D1 and Pooky had no votes on him).-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Results of my reread:
{For the uninitiated, my % ranking system has every person starting at 50%. Scummy behaviour pushes it up; town-tells push it down. I am very skeptical of "town tells" so it will be difficult for people to move down}
Erg0- Hardly anything meaningful; with a lot of early randomness and set-up speculation. His only serious action is voting Dean over Dean's weird pressure thing. This nets a60%.
Pooky- As with Erg0, Pooky has made no meaningful contribution. Worse still, Pooky has been making a pretty obvious effort to escalate suspicion (without making good arguments), particularly against shafted. Pooky earns a70%
Dean- The first thing notable here is him calling the random wagon on TG a pressure wagon to get TG talking. Ironic given Dean's contribution to that point was a string of garbage. Moreover, voting purely "to pressure" is acceptable, providing there is actually something to pressure about (which there wasn't). Also, Dean was the first to vote, so it hardly makes sense for him to say that his vote was to "help" apply pressure. A single vote doesn't "help" and a single vote does not apply pressure. And now he's vanished. Dean gets a75%
TG- He seems to be making a good effort in scum-hunting and has proper reasoning as well. TG gets a50%(I don't suspect him, but I have seen nothing which affirms the likelihood of him being town - The purpose for this bracketed explanation is that I've been attacked for giving people who I have no problems with 50% before)
armlx- Justifies his reads with "instinct" which rubs me the wrong way - you can't argue against "instinct". He throws his vote around and doesn't give clear explanations either (for Jive, he just attacked the "=D" response, and for shaft.ed he gave nothing).70%
So my list is:-
Dean - 75%
Pooky - 70%
armlx - 70%
Erg0 - 60%
TG - 50%
I've been told my playstyle is aggressive before. As far as Jive goes, I think my attack on him was perfectly justified: He was flip-flopping about whether he was trying to lynch scum or stay alive. His behaviour might well be the result of genuine confusion, but I don't know what is going on inside his head, so I can only judge him based upon what I see (which was scummy behaviour and dreadful justification)Pooky wrote:
Volky has no reason to detract from his normal playing style, this could be easily consistent with his normal playing style, but that's the thing, the way he jumps on JiveMachine feels in a way like he's a wolf jumping on this poor sheep that is just geniunely confused and screwed up.
Could you elaborate on this? I'd like to discuss this in more detail, but "lackluster" is difficult to address.Pooky wrote:
Basically I think Vollkan's actions right b4 he pushes jive machine near that noose(or what he thought was lynch) feel somewhat lackluster to me, it doesn't feel like he is looking for scum, it feels like he is looking for an easy lynch.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I reviewed Dean in a few games and his play is pretty dreadful across the board.
Hmm, I really hate giving people a free pass for this sort of thing - but seeing as a significant proportion of this can probably be attributed to his own playstyle, I lower Dean to65%.
I will be keeping a close eye on his replacement, nonetheless.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I questioned Jive. He didn't answer me and then made a swipe at CKD. Then Jive gave a dismal explanation for his behaviour which he contradicted. Thus, I voted him. I then continued discussing with him until he went all defeatist and surrendered.TG wrote: I am saying that I would think you'd like to draw more information out of Jive before voting him and that it seemed unusual to me that you would vote without asking for discussion of the matter from other players.
If this meta read of you is inaccurate please correct me.
It also means I have a healthy suspicion of you because you always seem to play pro-town no matter the alignment, and the fact that you WEREN'T one of primary contributor of good discussion worried me.
Basically I'm saying that I am disappointed :/
Sorry.
I voted because his behaviour was scummy. I don't know why you think that I should have gotten more out of him before voting - voting somebody doesn't end the information-gathering process. I also don't see why I should ask for the opinion of other people before voting. I was third on the wagon and had a good reason for voting (direct contradiction). Obviously, I was prepared to discuss it with other people, but I don't know why that should necessarily come prior to voting
If you are basing this on a meta of me, I suggest you read over my play a bit more.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Having, relative to other players, a reasonable number of posts which make some independent effort at scumhunting.
You've made 24 posts in this game and only one (the post where you question me) shows any real depth of reasoning.
I can't say whether your other post actuallyarepointless. It might all just be chaotic behaviour. However, I don't see you asking questions or giving reasoning (you argued with me on this very point) and that is something which will always pull my suspicion.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
As I said, each person starts at 50%. Behaviour that is scummy moves that upwards, towards 100%. Behaviour that is a town-tell moves that downwards towards 0%. Nulltells have no effect.Pooky wrote: One) What exactly do your %'s mean?
A serious lack of targeted questions or reasoned attacks.Pooky wrote: 2) What makes you conclude I have made no effort at scum hunting?
Nothing; I don't make that conclusion.Pooky wrote: 3) What makes you conclude that scumhunting has to be done a certain way?
Each to her own and all that. However, if someone's play strikes me as pointless, then it is akin to active lurking unless and until they are able to justify it to me.
No statistical evidence.Pooky wrote: 4) Does the amount of scumhunting present a definitive corrolation towards the probability of being scum? what has led you to conclude this? where is the evidence?
Scum have more of a motivation than town to go with the flow and to avoid exposing themselves by posting in-depth reasoning. Thus, by hounding and pressuing players who behave in such a way I hope to force them to respond and play in such a way that they actually add something valuable to the discussion (even if only to lash out at me; it still sparks argument).-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Cross-posted.
You can meta-check me on this. I rarely put people below 50%. They either have to claim, or have done things that I cannot, with reasonable doubt, conceive of as possibly coming from scum.Pooky wrote: one) mafia hate saying things like I believe X is innocent because then they can't bus X, mafia is more comfortable with making it so that everybody is suspicious so they can pick and choose which one to bus. By choosing to focus on bumping people above 50% to make them alll look moderately suspicious, Volk does a fairly poor job of finding out who is more likely to be town, and let's face it most of us are town.
I find it interesting that volkan belives that scumtells exist but has a tougher time accepting "town tells" I would like to know why.
It's very easy for scum to bus/play tricks that make them seem protown, so I am always paranoid.
There is no reason why NLU was excluded from the analysis - other than that the analysis was of the LU players.Pooky wrote: 2) Volkan's list only includes the 5 people he can vote for, if he did do a full reread, why would he not also post his thoughts on the candidates on his side as well? If he is intent on hunting scum, shouldn't he give us a fair assessment of the candidates on his side of the aisle in order to aid our efforts in hunting scum?
Sure he does not have a vote but we can certainly hear his voice. I think the reason he did not review the activities of the people on his side is because he believes TJM to be head first in the noose and completely hopeless and that he doesn't necesarily need to guide us to a lynch because by saying anything further he either jeopardizes his cover or he makes TJM look like a less attractive lynch.
If that were not true, I do not see why he would not also post his conclusions on the remaining half of the game.
I'll post an analysis of NLU tomorrow.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I assume this is directed to me.Adel wrote: Ever hear of a mislynch? I know you have. In my experience, the best way to ensure a mislynch, especially early in a game, is to pressure an inexperienced player until they make a mistake. They pretty much lynch themselves at that point. Since I am feeling that Jive machine is more likely town than scum at this point, that leaves me with the conclusion that you are scummier than Pooky. I hope I don't offend Pooky by this, but I think that our playstyles have some aspects in common, or at least enough for me to understand that Pooky behavior is more of a null-tell than a scum-tell, especially this early in a game.
I play by argument more than anything else, and I am aware of the need for caution in arguing with the inexperienced. TJM's responses were contradictory, and that's scummy no matter who it comes from. I didn't vote him for his deflection to CKD , since I knew that might be attributable to inexperience, but he crossed the threshold when he started making contradictory comments about his priorities in his actions towards Pooky.
Adel, I've played with you before (mini 488) and I know that your playstyle can be eccentric - but I can usually see its direction. I haven't played before with Pooky before and I couldn't see the point of his play - it jumped out to me as making no contribution, escalating suspicion (particularly re: shafted) and basically as a form of active lurking.
That isn't my experience, but I respect that it might be yours (and that you might well be correct).Pooky wrote: Why do you expect pointed questioning to get results?
I think there is a certain effect to having a pointed questioning/reasoned attack prematurely, it does lift the light off others players and put less pressure on them to find their own suspects, I've realized that oftentimes a discussion dominated by a single interrogator or other can lock others outside of the discussion and allow more crafty scum to quietly agree their way in.
I don't like to see games degenerate into a 1 on 1 argument. The reason I like questions and arguments is that it usually provides insight into how people play the game and forces well-reasoned discussion - in that it provides an environment most difficult for scum to hide in.
My initial reason for coming up with it let me show my relative suspicions of people, rather than ambiguous things like "X is my main suspect", "I suspect X more than Y" or "X seems pro-town".Pooky wrote: Generally I believe people who come up with numbering systems that try to quantify the suspicion they have for people to be fairly suspicious. I have no doubt that you might do this numbering thing in every game or put scary numbers next to people's names to inflate suspicion and give your opinion more of a scientific weight. But I do find such quantification to be fairly poor logic because of the connective nature of mafia and also because the number doesnt really mean anything, how much more suspicious is a person of score 200 than score 300? Is it more or less than the jump between 80 and a hundred? what type of scoring scale are you going for?
Also, it serves me as a point of reference: I can look back to where I had someone at , say, 60% and track their behaviour since then to work out the increase.
There is no "scoring scale" as such - as in, it doesn't involve any sort of objective point of reference (eg. nothing like "A contradiction earns +15%"). A person I see nothing telling (either way) on will get a 50%.
From there, I consider my reasons for suspecting the person and place them somewhere along the spectrum based on how strong the reasons are. The purpose is not to try and make my subjective feelings seem objective. I make the % list because it lets me be clear about exactly how I feel about each person as an individual and relative to each other.
And I agree with you and Pooky here, as well (it will be at the end of this post). I should have included it initially, but I didn't.CKD wrote: the only thing that is different this time, is that vollkan is not doing the group, just the people he can vote for. In this regard, I agree with pooky, you should do one on your team as well. For pook's "team" has to vote as well (noted you said you would do it).
I do the % thing each game not for the sake of being consistent, but because it is the easiest way for me to express my suspicions - and it fits with my personal emphasis on transparent arguments.Pooky wrote: If Vollkan does the % thing in every game previous to this one and then does the % thing in this game then it would show the Vollkan is keeping his behaviour in line with previous behaviour, he is not trying anything new, he is trying the same old stuff in order to stay in character.
It's the latter, not that I don't expect skepticism from you. I'm more comfortable arguing (whether in attack or defence) than anything else, and the number system gives me a firm way of monitoring my suspicions. It is a "safe" style of play, but it has worked very well for me so far and I see no reason to play in a way that doesn't suit me.Pooky wrote:
That suggests that he is more wary of trying something new in order to play his cards tight to his chest and is following the standard "Make up bullshit numbers, say stuff that everyone can see, attack vigorously the weak players that you can get lynched because they can't defend themselves" formula that I would expect VolkScum to be using.
Or he could just really like the way he plays and be determined to do that same thing over and over again.
Analysis of NLU
TJM- Casts what looks like a peer pressure vote for shaft.ed ("Fiiiiiine"). Then proceeds to FoS Pooky, only to vote Pooky once he comes under pressure. Then he contradicts himself in regards to his priorities - valuing his own safety above pursuing suspicions. And, to top it off, he collapses into defeatism. Jive gets a75%
CKD- I'm not keen on the fact that he seems to treat Pooky's "we" as a reliable tell - though his acknowledgment that it was only an early suspicion mitigates this. Runs with unclear hunches on adel and armlx for some time, and I really don't like suspicions based on "hunch" or "feeling" - you can't make someone argue a "hunch". I don't follow his reasoning for voting TJM based on TJM's suspicion of CKD's hunches, which makes this possibly look like scum contriving an "original" reason to join a wagon.70%
Adel- Her wagoning looked to me like random wake-up wagoning and this was supported by her calling it "stirring the pot". She does vote shaft.ed, but unvotes once he explains himself. Her vote for TJM isn't explained, but before that she had referred to his atrocious posts. She doesn't contrive a reason of her own. Adel's play is difficult for me to get a firm read on, but there is nothing patently scummy about it.55%
shaft.ed- My first problem with shaft.ed was his attack on Adel for wagonning, but he explained this very well. His suspicions are pretty clearly explained. shaft.ed still seems a bit quieter than I am used to from him, but I don't see anything suspicious.50%.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
OBJECTION!CKD wrote: Thats a combination of posts 298-300. Also at the tail end of your post before this it starts as well. And the fact it was a triple post implies the posts were extremely hasty, implying an extremely aggressive reaction.
Over reaction is scummy as it implies you have a lot more on the line with the lynch, which a scum would (especially in a nightless game, losing 1 of 2 or 3 members is a much bigger blow than losing one of 7 or 8). It also implies that you are being a lot more wary of single votes on you, which is scummy for the same reasons.
I love the syllogistic thinking
Triple posting is aggressive over-reaction
Aggressive over-reaction is scummy
Triple posting is scummy
I dispute the first line entirely, and I dispute the reliability of the second line. The third line, then, is just ridiculous.
Have you meta'd CKD? Is he normally calm, cool and collected?armlx wrote:
There's one other reason I can think of for overreactions, and it's that you are a completely incompetent newbie. You offered to do a PbP, so that is blown out of the water.
It makes sense to me. Sure, it isn't exactly eloquent, but it is still intelligible.armlx wrote: Also, it's not even just the triple posts. Did you read what you said in those? It doesn't even make sense, you use the word bull shit actual infi times.
I also fail to see why the use of "bull shit" is relevant. Mentally change it to "falderal" or "rot" if you must, but it doesn't mean anything/
I agree with you here; hunch voting is bad. Admitting it makes no difference, because the problem in hunch play is that it makes an unchallengeable statement.armlx wrote: You claim that voting on a hunch isn't scummy b/c you told use you were doing it. Because honesty makes everything better.
"Clearly was"? Prove it.armlx wrote: Dear god, if that wasn't an over reaction I would love to see what is.armlx wrote:te on why CKD's #360 was an over-reaction?
armlx wrote: Double posting on its own isn't over reacting, however in that situation it clearly was.
FoS: armlx-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
And reaction implies what?armlx wrote: Scum are much more invested in their role due to the their limited numbers and such view small vote counts as much larger threats to their team, prompting over reacting a lot of the time.
It's bad scum play too. Thats why it's a tell. It just happens to be a bad town play because it's 90% of the time a bad scum play.
Town can get anxious and cranky. Scum can get anxious and cranky.
It's possible that scum might be more liable to get cranky due to higher stakes. It's also possible that scum might be less liable to get cranky due to higher stakes, because they'll try harder to remain calm.
Since you've given no evidence other than the conjecture that "Scum are much more invested in their role", my counter-conjecture just shot down your argument in flames.
Oh, and on what basis do you say it's bad scum play 90% of the time?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
It can be an established tell -armlx wrote: Vollkan, here's my counter arguement for you trying to shred my knowledge of scum tells. Go back and find me examples of people blatantly lying leading to them being town. What about repeated 3rd votes on wagons and other things that are typically scummy. I was under the impression over reaction was an established scum tell. At least it was last time I was playing.for some players. What I am trying to get across to you is that there is no universal rule that emotion = scum. For some people, they might be more likely to get frustrated as scum, but for other it might be the opposite way round.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Hmm, so my vote will be worthless now because of Beep's lynching of armlx. Still, I can talk and argue so my ability to contribute is not really that impaired,
Pooky, the last post in our discussion was back in #319 (it was by me). Hence, I don't actually have any new responses to make to you, because I've addressed all that you have said so far.Pooky wrote: vote Vollkan-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
You're presenting Adel's actions in a twisted light. She "jumped" on you because (going by her post) because you posted "a vote summery for all of the involved players... which included some conversation about armix being at lynch -1." That isn't the same as merely attacking an honest mistake (how is a townie meant to know a mistake is honest without questioning?)Beep wrote: Adel is scum too. Only scum would jump on a replacement failing to grasp some very odd mechanics. A townie would have explained a few rules I might have missed, and would have checked the time spanned by my 8 posts, etc., and been more understanding.
Hmm? I gather one of those is LU, but which?shaft.ed wrote: I think NLU has fewer scum potential than NLU-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
One scumbag down.
My guess is that it just goes back to another FTA stage. This isn't Hezbollah remember.shaft.ed wrote: Sorry for procrastinating on this game. Glad to see we got one scum (of course it was team NLU that caught him). What phase are we in now btw? I guess we can keep talking or does Claus not have thread locking abilities?-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Oops, my mistake. I thought that we were still in LU/NLU and that both teams needed to elect a leader. I missed the bit about "one team".TG wrote: Why do you restrict yourself to NLU? The teams have dissolved. Your dismissal of half the people in the game is interesting.
At the moment the only reason I can think of for this development is that you harbor some kind of ire for Pooky. Which is odd because you don't seem the type of person to take things personally. Please elaborate on why you've done this.
In that case:
1) TrustGossip - 50%, shaft.ed - 50%
2) Adel - 55%
3 Erg0 - 60%
4) Dean - 65%
5) Pooky - 70%, CKD - 70%
Either TG or shaft.ed get my nomination.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
No.CKD wrote: vollkan?
hmm
maybe you should update your percentages in light the lynches?
The fact that Adel and youself were on armlx's wagon is not sufficient to, on its own, substantially alter my view of either of you. My views may, as with any player, change in response to improvement or decline in conduct - but the mere act of pushing a single scum lynch does not singularly persuade me to any huge extent.
As for the Beep! wagon, I am certainly not about to suspect TG or Erg0 more simply because there were on the wagon of a good doc.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Two comments:TG wrote: Why wouldn't people check the votecount??? I don't really understand what hypothetical logic you're using. I was agreeing with Pooky in his assessment of you. In addition, I've suspected you and CDK all game, calling my actions distancing is a gross removal of context.
1) As far as I can see, the only constant grounds of complaint you have had against Erg0 has been inactivity. That's fine; I hate lurking also - but it doesn't qualify as you having "suspected" Erg0 "all game".
2) Explain why you agree with Pooky's megaFoS-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Adel wrote: A cod is a big heavy fish
Is 4.5-11.3 kg reallyWikipedia wrote: Its average weight is 10 to 25 lb (4.5—11.3 kg), but specimens weighing up to 200 lb (90 kg) have been recorded.thatheavy?
Additionally:
The woman who carries a cod next to her liver is likely to smell dreadful. (rotting fish = yuck)Adel wrote: The woman who carries a cod next to her liver is likely to remain free from cold.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Good point.Adel wrote:
well I bet when the saying was developed it was more like 15 kg to 35 kg on average.vollkan wrote: Is 4.5-11.3 kg reallythatheavy?
1) My point was that although you had declared that you suspected Erg0 all game long, the only charge you had actually levelled against Erg0 was one of being concerned about his inactivity. Thus, contrary to what you suggest, I don't think you had any background suspicion of Erg0.TrustGossip wrote:
1) Are you saying I am misrepresenting myself because I was attacking a ghost or that I wasn't attacking a ghost enough?vollkan wrote:
Two comments:TG wrote: Why wouldn't people check the votecount??? I don't really understand what hypothetical logic you're using. I was agreeing with Pooky in his assessment of you. In addition, I've suspected you and CDK all game, calling my actions distancing is a gross removal of context.
1) As far as I can see, the only constant grounds of complaint you have had against Erg0 has been inactivity. That's fine; I hate lurking also - but it doesn't qualify as you having "suspected" Erg0 "all game".
2) Explain why you agree with Pooky's megaFoS
2) I am town. Armix was scum. I don't understand Erg0's sudden compulsion of "I feel I should vote now. Beep is the lynch today. Mum's the word, pip pip cheerio."
2) Okay.
Reading ftw, Erg0.Erg0 wrote:TrustGossip wrote:Also I think you're confusing me defending against you as attacking.
You can see why I'm confused. When were you defending me?TrustGossip wrote:2) I am town. Armix was scum. I don't understand Erg0's sudden compulsion of "I feel I should vote now. Beep is the lynch today. Mum's the word, pip pip cheerio."
TG said "defending against you".-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Curiouser and curiouser!curiouskarmadog wrote:lets get this part over with...then we can get back to scum hunting. I assume majority will get this..so
Leader choices:
Shafted: CKD, Vollkan
Pooky: Ergo
who else?
I had TrustGossip ranked equally with shaft.ed as my primary nomination for leader, and yet you've slotted me under the shaft.ed vote with yourself.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I reject the universality of reactivity as a scumtell. Sure, for some people, they might be more likely to blow up as scum - but unless an accuser has actual evidence to support this, then it is an invalid argument.CKD wrote: vollkan, I AM curious though, what are your personal thoughts on:
over reacting is scummy (now)
Now, obviously there is no such thing as a universal scum-tell. However, things which are (or seem) anti-town (be it direct anti-town conduct like a quick-hammer, or something more subtle like arbitrary changing of position) are going to be more reliable means of finding scum generally.
Reaction, in and of itself, is not "anti-town". It's just a reflection of the fact that a player is an emotional state - make of that what you will.
I am a tad unsure of what you mean here. I shall assume that you are asking me:CKD wrote: and townies "dont get power hungry"?What is your position on the idea that townies "don't get power hungry"?
Well, I have come under fire in the past many-a-time, both as town and scum, for "acting like a judge", "taking charge", "dominating", etc. Therefore, I don't see anything scummy, in principle, with players seeming to take charge - providing that they don't, without reasonable justification, hold their own view out as being infallible.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I'm not entirely ignoring it. What I am saying is that, on its own, I am not going to take it as persuasive evidence of anything. I'm not one to hike up my suspicion of people just because they had the misfortune of being on a townie wagon. Conversely, I've seen first-hand how extreme bussing can get, so I try to keep an open-mind about everything.shaft.ed wrote: Vollkan while I see your point that being on the "right" or "wrong" voting wagon does not an alignment make, I'm a little bit troubled that you are almost entirely ignoring such information. Also seems odd that you would not adjust TG's ranking after his twisted logic in accusing Erg0 for his own transgressions.
As for TG and Erg0, certainly I agree that TG's "twisted logic" was questionable. However, his play has been overwhelmingly not scummy and such an aberration, whilst important, is (as with the wagons) not enough to substantially shift me at this stage on its own.
I did not jump on him for weakness. I "jumped" on him for some atrociously contradictory play. Giving him a free pass for that sort of thing is completely irresponsible.Pooky wrote:
If I am saying Volkan is the wolf, and I am saying JM is a poor sheep, then yes I am saying JM is a poor confused townie who is being jumped on because of weakness.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Do you have any statistical evidence supporting this?Pooky wrote: What leads you to believe weak town players are less likely to make horrible mistakes than weak scum players?
[/quote]
I'll declare at the outset that I have no evidence on this front. I do not know if weak town are less likely to make mistakes than weak scum. If you have evidence on this, I would love to hear it.
Now, I've botched up newbie lynches in the past (the most recent example which comes to mind for me is Newbie 514 where I, as cop, pushed hard against a newbie who ended up being doc). I've also had successfuly newbie scum lynches (I pegged Korlash correctly in Mini 495).
My view basically is that newbies are more likely to make serious slips than experienced players, but that pro-town newbies will not, ordinarily, commit serious scummy offences. They may slip up from time to time, but if they are genuine they should keep to conduct which is, at the very least, fundamentally consistent.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Review of Behaviour Surrounding Armlx
armlx to anyone
0: joins LU
2: Random vote Erg0
3-4: Weirdness re: TG's hamster. First says it is a scummy ploy. Then says it is too cute.
9: Votes Adel until she explains why she thinks scum are in LU
11: Interesting post for a few reasons:
1) He says to TG that non-commitment is "the most scummy thing you can do" (TG had just stated that he wasn't committed to a team). However, he then says that his gut says TG is pro-town. The swipe on TG is dodgy and weak (Why is not being commited to a team scumm?) and he proceeds to deny the attack's strength. This gives a whiff of distancing-style to me.
2) He adds, after the TG comments, that "Neither is Ergo." No explanation given. I wouldn't expect scum to say this about a scumbuddy (ie. no element of distancing).
3) Goes 80% on both Adel and shaft, with no explanation - these were tied for his second place, with CKD in #1. Second-place suspicion is a common place for scum to put their scumbuddy (a manifestation of "FriendofScum"). The fact that armlx gives two might suggest that he is playing his cards safely so that, should his #1 suspicion target get invalidated, he can bump another townie to #1 place. Thus, what I am saying, is that I think there is a good chance that one out of Adel and shaft may be scum.
4) He gives me a 20%. From my perspective, this is blatant buddying-up.
5) 60% on Pooky. I don't get a read on this figure.
6) Gives CKD 40%. Bizarrely, he then votes CKD - despite having given Adel and shaft.ed 80%, and Pooky a %60.
12: Confirms that the %s were his feelings that people were scum - confirming that his numbers don't match his suspicions.
Describes Erg0 as "very pro-town". Thinks TG is pro-town based on instinct. Thinks Pooky is playing as per usual but says something is "different". This attack is rather vague and also gives a sense of distancing.
13:
Shaft - Thinks his posts are large, but not too significant content-wise. He calls this "Very scummy" but also stresses that it is mostly instinct. What I find interesting about this is that armlx uses strong language ("Very scummy") to attack what isn't a damning scumtell. In other words, it looks like a conscious effort to appear to suspect shaft.ed. Another distancing-tell.
Adel - 80% for causing confusion. Thinks this is too high and will probably drop it. This is similar to his attitude to shaft.ed, with one difference - that he makes the point that he will drop it. I'm not sure what to make of this, since the declaration of intention to drop makes it seem more likely that he might fear being attacked for holding undue suspicion of Adel.
Vollkan - Says it is primarily instinct and a teeny bit that I diverged from Pooky.
Dean - Pro-town for a general vibe
14 :Explains that he didn't like Adel's BWing or latching onto his reasoning
15: Says shaft.ed "tries to appear relevant".
16: Says his read on me is 90% based on instinct and thinks my divergence from pooky is a town-tell
17: Hops on TJM wagon
18: Switches over to shaft.ed. First on the wagon. I don't get much of a read on this. Given the mounting pressure on shaft.ed, it makes sense for a scumbuddy to jump on to the wagon asap. It also makes sense for scum to jump on townshaft.ed asap. Ultimately, this is null for me.
19: Gives his new %s:
We now know that TJM was town, so this is a case of my "scumbuddy in #2" idea not being the case. The three people at 40% is interesting. It's not inconceivable that he might have a buddy in the lower %s as well (rather than distancing both partners).Armlx wrote: Shaft: 80%
Jive: 60%
Pooky: 40%
Adel: 40%
Karmadog: 40% (if Pooky is scum, number increases)
Dean Harper: 20%
Volkan: 20%
TG & Ergo: 0%
The some of the formerly scummy (Adel and Pooky namely) moved down as we have real lynch targets to go after now. List is mostly in order of scumminess for the people I actually find scummy.
21: Is sticking with shaft.ed for now, but stresses that TJM is rising. Looks like setting himself up to jump over.
22: Attacks TJM
23: Swaps over to TJM
24: L-1. Makes attacks on Adel for BWing, but thinks he (sic) has shown enough insight to remain, though is rising towards shaft.ed. Pushes hard against TJM.
28: Says all the scummy people are on NLU
31: Says CKD's reaction to TG's vote deserves "noting". Nothing further added. Another feeble swipe.
32: Another big analysis -
Shaft.ed - Less scummy, no explanation as to how specifically/
Vollkan - Continues with me as pro-town
CKD - Says his reaction was excessive
TJM - Same thing as CKD. Says he would rather lynch TJM than random. Interesting that he gives the same reason for both, but he only expresses lynch-interest on TJM.
Pooky - Productive but aggressive. Will wait to pass judgment.
Dean - lurker
TG -town
Erg0 - lurker
Says he would vote for TJM right now
37: Some more -
shaft.ed - vague attack. I don't understand it
Voll - Protown and should not be lynched
CKD - Attacks as throwing his vote around and over-reacting.
Pooky - Being pooky
TG - protown
Adel - Crossing the line between chaotic and scummy.
38-43: Pushes against CKD. He seems to be very aggressive (armlx) but never votes/FoSes.
44: After I asked why CKD using profanity was at all relevant, armlx says it reflects aggravation. Says he won't meta CKD because " don't typically meta on usual scum tells unless I've seen that person act that way in many games I have been in"...stupid. He only uses meta advice when he's been in a game.
46: After I again reject this, he reiterates that he believes scum will over-react
48: Votes CKD
52: Hammers Beep
Analysis of others to armlx shall follow soon.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I've seen it a few times that scum will place buddies in second or third place (or, alternatively, throw FoSes onto buddies and votes onto townies)shaft.ed wrote:
Just curious when this idea surfaced. In games I've played most people say scum rate partners in the neurtal category.vollkan wrote:Second-place suspicion is a common place for scum to put their scumbuddy (a manifestation of "FriendofScum").
The best recent examples that come to mind:
Mini 495- Korlash has buddy Lucienne in third place on his suspicion list. Dybeck puts Oman at #4 then #2 on his "night kill list".
Newbie 514- I correctly pegged the two scum (didn't end up winning due to mod eror, sadly) of Lowell and Lulubelle and each had #1: Townie, #2: Buddy (in the sense that either they listed like that, or that they voted the townie but kept their buddy in the wings as a second suspect)
Mini 500- I was scum with Pwayne and I had him as a high suspect, but rarely my #1 throughout.
Of course, the actual analysis needs to be much more refined than "Scum had you in second place. You are scum!" - Newbie 514 is the best and most recent example of me putting this theory into practice properly.
Analysis of others to armlx coming shortly.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Erg0 to armlx
9: Casts a vote for armlx over the hamster contradiction.
40: Points out, in contrast to what armlx said, that Beep was aware of the mechanics about team voting.
~~~~~~~~~~~
That's it for Erg0 mentioning armlx. This total lack of mention prompted me to do a rough meta of Erg0's scum play to see whether he is a "distancer" or an "avoider". In Open 33, where Erg0 was scum with SSF, he only mentioned SSF in one game post and cast a random vote for SSF as well. In Mini 493 he engaged in distancing. He didn't mention his buddy in Open 51, but that was a short Texas Justice game. So, basically, I don't think that Erg0's total non-mention of armlx is necesarily a link-tell, but I also don't think it detracts from that possibility.
TrustGossip to armlx
2: Weak FoS attack on armlx for "his vacillation of whether or not he wanted to bandwagon me" (the hamster affair I assume). He also throws FoSes on Dean (for junk posts) and Adel (team-based BWing). Given that TG does the same for Dean and Adel, I am not going to say the treatment of armlx looks like distancing, but I don't rule it out either.
6: TG FoSes TJM, shaft.ed, vollkan and IGMEOYs armlx. His reasons for armlx are the weakest (he wants armlx to clarify his findings)
12: Neutral with no "good read"
18: "Doesn't understand" why armlx is accusing Adel of following him. This sentence confuses me: "I still don't really understand why you're even making these arguments though, Adel isn't exactly your direct competition of a lynch candidate." @TG: What did you mean by "direct competition of a lynch candidate"?
29: Thinks that armlx is "barnacle-y" and places a "Heavy FoS" on armlx, contigent on lurkers not being "horrendously suspicious".
33: Questions Armlx and Adel in conjunction
35: UnFoSes after armlx posts content and actually agrees with armlx on CKD. It's interesting that the "Heavy FoS" dissipates just because of a content posting. - when the basis for the FoS was armix being barnacle-y
43: Now he flips around, without explanation, and "wouldn't mind Armix going".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right, we've had TG making kidglove attacks on armlx and others early on. Then he goes neutral. Then he beefs it up to a "Heavy fos" for barnacle-y play, which he then drops once armlx posts content and, in fact, agrees with in pursuit of CKD. Then he flips round again and says he wouldn't mind armlx going. I agree with Erg0 that "This rings alarm bells for me."
curiouskarmadog to armlx
9: Says he understands arm's vote for him, but doesn't like Adel's following
10: Questions arm abotu Adel's following
11: Notes "armix and Adel voting partnership "
12: Notes that the partnership happens again.
14: "vote armix on an ongoing hunch."
19: His hunch on arm is getting stronger, particularly given arm's last vote (no further explanation given)
22: "vote armix"
36: Calls on armlx to explain the over-reaction charge
37: Pushes back hard against arm for using the"over-reaction" attack
38 : ditto
41: Again. Very strong - demands armlx point to evidence
49: Again, calls on armlx to supply evidence rather than basic assertion
50: Says armlx must be scum for voting ckd without commenting on the posts by Beep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This really does look genuine. Armlx was pushing against CKD for atrocious reasons, and CKD bit back with some pretty harsh attacks against arm's reasoning. It "could" be high-level bussing - but there's nothing to suggest that is the case so for now, I'm going to call it a genuine retaliation by a townie against crap attacks from a scumbag.
Dean Harper, Thanatos to armlx
*crickets*
PookyTheMagicalBear to armlx
33: "Armlx=total scum. "
~~~~~~~~~~~
Given that this is Pooky, a single mention like this is basically impossible to glean anything from.
Adel to armlx
14: Follows armlx onto CKD
25: And onto shaft.ed
34: Votes armlx. no explanation
44: Is certain that armlx is not a "logically-challenged" player of the type she believes TJM to be
49: Revotes armlx since Albert missed the last one
51: Calls to lynch armlx
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scant on reasoning, but she was following CKD's suspicion of armlx. Doesn't give me a whiff of distancing, so my assumption is that it was genuine. Still, she's conceivable as scum, but nothing here actually positively makes this likely.
shaft.ed to armlx
12: Includes armlx in a "not liking so far" list along with Adel and TJM
26: Attacks armlx's play as being "much like Pooky". Also asks armlx to compare his own play to TJM's (armlx was moving them closer suspicion-wise) and shaft.ed says TJM has been the more erratic. This looks like trying to attack Pooky and armlx together,
29: Isn't a fan of "Pooky or armlx" but thinks this might be due to bias as recipient of their attacks.
33: Says armlx is looking scummy "pretending to mimic Adel's strategy when he really didn't" (I don't understand this) and that scum getting L-1 and L-2 confused tend to act less rationally (evidence?).
34: Has Pooky and armlx tied in top place. Suspicion of armlx stems from only a few minor things: the not wanting to join a 3 BW, making firm alignment decs early without clear explanation to my questioning and his "joining in with Pooky". It's actually interesting that the attacks against pooky seem much stronger (given Pooky's total lack of content at that point and fanning of flames) - but he keeps them tied. It's like he wanted to be seen to be suspecting the two at an equal level when, in fact, he was pushing more firmly against Pooky.
38: Would like to lynch Pooky or armlx
~~~~~~~~~~
The main problem here for me is that suspicion of armlx is pretty much tethered to suspicion of Pooky. Largely, shaft.ed pushed much more against Pooky than armlx, though his reasons for attacking Pooky were good. I think that there is certainly more potential for distancing here than, say, CKD or Adel, but is less than for TG.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
Welcome, Near. I shall forgive the avatar plagiarism
This is a theory point, but I don't mind occasional theory interjections, so I will respond.Near wrote: Basically I disagree with volkan. Many times, you should balance self-perservation vs. voting for a guy you think is a scum. Especially in the beginning of the game, you might have some clues as to who you think is a scum, and maybe your guess is better than random, but often times you are wrong. We lynch on the first night, not always because we are "pretty sure" but because we have to - and we make the best guess. So, I don't think Jive's posts are in conflict with each other.
Yes, there is a balancing actto an extent. However, catching scum needs to be the highest priority. Ultimately, town doesn't win by holding back - town wins by catching scum. If an argument is legitimate proof of someone being scum, there is no reason (in all normal circumstances) why I would refrain from raising that argument.
I'm not too sure what your point about "lynch on the first night (sic)" has to do with this.
And what about the turnabout to you not minding armlx going?TG wrote: The reason for much of your confusion regarding my interactions with armix is due to my own confusion. I had a very difficult time determining if armix was sticking onto Adel or if Adel was sticking onto armix. After Adel revealed that she was gambitting, this perplexity did not disappear. It stretched throughout most of Day One. As an attempt to rid myself of this distraction I tried to put Adel and armix on the backburner in my mind.
When armix pulled out his gambit excuse at L-1, this flooded my brain with memories of the early game connections with Adel and prompted my HeavyFOS simply because it filled me with a sense of "WTF". When he stickied onto my initial attack on CDK, I should have sensed this was a trend, but I was so relieved that someone actually saw what I saw that I didn't. I suppose I did an extreme disservice to the town by being so easy, but at this point I'm trying to put down in words exactly what I was thinking/feeling/believing during Day One as a response to your inquiries.
Korlash played very irrationally throughout the entire gameShaft.ed wrote:
This may just be my lack of games played but in mini-495 dybeck played pretty terribly once the threat of lynch became imminent. Korlash also played very ... irationally when pressure was applied to him. I felt armlx was getting flustered and grasping at straws that's what I meant with that comment.Voll wrote: and that scum getting L-1 and L-2 confused tend to act less rationally (evidence?).
I do understand this now, though.
I believe armlx cast the first vote against shaft.ed. He had been FoSed by TG and TJM, and called "so scum" by Pooky. In actual fact, prior to his vote, there was a wagon of three on TJM: Adel, Pooky, armlx. Then armlx swaps over to shaft.ed who has no votes, but a wave of mounting suspicion.Near wrote: This strikes me as a very interesting post. Armlx, who was a scum, didn't have to make this post to defend himself. He was not the prime suspect at the time he made this post - the prime suspect was shaft.ed. I am not sure about the exact vote count, but something like 3 votes in a row were being casted on shaft.ed, including one from JiveMachine.
Whilst it is true that armlx may have been concerned about lynching townshaft.ed, I am not sure that such a concern really might have prevented him from being so "definitive". Remember that we also had Pooky being even blunter, and the comments by TG and Adel were hardly of phenomenal length either. Given that armlx was first to vote, he might have felt safer given that he wasn't immediately pushing a wagon into danger zone.Near wrote: Either:
1) Armlx was trying to go with the bandwagon to kill shaft.ed, who he knows is innocent.
OR
2) Armlx thought that shaft.ed, his partner, is going to die anyway, and by making this post, he can almost guarantee that the next person who will die is JiveMachine (which means, he's a probably good doctor) and prepare to make future arguments for his innocence by citing his decisive post and vote against shaft.ed.
In case of 1), Armlx, I would think, would be concerned about the after-effect of lynching shaft.ed when the mod reveals that shaft.ed was a good doctor. Therefore, I wouldn't expect Armlx to use such "definitive" wording in his post.
Certainly, I think the winds were changing towards shaft.ed when armlx voted. It could be armlx wanting to be first on the wagon of his buddy, so he doesn't need to tag on a late vote and look dodgy; or it could just be armlx pushing against a seemingly doomed townie.
I don't think this logic is valid.Near wrote: In addition to 669, I just realized that Jive was fired and was actually good doctor, which could indirectly strengthen the likelihood of 2) above, because:
A: If 2) is true, then JiveMachine is innocent.
B: JiveMachine is innocent
C: Since B, which is true, does not disprove A, it's more likely A is true?
something like that?
I think it should be:
A: 2) can only be true if TJM is innocent
B: TJM is innocent
C: Since B, which is true, is necessary for A to be true, Acanbe true.
The best way to think about this is that: TJM not being innocent would render 2) false. TJM being innocent does not substantiate 2) in any way.
That said, 2) seems like the most obvious course of action for armlx if shaft.ed is his buddy. Armlx pulls town credit for lynching shaft.ed scum and can then take down TJM.-
-
vollkan The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- The Interrogator
- Posts: 5373
- Joined: March 29, 2007
- Location: Australia
I disagree with your theory.N wrote: Yes, winning is the highest priority. Catching a scum is directly related to this priority. Therefore, if I can trade my own "life" with that of scum's, I agree that it's correct play to do so. But when your best suspect is, say, only 60% scum (as opposed to your next best guess at 50%), sometimes it's incorrect put your life in danger, since you know you are 0% scum.
Anyway, we should probably talk about this later @ Mafia Discussion Forum.
But I agree that now is not the time.
N wrote: