Cultafia: Game over

[vollkan]

Hello everyone.

Unvote

if I am.

I will reread and post thoughts imminently.

[vollkan]

Page 1

Ordinary random voting down to where mwaxsays:

not voting everyone cause you all look scummy.

This is the sort of comment I would expect from a newbie, but mno has been here two years - so this is most peculiar. CKD and spring vote mwax, looks to be for mno's weird comment.

Page 2

Weird vote from TSS:

Vote: blazerunner for being second on the armlx wagon.

Being second is inherently scummy because? Occult raises the good point that TSS didn't kick up a stink about the second vote on mwax. Blaze makes a really dodgy point suggesting pre-emptive lynching of power roles to prevent recruitment. Yos2 blasts this. Blaze then retreats a little and suggests that, if a power role is cornered, it will be unlikely that town will lynch a CL. Aside from the probability problem with this which Yos raises, I don't like that blaze suggests:

But perhaps lynching is really not a good idea, we might just remember "that guy claimed and probably was already recruited" and lynch him after the recruiter.

Aside from the fact that lynching the CL is unlikely, the setting up of lynches that blaze proposes is deeply flawed. Needless to say, if, as a rule, the claimer is to be lynched after the death of CL, then it follows that cult ought not to recruit the claimer. Thus, the proposal is anti-town if applied.

TSS flips the onus of proof:

Actually, I have a perfectly good reason for focusing on the armlx bandwagon rather than the mnowax one. And even if I didn't, I can only cast one vote, so you need to show a reason why armlx is less deserving of attention than mnowax

Aside from the vagary of the "reason", it's slippery to say that other people need to prove that it is wrong of TSS to focus on just the armlx wagon. He's the one that's asserting that armlx is somehow more worthy of attention. Thus, I hold him to account to explain his opinion.

Blaze brings up the issue of lynching claimed townies so they don't get cultified. This came up in Mini 500 - Cult Mafia, a cult game where I was mafia. IIRC, this idea was very firmly placed into the "Anti-town Ideas" pile.

Blaze casts a vote for TSS on the basis of "aggression". This sort of justification for a vote a pet hate of mine (along with "too emotional", "overly-defensive", etc.) By the looks of this post, and subsequent comments, it looks like you are basing this on the "needs to die" thing. I agree, it is a weird thing to say, but some people are more exuberant than others in this game. I don't see how you can treat this as a scumtell without meta evidence.

I don't like viking's advocacy of lyncing claimed townies. He relies on a dubious assumption about setup to justify this. Even if this assumption were correct, the "lynch all recruits" logic doesn't progress anywhere, as armlx points out. He seems to have a misunderstanding of the setup, however, based on later comments.

Blaze retracts his advocacy of lynching townies

I really dislike mwax suggesting that vanilla's should lurk.

After reading the armlx-blaze exchange, I dislike armlx's suggestion that blaze shows he has some knowledge about the game (at least more than his ideas would suggest) based on...the fact that Blaze knows what wifom is. That's the only evidence he gives to suggest knowledge of the game when, in fact, newbies can very easily be exposed to the concept of wifom (it isn't exactly a complex idea). It looks like armlx is trying to paint blaze as less of a newb.

Page 4

mwax declares that blaze killed DGB. Unless mwax is being stupid, this looks like a tracker or watcher claim. Hmm...Mwax later says that blaze "slipped and said something that confrimed something. I can not say why, but, or how i know, but he is not beneficial to the town."

no there is not. If the came upon this information he let go by accident, then i have also opened myself wide open.

The difficulty here is that the above post seems to be a qualifier from Mwax himself on the certainty of what he has said regarding blaze. However, any further probing into mwax

might

amount to role-fishing and may result in information leakage.

[vollkan]

@TSS: Can you restate all the evidence/arguments you have against blaze?

[vollkan]

I like believing mnowax at the moment...if he's wrong, he's immediately on the chopping block tomorrow and rightfully so. and if he's right, we lynch a scum.

But...the thing I keep coming back to, the thing that no one seems to have answered yet, is, even if Mnowax is right and telling the truth, that would make Blaze either a vig or a SK, right? Would we really want to lynch a vig or a SK day 1 here?

If Blaze was a Vig I dont understand why he hasnt claimed that yet....

unvote

I am beginning to believe his claim though as there are a lot of "town" agreeing with him without really stating why..for example.

I like believing mnowax at the moment...if he's wrong, he's immediately on the chopping block tomorrow and rightfully so. and if he's right, we lynch a scum.

States he believes Mno, but no reason why. Then sets up a lynch chain...please viking, why couldnt this go the other way, lynch Mno and if he is town lynch Blaze? Something is not right here.

vote vikingfan.

please why do you believe Mno's claim?

Let me rephrase that. It's not so much that I believe him as that I think we have a likely scum either way. If he's lying and we lynch blaze today, we lynch wax tomorrow and nail a scum. If he's right, we've nailed a scum anyway.

As for whether or not it's wise to lynch an SK (what Yosarian is mentioning), that can go both ways. An SK can kill both town AND cult- it's not necessarily a given that he's working for the town, particularly if he kills one of the Steadfast roles. I'd be interested in seeing the math on this.

The problem here (aside from the set-up dynamics explored by Yosarian) is that I can't quite see how we determine whether or not mno "lied". t's unclear whether his evidence is just a tell from one of Blaze's posts, or is the result of role-based information possessed by mno. In other words, because of the fact that mno has been ambiguous (not unreasonably I might add) about how he "knows" there exists an element of plausible deniability in this. Maybe I have missed something, but this fact is giving me some trouble thinking about.

[vollkan]

this is my final statement of information. 70% of why i think blaze killed DGB was something that he said that confirmed info that i have. 25 % of the reason why is due to my own night actions. 5% is pure gut.

Even if I were convinced that blaze killed DGB, can you explain why it would be in the town's best interest to lynch blaze? I presume you hold that position, given the location of your vote.

[vollkan]

ionce again i can not say what tipped me off today. If you believe that DGB is a SK that needs to stay alive, then i will tell every one who i am, and why are the reasons why i konw what i know and surmised.

I was quite clear in what I wanted you to tell me:
Why is it to town's advantage to lynch SK-DGB?

This has nothing to do with your role or your reasons - it's a simple matter of theory.

[vollkan]

Wow...I read blaze's post.

I guess this probably makes Mno the other recruit then, or a lying steadfast who is trying to pull a rediculous gambit. First seems most likely IMO.

Maybe I missed something...How does it work that recruitMno would know to pull something like this on blaze?

What kind of a cult leader would recruit Blazerunner N0. No offense to him, but there were certainly some far more eligible candidates on the player list that could have been culted instead. This isn't even a situation where WIFOM would apply because it would all happen silently and without precedent. Possibilities:
-Cult leader is inexperienced himself.
-Cult leader is lazy and/or ignorant of strategy.
-Cult leader was afraid that prime targets would be watched or double targeted.

The only potential WIFOM potential I can see here is the very farsighted WIFOM of "Target blaze so that it looks like recruiter is a newb".

I'm almost wondering if it's worthwhile to ask the SK to kill him for us...since we're agreed that for now, the SK is beneficial to the town so we can kill the bigger danger. Of course, the SK is under no obligation to do so.

I am sure I read ages ago in MD that pacts with SKs are a very bad idea. The SK will only act out of self-interest, making reliance incredibly stupid.

Unvote

I don't think that we can just leave blaze alone today. I say we lynch him, who knows we may hit cult leader. I just can't leave such a blatant claim (and then unclaim), he obviously made a gambit and when it didn't work, he took it back.

Vote Blaze

You've had a whole heap of good theory about why lynching him is not ideal, and you just resort to "we may hit cult leader"?

[vollkan]

I personally think there is a slight possibility that he could be more then a recruit. Plus, confirmation of him being a recruit wouldn't exactly hurt the town either. If he turns out to be a recruit we can look back at the posts and perhaps get an idea of who he's with. It just seems to me he was trying to come up with something big (not exactly sure what that was as it was kinda muddled) and it felt like more than just a recruit attempting to save his ass.

It won't "hurt" the town directly, but the wasted opportunity is a cost.

We have a very good lynch here, I say we look at the connections between Blaze and other players before we lynch him but I don't see how we can let Blaze live.

If he has been recruited, somebody knows he is their recruit. Thus, we can look at somebody's reactions to blaze - and blaze's behaviour back.

[vollkan]

and yet stark has yet to post in this game major fos.

So I take it this means you have completed a statistical survey which reveals that people who don't post are scum? I'd love to see the results if you have an excel chart or something.

His (or anybody's) lack of posting merits replacement not suspicion.

I don't see one single unvote after he claimed. All the unvoting was before. The only shift is that now that Blaze is an acknowledged recruit, Occult has voted him -- when recruits are exactly what we don't want to spend our time lynching. (Yes, Blaze *could* be a Cult Leader, but Occult gives no reason for him to be more likely to be one than anyone else. In fact, Occult himself says that recruit is by far the more likely: "I personally think there is a slight possibility that he could be more then a recruit.")

Blatant falsehood and an action long shown to be not in alignment with the best interests of the town. Ergo, Occult is trying to drop his now useless asset like a hot potato. Vote: Occult

QFT.

@Occult: You think lynching Blaze is helpful. Thus, I assume you can rebut the argument that lynching recruits is not in the town's best interest.

Also, I've embarked upon a new policy of declaring my ground rules in each game I start. Since I have only recently entered here, I feel it is appropriate for me to post them. The reason I have started this is because I am tired of getting into theory disputes with people mid-game and, thus, I would rather lay everything on the table immediately:

Vollkan's Ground Rules

1)

I use a % system to rank people.

• a: 0% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed town. 100% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed scum.
  b: The rankings refer to behaviour unless otherwise stated. Someone that has claimed cop may still get a rating of 60% if their play has been worth 60%. I may also give them a probability ranking that factors in their claim.
  c: Everybody starts at 50%.
  d: Someone who has neither a preponderance of scumtells or towntells will receive 50%.
  e: Any unreadable lurker will receive 50%
  f: It is rare for me to give people a ranking below 50% (see section 2) below)

2)

I am exceptionally skeptical of "town tells". Recent experience in House Mafia has exacerbated this.

3)

Any player who justifies a vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. on one of the following:

• a) 'Hunch';
  b) 'Gut';
  c) 'Feeling';
  d) 'Belief'; or
  e) Anything that has a meaning similar to those of the above

will receive a stern demand from me that they give objective reasons for their vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. Should they fail to do so, my expectation is that the vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. will be dropped. If not, then they can expect their % ranking to increase.

4)

If you want to play in a chaotic fashion, that's fine. However, if I can't understand what you are doing I will demand an explanation and justification. If you don't provide me with one, your % ranking

will

increase.

5)

Any person who accuses another person of being scum for one of the following:

• a) Over-reaction;
  b) Lurking;
  c) Aggression;
  d) Bandwagoning (see section 6) below);

Can expect their % ranking to increase.

6)

Bandwagoning is not a scumtell. Voting with crap reasons is a scumtell. I don't give a toss how many times you vote, but I care very deeply about your reasons for doing so.

7)

I hate lurkers. If you do not post within a reasonable timeframe, I will bombard you with questions and, very likely, demand you provide a full scumdar with at least 2 sentences per person. If you choose not to do so, I will expect that you desist from posting and be replaced.

8)

Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.

9)

If I make a mistake somewhere I will point out that I have made tremendous cock-ups as town in a number of games. If you choose to ignore these meta-references, your % ranking will rise.

10)

If you are finding the game too 'difficult' or 'complex' either read up or replace out.

11)

My posts will be as long as I feel like making them.

[vollkan]

Vollkan's Ground Rules

1)

I use a % system to rank people.

• a: 0% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed town. 100% means someone's behaviour is absolute confirmed scum.
  b: The rankings refer to behaviour unless otherwise stated. Someone that has claimed cop may still get a rating of 60% if their play has been worth 60%. I may also give them a probability ranking that factors in their claim.
  c: Everybody starts at 50%.
  d: Someone who has neither a preponderance of scumtells or towntells will receive 50%.
  e: Any unreadable lurker will receive 50%
  f: It is rare for me to give people a ranking below 50% (see section 2) below)

2)

I am exceptionally skeptical of "town tells". Recent experience in House Mafia has exacerbated this.

3)

Any player who justifies a vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. on one of the following:

• a) 'Hunch';
  b) 'Gut';
  c) 'Feeling';
  d) 'Belief'; or
  e) Anything that has a meaning similar to those of the above

will receive a stern demand from me that they give objective reasons for their vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. Should they fail to do so, my expectation is that the vote/FoS/declaration of 'suspicion'/etc. will be dropped. If not, then they can expect their % ranking to increase.

4)

If you want to play in a chaotic fashion, that's fine. However, if I can't understand what you are doing I will demand an explanation and justification. If you don't provide me with one, your % ranking

will

increase.

5)

Any person who accuses another person of being scum for one of the following:

• a) Over-reaction;
  b) Lurking;
  c) Aggression;
  d) Bandwagoning (see section 6) below);

Can expect their % ranking to increase.

6)

Bandwagoning is not a scumtell. Voting with crap reasons is a scumtell. I don't give a toss how many times you vote, but I care very deeply about your reasons for doing so.

7)

I hate lurkers. If you do not post within a reasonable timeframe, I will bombard you with questions and, very likely, demand you provide a full scumdar with at least 2 sentences per person. If you choose not to do so, I will expect that you desist from posting and be replaced.

8)

Reliance on conspiracy arguments, such as "I think X is scummy because he did Y which could help scum because Z" (keyword = "could") will merit a % increase.

9)

If I make a mistake somewhere I will point out that I have made tremendous cock-ups as town in a number of games. If you choose to ignore these meta-references, your % ranking will rise.

10)

If you are finding the game too 'difficult' or 'complex' either read up or replace out.

11)

My posts will be as long as I feel like making them.

Unvote, Vote: Volkan

If you are town, you have nothing to gain from such a post.

You haven't played with me before, so I can understand you reacting this way.

The thing is that in almost every game I play I encounter people who have some objection to some aspect of my game theory. In Open 59, for instance, I was town voted Adel for a breach of what has become rule 4. The whole thing spiralled out of control into a theory debate and ended up wasting the day and, thus, playing a role in the mislynch which ensued. My % system regularly gets questioned and criticised (see: Pooky criticising it in House Mafia).

What does townvollkan have to gain from such a post?

Simple: It makes things clear from the get-go exactly what I think about things in this game. For that reason, it avoids me having to reiterate and explain myself later on, thus avoiding unnecessary time-wasting with people quibbling about my playstyle. It lets you know where I stand and lets me play the game without being distracted by people who don't like how I play.

[vollkan]

1. 'Procedural way to find scum', really? What I see is a 'how to avoid my suspicion if you are scum' guide and a series of preemptive self-justifications.

2. Tell me how is it beneficial to town to reveal said 'procedural way to find scum' in advance if one does indeed abide by it?

Two points:
1) It is a procedural method of scumhunting insofar as I have outlined a substantial (though not exhaustive) list of things that I find scummy/not scummy but which often give rise to controversy.
2) I acknowledge that it has a deterrent effect with respect to some things I identified. However, I considered that risk and decided it was negligible in practice. I don't want to outline how this works in full (I will if people insist) but if it does act as a deterrent it will narrow the range of acceptable behaviour and should, in fact, make things more difficult for scum by forcing them to argue on proper logical grounds, by way of making weaker grounds unacceptable.

Volkan, I think your justification is poor; surely not ruining a game by theory debates is up to the player's attitude and has little to do with the player's belief.

You'd think so, but it doesn't often play out like that for me. I've often encountered people who, in the process of attacking me for something they perceive as scummy, are actually attacking some theoretical aspect of my play. That means that, when I should be engaged in meaningful argument, things get sidetracked by the likes of, eg, criticism of my insistence that people supply reasons.

[vollkan]

I think we just identified Vollkan's Rule 12.

Huh?

Vollkan, here's my perspective (and this was before the mod posted that he was having technical difficulties). When the mod says that a player has been picking up his prods, but yet not posting, that appears scummy to me since it says that he has been available to post but yet does not want to do so. If the mod hadn't said that, I would have simply considered it grounds for replacement.

Okay, but I have myself been in situations where I have not wanted to post as town, purely because my ideas are not solid and I don't want to make a crappy post that draws suspicion. Reading to the point of being able to post takes time, and it's reasonable that someone might not post.

Um, not to answer for him, but drawing attention to the fact that Stark hasn't posted yet is a helpful thing for Viking to do. I'd strongly encourage everyone to try and keep track of who's lurking, and to bring it to the town's attention like this.

Absolutely, I agree. Lurkers should be named and shamed. BUT, lurking is not a scumtell. It doesn't merit a FoS.

'll mention here that I think that a large number of Volkan's rules are poor town stratagy. I don't see the need to get into a detailed stratagy debate just yet, at least not until he invokes one of his rules in a way I disagree with, but just for the record, these are the parts of his rules that seem pretty much completly wrong to me. And I will also note that, general rules or not, if he tries to invoke those rules in such a way as to harm the town I will consider it to be a scumtell; you're not getting an automatic meta-pass on stuff by just making a list of rules right now, Volkan.

I don't want a pass. I just want to be clear about where I stand on things.

Pretty much just disagree with those completly. Especally on day 1, hunches are fine, and looking for town tells and figuing out who is town is just as important as figuring out who is scum. Sure, you'll be wrong sometimes, but that applies just as much to scum tells. (Of course, in a cult game, some people's alignments might change, so town tells might be less useful here then in other games, but that's a different issue)

When I get a hunch, I try and look for evidence to back it up. If none surfaces, I abandon it.

As for towntells, we will just have to agree to disagree. I find them much less reliable than scumtells.

4) If you want to play in a chaotic fashion, that's fine. However, if I can't understand what you are doing I will demand an explanation and justification. If you don't provide me with one, your % ranking will increase.

I don't entirely disagree with you on this one, but, to hold you to the same standard you are demaning of others, I take it this means you have completed a statistical survey which reveals that people who act in a chaotic fashion are scum? I'd love to see the results if you have an excel chart or something.

No, I don't have a chart.

If someone is going to play chaotically, they should have a reason for doing so if they are protown

Disagree with those two completly. Lurking, especally, is a scumtell, and better yet, it's an even better cult leader tell in this situation.

I've seen scum lurk. I've seen town lurk. I've wanted not to post as scum. I've wanted not to post as town. If I can identify strategic lurking, then some cause for suspicion may arise, but lurking in and of itself is a nulltell for me.

Note the italicized. He makes sure that he lets us know that both a vig and a SK exists. This is not an open game, were not sure of the existence of the roles. How did he find out this information? No i am not a tracker. No i am not a watcher or alarmist. I am a Vig. I didn't kill last night because i wanted to make sure i had a kill for night one of this game. Therefore, There IS a SK in this game as well as me, and although there will be an attempt to kill me, i will finish off Blaze in the night. If i happen to get recruited, i will spout the name of my leader immediately, So if you don't want me around, you must kill me. I only say this because were getting close to lynch( i believe) and i want all my information out on the table before i die.

If you are a vig, where did the "I know blaze killed DGB!" come from?

[vollkan]

Looking back at Occult's posts...he defend Blaze early on, then only started attacking him after he claimed cult recruit. I can see him being a possible lynch.

vote:Occult

Yea, because for some strange reason I'm under the impression that the cult is bad.

For some strange reason I'm under the same impression.

But, for some strange reason I'm under the impression that lynching a cult recruit is not going to be much use in the long run. It's no use chopping off a single head if the Hydra remains alive.

[vollkan]

Secondarily, I think 2 cults AND an sk seems like a bit much; if they were successful, then we just started the game with 33% scum and if we lynch wrong today, we wind up going to day 2 with 7/14(or 1 or 12) which is 50% scum which means an almost guaranteed scum win. I don't think a sane mod would use a setup which even, theoretically, COULD put the town in lylo day 1.

Did I miss somewhere in my readup where it was concluded that there are definitely two cults?

[vollkan]

I still personally think that there is a chance that Blaze is a leader. His claiming is a gambit, the only thing that claim did was take him off the lynching block. There was a discussion about lynching recruits earlier in the game and the majority seemed to lean towards, Don't lynch recruits.

Now, blaze using this claim to buy him some time and recruit a few more people isn't a very far-fetched theory. He is not a confirmed recruit, but he isn't town and we shouldn't trust him. I'm saying maybe we should play this as we'd rather be safe then sorry.

This in itself gives rise to a good reason for a CR to claim - the "We can't trust you" factor as increasing the risk of CR lynch, thereby protecting the CL. Of course, the viability of this is questionable in a situation where there may be two CLs.

THERE IS A SK! yes i am *THE VIG* i am the only vig. I have no reason to lie about this. I made an assumption regarding someone else's post. What else is new around here? Granted i was Totally wrong, but my roles is out, and we have found a Former Rb'er and a now a cult recruitist.

Okay, I am trying to imagine you as the vig: You concoct a wild hypothesis about someone being the SK and then blunder in and make stupid accusations about it, without even considering the overall merits of lynching a SK or anything. I just don't buy this. It's assuming a pretty enormous degree of recklessness to your part.

[vollkan]

The case against spring is he has really been holding back all game until this last post, and he attacked vollkan for his list. Both very cult leader-like behaviors.

I don't see what is particularly "cult leader-like" about attacking the list. I don't even think it is necessarily scummy - I can think it reasonable for town to react with suspicion of something so odd as what I did. I can also fathom scum trying to look busy by attacking it. Anyway, it doesn't strictly suggest CL, does it?

[vollkan]

Your reasoning about how cult leader would play is also full of BS and WIFOM.

If I were a cult leader, I would want to play in the most town-like manner possible, so as to leave no possible angle of attack for as long as possible.

There's something deliciously ironic about you criticising people for speculating about how CLs would play, and then pulling an "If I were a cult leader".

@Skruffs: HOLY CRAP! That post is enormous. I'll wait until you finish your read before commenting and/or starting an argument.

[vollkan]

Your reasoning about how cult leader would play is also full of BS and WIFOM.

If I were a cult leader, I would want to play in the most town-like manner possible, so as to leave no possible angle of attack for as long as possible.

There's something deliciously ironic about you criticising people for speculating about how CLs would play, and then pulling an "If I were a cult leader".

@Skruffs: HOLY CRAP! That post is enormous. I'll wait until you finish your read before commenting and/or starting an argument.

Your reasoning about how cult leader would play is also full of BS and WIFOM.

If I were a cult leader, I would want to play in the most town-like manner possible, so as to leave no possible angle of attack for as long as possible.

Both are plausible

, so you see, my behavior can be only be said to be scummy in general.

The fact that want to imply that I'm a cult leader when my play can't possibly tell you that makes me find you very scummy indeed.

Please don't arbitrarily cut my quote.

Also, when I say 'my behavior can be only said to be scummy in general' it is intended to mean that anyone's behavior can be only said to be scummy in general for the reason invoked in the present case.

The cut wasn't arbitrary. My point is the same whether it is abridged or in full.

You saying what you "would do as CL" is inherently WIFOM by virtue of the mere fact that you say it. Objective speculation about how SKs would play is different, since it relies on theories about motivation and self-interest.

Your WIFOM doesn't nullify the point into something of "general scumminess" (Also, it doesn't say much that you think that only being "generally scummy" is somehow much of an improvement)

[vollkan]

Everyone who think I am a cult leader, please state clearly why now.

I think you are scummy, and I see the sense in the rationalisation that your play is consistent with that of a CL. I can see you as non-CL scum, however.

[vollkan]

i have no idea whats going on, but i targetted yos. When Blaze said we wasn't recruited, i had a feeling that he might be telling the truth, and i looked back at some of the people who said the least yesterday, and i picked yos out of that set. It is possible we have two vigs, shooting every other night is a weird thing to have for a vig, but it allows both vigs to target a CL or SK and kill them in one night. it get s around their one kill immunity, and yet allows to effectively have one vig kill a night, assuming myself and the alternate vig took shots every other night. We have no redirection roles, so unless i was RB'ed by blaze, which could very well have been the case, we have at least one other vig and/ or sk.

Vote Yosarian2 You're right i didn't vote.

Maybe I am missing something here...

If I was in Blaze's position (RB being alleged to have committed a NK by a stupid accusation) I would be within rights to justifably RB my accuser (ie. you, mnowax). How do you justify waving your finger at Yosarian when there is a considerable likelihood that you were just RBed?

[vollkan]

yos, i have already said why in post 448 i have put a vote on you due to my conclusions.

Oh right. Let's backtrack those those reasons shall me:

i have no idea whats going on, but i targetted yos. When Blaze said we wasn't recruited, i had a feeling that he might be telling the truth, and i looked back at some of the people who said the least yesterday, and i picked yos out of that set. It is possible we have two vigs, shooting every other night is a weird thing to have for a vig, but it allows both vigs to target a CL or SK and kill them in one night. it get s around their one kill immunity, and yet allows to effectively have one vig kill a night, assuming myself and the alternate vig took shots every other night. We have no redirection roles, so unless i was RB'ed by blaze, which could very well have been the case, we have at least one other vig and/ or sk.

Vote Yosarian2 You're right i didn't vote.

Without looking, I don't believe Yosarian was the most lurky (he may well have been; if so I apologise). That being the case, you need to explain why you would target Yosarian over somebody else.

[vollkan]

Like i said before. i just picked randomly off the people who didn't post much yesterday.

If I gave you an enema, I could fit you in a matchbox.

1) Why were you picking off people who didn't post much? Don't tell me "More likely to be CL", because scumminess is also a vital criteria in making that judgment.
2) Why Yosarian? Don't call it "random", because you made a choice.

[vollkan]

@anybody who has played with mnowax before: Is he the type to blow up like this?

I don't buy what he is doing as a gambit (ala Adel in Open 59), because the timing is completely inappropriate. And I have learnt better than to assume that self-voter = auto-scum, without regard to the individual.

[vollkan]

Unvote

Good. Now, explain to me why you voted yourself in the first place. I am assuming you are rational and, thus, that you have a rational explanation.

He might be a recruit..but today I think we need to hit a CR

I think you mean CL.

[vollkan]

Skruffs' latest offering does not sit too well with me.

It really does not bother me if you are 'unimpressed' by me. I'm actually used to people using my 'lack of reason' as an excuse to ignore me - IF you want, I will compile a list of the percentage of people who say stuff like that and turn out ot be scum.

I do not like this sort of threat. If your reasoning is shoddy, pointing it out is the right thing to do.

I'm kind of curious about your attitude - you seem to be rather lofty and comfortable in the position you are in. Why?

"Lofty and comfortable"? For one, I don't have a clue what you are referencing here. Moreover, if a player is 'lofty and comfortable' what does that mean?

I think it's interesting that you have no problem criticizing other people's attempts at pushing things, but you yourself admit that you have no leads.

I think it's interesting that you have a problem with people criticising the dodgy reasoning of other players.

[vollkan]

I think that people, if they are going to criticize the 'quality' of other player's probings and cases, should at the very least offer their own in return.

I disagree. Criticising somebody else DOES show your reasoning in a very important way, as well as potentially correcting deep errors/finding scum.

Not doing so leads to a game of entropic destabilization.

Slippery slope argument, my friend. But, moreover, a string of criticisms and counter-criticisms is often an excellent way to play this game.

IF one person is pushing a case, and three people hop in and say "Your reasoning is not good enough to continue pushing this case", then that player either pushes MORE, at risk of becoming an easy counter wagon, OR, they drop the case.

If the three people who say "Your reasoning is not good enough" do not offer cases of their own, then in effect, all they are doing is prohibiting the discovery of more information. they don't *know* that the lead is bad; by discouraging it, they are in fact potentially trying to protect the person that the first person is probing at.

No. If the player who gets rejected by the other three has a legitimate point she should be willing to argue in its defence - and, additionally, may be able to criticise the other 3 for being wrong and try to examine their reasoning. If the point was not good, and gets crushed by the other three, that can only be a good thing.

[vollkan]

My demand for replacement has nothing to do with anything inside this particular game. I explained the mod why i wanted replacement.

Is this to do with Open 48?

[vollkan]

Vollkan:
Please show where armlx's criticizing of me reveals his reasoning. I am not saying you are wrong, I am just calling your bluff and asking you to show by example what you are saying.

I also agree that criticisms and counter criticisms are an excellent way to play the game - which is why I am pointing out that Armlx is intentionally avoiding leaving himself up to criticism by only relying on other players to provide the basis of his opinions.

Don't try and be clever. He called you out asking you to

present reasons

and you declined. In effect, you insulated yourself from criticism. Asking me to show where he criticised your reasons is

prima facie

a disingenuous question. You weren't arguing about each other's

reasons

- you were arguing about your

lack of

reasons.

But, of course, don't get me wrong. If armlx plagiarised your reasons I would take him to task for it. If he criticised your reasons in a dodgy manner - that too I would take him to task for.

[vollkan]

EBWOP:
I missed this one

Lastly: If the point is not strong and is crushed, but iut was right regardless, is it still a good thing? Because now you have three players who are not contributing of their own, and one player who no longer wants to contribute, and, presumably, there winds up being a nolynch. Or, since only one player has offered an opinion, the other three would eventually wind up lynching that player - since there is no reason to lynch one of their own. I'm just extrapolating your "it's all good" scenario.

Well, no. If any one of the three is a half-decent player they would not either delay until lynching the crap-case player was necessary, or simply lynch the crap-case player. A reasonable player will file away the crap case as evidence and proceed on foot.

If I were to implant myself as one of the three, for instance: If it dawned on me that somebody was not pulling their weight, then I would pounce on them.

The thing is, Skruffs, I consider criticism to be evidence of reasoning and scumhunting in itself. Armlx's arguments against you show how he is treating your play, and give me information as to what is going on in his head. A player should trawl the thread for evidence, but I think that criticism is not to be totally dismissed as a valid means of play. It depends upon the individual.

[vollkan]

No, he said my reasons weren't good enough. So I Asked him where his reasons were and pointed out that he has been tailcoating on other people the entire game. You defended him by saying that people criticizing other people shows their reasons.

I then asked to prove by example, showing me where Armlx's reasonings were, and you admitted he had none by saying "Don't try to be clever.' I looked at Armlx and tried to find his reasons in the way you said I Would, I Couldn't, I asked you to, calling your bluff, and now I'm 'trying to be clever'. But it seems to me that you used an empty excuse to defend him with.

ANd, no, actually... HE was arguing with the QUALLITY of my reasons for attacking Hjlltill, but I at least presented mine. If you want to call them flawed, that's fine. But Armlx is hte one with his own reasons for doing things, and you still haven't asked my questions; instead you just reacted with a (I think) very defensive blustery post.

So again: Please, vollkan, show me where you can see Armlx's reasoning?

He said your "reason" was not good enough, saying that: "Maybe at the start of day one its worth a vote, but afterwards its merely one piece to add to a full case". As I have already said, he demanded that you present reasons. All you had presented was a shoddy single piece of non-evidence and then, once he challenged the substance of your case, you came out with your attacks on criticism.

The reason I said "don't be clever" is because you seem to be trying to present this as a battle of armlx's logic against yours when, in fact, this is a case of armlx criticising your

lack of reasons

. By virtue of that fact, it is disingenuous to ask for me to present his 'reasoning' per se.

His reasoning is that your evidence was insubstantial:

You also suggest I should auto know thats your only reason, which is pretty stray to vote off of. Maybe at the start of day one its worth a vote, but afterwards its merely one piece to add to a full case. I assumed you had more than just that.

Skruffs, I am unimpressed with the effort you are putting into this game. You really need to step up your reading and analysis before I consider anything you have said. I quite frankly ignored your posts yesterday as you were commenting on 7 page old content out of current context.

I figured any comment he made in response was all I needed to hear about it. Like I said, its not a vote worthy thing at this stage in the game, and I'm suprised you find it that way.

From there, it branches into things like this:

So, what you are saying is people who shoot down crap logic should offer up some of their own if they have nothing solid?

In response to your responses.

This is showing the reason why armlx is demanding reasons from you very clearly. He thinks (and I agree) that the Hjallti point is wholly insufficient. Of course he is not constructing an in-depth argument here. There is no set of extensive reasoning behind armlx's point other than that what you've presented against Hjallti is not convincing. He's said why - because it is a singular point which would is not at all vote-worthy this far into the game.

You also say that his criticism can help find scum: When one person tells another their case is flawed, it only makes the original player look bad for attempting to scumhunt. If nobody else is trying to scum hunt, then the original player winds up getting lynched for 'flawed scum hunting', like I mentioned earlier.

A crap case is also useless for scumhunting. Your single point on Hjallti makes him not at all more scummy in my opinion. Having armlx raise its inadequacy is good because it shows that you, a potential scum, are making dodgy arguments. It also promotes further argument (ie. this) which can spur new discussion.

Your point about lynching the "scumhunter" is pure conspiracy. That scenario can only happen if absolutely nobody else posts anything.

[vollkan]

The thing is; his whole point, underneath the "your reasoning is not sufficent" is that *I* need to convince *HIM* of a point, and that he feels no impetus as a player to convince anyone else of HIS point.

Define "HIS point" more clearly for me.

But, I shall address each of the two very different ideas of what you might mean:
a) HIS point in the debate against you; or
--I think he made his position in the debate as clearly as he possibly could, to be honest. You made a single point against Hjallti, and he rejected it.
b) HIS suspicions
--Well, look, I sympathise with you here because everybody should pull their weight. Maybe this is just me, but one reason I post suspicions and detailed cases is because I like argument. I don't care if people don't match my contribution (within reason, of course), so long as there is a reasoned debate about the issue.

IF nobody is making ANY points, why would i, as 'potential scum', draw attention to myself by bringing up a dodgy case? IF I say nothing, it is likely that Mnowax or someone else gets lynched.

WIFOM argument. Beyond that, I've seen scum make stupid mistakes (I know I've had more than my fair share in past games ). You making 'an' argument is pretty much a nulltell. It's content which is meaningful.

As it is, you yourself have already started to push the wagon onto me, which is exactly what I predicted - in an absence of anyone else scum hunting, the person who scumhunts at all, weakly, winds up being the main target. I was aware of that before I even voted hjltill.

I'm not pushing a wagon against you. We are having dialogue. Would you prefer that the dialogue end?

I understand that you think my vote on Hjaltill makes him not at all more scummy.
However, I do'nt see where you have analyzed Amrlx at all in explaining what his reasoning is. His reasoning was that my post ewas insubstantial: Well, that's great, I'm glad you figured that out, considering that was basically the first line of his post.

Now show me where armlx stands, other than what I have pointed out: That he expects others to provide reasoning for him to follow without providing any of his own.

Has his words and/or actions suggested otherwise?

I'll reread armlx in my next post and come to a conclusion on this point.

Besides that, I reiterate that I don't like the undercurrent to what you are saying which, unless I am radically misinterpreting you, is basically saying "Nobody can criticise me unless they do as much individual case-forming of their own."

Vollkan seemed to defend armlx far past the point that I would see as conventional. I would have expected him to take at least one step back about halfway down Page 22 and realize that he was defending armlx (and attacking Skruffs) over practically nothing.

I didn't really see it as defense of armlx, so much as criticising the position that skruffs was putting forward. Obviously, the armlx thing was part and parcel of that, and became a major issue.

[vollkan]

My point is that someone who is criticizing another for 'not pulling their own weight', and is at the same time is relying on other people to form cases FOR THEM to review, is in fact criticizing OTHER players for not pulling THEIR OWN weight.

I think what you meant to say is that someone who is criticising other people for not pulling their weight whilst, simultaneously, relying on others for cases to review is not pulling their weight.

I agree. I don't see the relevance of that though. We have:
1) You making a dodgy case and not 'pulling your weight'
2) Armlx making scant contribution other than criticising your case's lack of 'weight'

Neither of those is a good thing, and neither justifies the other. Armlx not pulling his weight does not legitimise you rejecting his "demand for significant amounts of proof from other people".

You put entire paragraphs in armlx's mouth at times when he was fairly active. It's almost as if he intentionally withdrew and submitted to being your puppet. Why did you assume you had handle enough on armlx's posts that they could (or should) be used to refute Skruffs? Why did you never ask for his input?

Tbh, it didn't really strike me as problematic. Armlx's and Skruff's positions were both fairly clear to me. At the time, I was arguing against Skruff's apparent obstinance in respect of reasons.

[vollkan]

My point is that someone who is criticizing another for 'not pulling their own weight', and is at the same time is relying on other people to form cases FOR THEM to review, is in fact criticizing OTHER players for not pulling THEIR OWN weight.

I think what you meant to say is that someone who is criticising other people for not pulling their weight whilst, simultaneously, relying on others for cases to review is not pulling their weight.

I agree. I don't see the relevance of that though. We have:
1) You making a dodgy case and not 'pulling your weight'
2) Armlx making scant contribution other than criticising your case's lack of 'weight'

Neither of those is a good thing, and neither justifies the other. Armlx not pulling his weight does not legitimise you rejecting his "demand for significant amounts of proof from other people".

You got that wrong. I *never* have to legetimize a rejection of someone else's demand that I do ANYTHING for them. I have no obligation to do ANYTHING for armlx or anyone else who tells me to make cases for them to follow. What you should have said was that him not pulling his own weight does not justify me making dodgy cases, which would actually have applied, IF he had demanded I make a case before I made a dodgy one.

Now you are just playing semantics. Of course you don't

have

to obey any instruction - this is a game. You no more need to obey an instruction to post a case, or post a proper case, then you need to obey an instruction to only post in pig Latin. The point is, however, that making cases, arguing, and so forth is what drives this game.

Let me be blunt: I really dislike the fact that you would refer to the level of activity of somebody else as a means by which to bypass a criticism of your case.

At the most rudimentary summary of the events:

Umm, Hjallti replaced in pretty recently, the number of responses to his posts is going to be limited regardless of who it is. I also responded to his major post about there beign 2 vigs and what not, agreeing with the logic.

You also suggest I should auto know thats your only reason, which is pretty stray to vote off of. Maybe at the start of day one its worth a vote, but afterwards its merely one piece to add to a full case. I assumed you had more than just that.

Skruffs, I am unimpressed with the effort you are putting into this game. You really need to step up your reading and analysis before I consider anything you have said. I quite frankly ignored your posts yesterday as you were commenting on 7 page old content out of current context.

Amlx - you and the person he replaced also didn't discuss each other.

You quoted the thing from hjltill, didn't comment on it except to bring attention to it,a nd then questioned why someone else brought it up.

It really does not bother me if you are 'unimpressed' by me. I'm actually used to people using my 'lack of reason' as an excuse to ignore me - IF you want, I will compile a list of the percentage of people who say stuff like that and turn out ot be scum.

I am interested, not in your focus on only targeting cult-recruiters, but in your demand for significant amounts of proof from other people to explain why they are focusing on cult recruiters.

I'm kind of curious about your attitude - you seem to be rather lofty and comfortable in the position you are in. Why?

Also, you did talk about hjalltill in another post:

<snip>

I think it's interesting that you have no problem criticizing other people's attempts at pushing things, but you yourself admit that you have no leads. You criticize me, apparently, for suggestuing you should 'auto-know' my reasons for doing things, but YOUR attitude is that you do not have any intentions of investigating motivations and such, yourself. Which is why I am asking if you can be so comfortable in your place in the game as to be so critical of others and unhelpful yourself.

You don't explain the significance of the point you make against Hjallti. Instead, you go on a tirade against Armlx for criticising your activity level. It's patently evasive. The number of posts made by somebody is irrelevant to the question of whether or not your own case is substantial or not.

Really, the most you ought to have said would be:
"Hey, armlx. Post a scumdar."

Instead, your bring his lack of content in as a relevant factor. The clearest example of this to me was when you said:

I think that people, if they are going to criticize the 'quality' of other player's probings and cases, should at the very least offer their own in return.

The fact that you made a dodgy case is not, in and of itself, relevant here. The issue is with how you dealt with criticism of it.

To repeat myself,

Volkan: I can appriciate a good debate as well as anyone, trust me; but, um, any thoughts on who might be scum?

In fact,

vote:Volkan

. With a deadline, I'm starting to wonder if he's intentionally drawing out a pointless debate, repeating the same points over and over again, just to stall us out. I wouldn't mind if he was actually voting for Skruffs and/or making a case against Skruffs, but as it just feels like he's trying to look active for the sake of trying to look active but not really doing anything helpful.

I see two points here. 1) You can't see any point to the argument, therefore 2) it is most likely I am scum trying to lead people up a never-ending staircase.

2) is conjecture and unfalsifiable. It's your assumption as to my motive and I can say no more about it.

However, 2) is very much dependent on 1) being true. And I can address 1). Do I think Skruffs is scummy on the basis of our argument? Yes. I haven't voted for him simply because I am trying to see if I can understand where he is coming from. Suffice to say, that I do think Skruffs is scummy - primarily from the fact that he strikes out against Armlx's level of content in defence of his own, which expands through the argument we have been having.

[vollkan]

How does this:

Do I think Skruffs is scummy on the basis of our argument? Yes.

Have anything to do with this?

1) You can't see any point to the argument

Regardless of the reality or validity of your suspicions regarding Skruffs, the argument continues to get us nowhere. Your case against him is convoluted, relying on several twists of hearsay buried in a massive post-fest. I would venture that only about half the players in this game have the stamina to figure out exaclty what you're driving at, but I truly doubt that a single one would really go along with it. You're pushing a case just as bum as the one Skruffs started this with. There's no wagon, no lynch in its future, just another layer on the post-labryinth.

The first quote has everything to do with the second because there was a point to the argument. You've played with me before, NN; you know that I argue a lot in this game. And, for what it's worth, the argument has shown up pretty clearly that Skruffs is being completely recalcitrant and is trying damned hard to defend the undefendable. The argument itself is a source of information for me on skruffs and, I well imagine, for the rest of you on me.

I'm not too sure of what your point is when you say that the case is not going anywhere. I agree that, thus far, the case is far lynch-worthy. I don't see why that fact means that I should desist from engaging in dialogue with Skruffs on this point.

So, yeah. You think Skruffs is scummy? Could you try to explain why you think his actions make him likely scum? Also, with 10 days before deadline, if you think he's scummy and aren't suspicious of anyone else (or haven't voiced any suspicions on anyone else), why aren't you voting him? Do you have any other major suspects?

I find scummy the fact that the only thing he tried to present as a case was a truly feeble point. I also find scummy the fact that he then tried to invert that by turning it into a justification to fire off at Armlx for criticising his case. I also find scummy the fact that he has repeatedly now made a very poor defence of his position, despite remaining adamant.

Do I have other suspects? I always have a sort of mental ranking (ala my numbers), but I need to reread in order to ensure that it is not just delusion of gut.

[vollkan]

I will try not to rehash what I've said over and over again; obviously my poisiont in this argument is my own and I'm not going to bend to the will of other people.

I

really

cringe at this sort of thing. "But that's what I believe", "That's what I think", "I'm entitled to my opinion". And, in your case, "my position in this argument is my own". I don't know if there is a proper term for it, but it should be called an "appeal to subjectivity" or something along those lines. Instead of admitting that you are wrong, you couch it in personal terms which are irrefutable.

This is not a matter of "bending to the will of other people"; it is simply a matter of you being unable to admit errancy. I'm not going to reiterate my argument against your position, because it's patently clear that you are being obstinate.

They were defending Hjltill and had no obvious (to me) reason to be doing so.

Anything I said, I said because I took issue with what you said. Tell me if that is not a good reason.

Vollkan -
I just noticed you haven't voted, yet, at all this game. Is there a specific reason for that?

I just checked my posts, and you're right. I don't have any reason for this.

I don't care if you "engange in dialogue" with him or not. But if you think he's scummy, you need to be voting for him. If you're not sure, you need to be voting for someone else while you keep attacking him.

I just want to work out where you are coming from here: Why do I "need" to be voting anybody at this point in time?

Could you explain why you think a scum would be more likely to do any or all of that then a townie would?

Well, to begin with, my opinion of skruffs the player is that he is competent and not a VI/newbie. If I am wrong at this point, do let me know. From that,
1) The Hjallti attack - He initially gives no reasons for the vote upon Hjallti. He then only backs this up by picking on what looks to be a "slip". What I find scummy is the way he views this slip as sufficient justification for a vote insofar as he doesn't give any indication as to why that alleged slip somehow outweighs anything else he read (remember, he had multiple claims of suspicions in his reread) and, moreover, he pays no heed to whether or not the slip is actually a slip at all. Maybe you have a different opinion on this, but my impression is that Skruffs would be a tad more nuanced if he were town - and actually give some explanation, either with the initial vote/justification or subsequently, as to why he thinks it to be a scum slip as opposed to just language difficulties.

He dismissed this after Hjallti responded by simply saying: "No, I don' think you mis-wrote it at all; I think you were thinking in the back of your head that he was a vying cult recruiter." This is a very slippery sort of response and, again, an appeal to subjectivity - "I don't think". Does he consider the possibility that Hja might be telling the truth (which might possibly be indicated by the fact that Hjallti is from Belgium)? No.

2) On armlx - When challenged on the above, he simply lashes out with an evasive response. He raises the thing about non-contributors not having the right to criticise others (which, I have submitted already, is rubbish) and also says that armlx seems "relaxed and comfortable" - which is pretty much just mud-slinging-esque insinuation. I find this scummy because I think that somebody who sincerely thought that they had a legitimate argument would defend it (ie. "Hjallti is scummy because...") rather than attempting to wriggle out of it.

3) On the argument - Similar to the above. He's avoiding admitting that he is wrong, despite his position being ridiculous. Wriggling out of it rather than either proving me wrong, or admitting defeat. His concern here seems to be solely self-preservation, rather than doing the best job at scum-hunting.

Could he be town? Yes. Do I think it likely? Progressively less and less so.

[vollkan]

I find vollkan scummiest ATM because of his whole "Skruffs is scummy, but I'm not voting him yet thing" which is really stray to me.

Which is scummy because...?

[vollkan]

Well, there's, what, 8 or so days left before deadline, and basically no one is voting right now. That's bad. In order to really get the most info out of today, ideally we want to be able to first get everyone to commit to a vote on who they think is the scummiest person, then to have everyone come together and form a bandwagon on someone many of us agree on, while still having enough time left to completly disband that wagon and put another one together if that person has a good role-claim or a strong defense or whatever. The longer everyone goes without voting, the less info we get today, the less likely we are to make a really informed lynch today, the less likely it is we'll have time to have everyone comment on the bandwagon before lynch, the more likely we screw up and no-lynch, ect. Basically, not voting right now is bad.

Good. I figured you had such an explanation, but being told I "need" to do something without anything else puts me on alert.

Skruffs is a competent player, he's not a VI or a newbie, and he's a reasonably good scumhunter. That being said, and no offense intended to Skruffs, this kind of logical argument and game stratagy discussion dosn't seem to be his strong suit. If you want an example, take a look at the whole "don't fish for power roles" discussion in Open 14, http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtop ... highlight=. Granted I was scum that game, but Skruffs was town, and I think you'll get a good idea of what my meta on him is from day 1 of that game.

Hmm...Thanks for raising this. There's definitely the same sort of attitude of personal infallibility being shown. That's obviously very important and I will need to factor it in.

Eh. It's a weak reason to vote someone, and I personally think Hjallti's town. It's not a totally illogical one, though, and I'd rather see someone voting for some kind of reason then not vote for anyone at all.

Well, any reason is good, because otherwise things cannot progress, but I don't think that really serves to mitigate the crumminess of bad reasons.

Yeah, he should have dropped the argument a long time ago. Again, though, I don't think that's actually a sign of scumminess; it dosn't even look like he's attempting "self-preservation" here, since his constant defending of that weak point is more likely to get him lynched then anything else.

Well, the effect is not one of self-preservation, but his focus is evidently upon not accepting any errancy. That said, the reference you sent me really affects the scumminess of this - since it may well just be obstinate-Skruffs than Skruffs-scum trying to push a poor argument to protect himself.

Vollkan has not voted or posted a list of suspects yet, the two things I wanted from him.

Vote Vollkan

Usually, when I make a scumdar, I do a full review, etc. but I don't have the time to make something like that right now. I can post a list, with some justification, but you need to appreciate that this is not based on a full reread.

armlx

- His opinions are unclear, and the only reason he seems to have given for his attacks against me is absence of vote/list of suspicions.

55

curiouskarmadog

- I can't comment on CKD with any definitiveness, but I haven't seen anything that has actually set off my suspicions seriously from him. Doesn't seem to be engaging other players very much, which somewhat indicates he may be avoiding debate.

55

Skruffs (Replacing Greggo)

- Was my main suspect, but Yos's meta reference has thrown a spanner into that to a large degree. I'll read further on once I finish this post, since I can see that skruffs has posted, but for now

65

mnowax

- His play has been absolutely insane to the point of ridiculousness. He has claimed, though, so he is not a lynching candidate. He may well be a CR, obviously.

aioqwe (Replacing malthusis)

- Mal leaped onto blaze for suspicion of him being SK, but I think that is probably more due to newbiness than anything. Kiwi has not posted enough for me to get a substantial indication.

50

springlullaby II (Replacing Hjallti (Replacing mypenguinkat))

- I really don't think the "slip" was scummy at all, since Hjallti is not a native English speaker. Anybody that suspects him for that slip has to explain why they think the language barrier is somehow irrelevant. A lot of his content seems to be just setup discusison

50

Beep! Beep! (Replacing Occult)

- I really did not like Occult's "who knows we may hit cult leader", and the implicit support of CR lynching which followed, though it may just be Skruffs-esque eccentricity. Does anybody have a definite meta on Occult?

65

SlySly (Replacing Quinton. (Replacing stark))

No read

50%

the silent speaker

- I pointed out a number of things about TSS that I did not like in my initial analysis. He did make a good argument against Occult, however.

60

Yosarian2

- He's making sense and hasn't set off my scumdar yet. I'm hesitant to label anybody pro-town, but he is the most pro-town to me at this point in time, so I will splurge and go

45

NabakovNabakov (Replacing ZaneWasHere)

Nothing has set me off thus far, but NN is someone I don't think I have a clear opinion of.

50[/b[

[vollkan]

Your biggest criticism of me seems to be that I am not posting a case, when in fact, the 'case' I posted, which you immediately scorned, has generated a GOOD bit of discussion with at least half the players in the game involved.

This is garbage. The fact that people attack your behaviour doesn't in any way justify it.

Reductio ad absurdum - "It's not scummy because it generates discussion"

You think I am obstinant and that I "defend the undefendable" - I really don't think that voting Hjltilll for saying "this guy is not town and he's not part of my faction" was an UNDEFENDABLE vote.

When the guy has "Belgium" under his name, and then explains his language difficulties, then I can't see how it could be anything else.

Question: I am at 3 votes now. If I reach 4, how far before deadline do you want me to claim?

[vollkan]

Mno attempts to recruit Yos, it fails meaning Yos dying is a good thing for him and he tries to press a Yos lynch on poor reasoning.

Maybe I am missing something, but why is it rational for recruiter-mno to push an insane lynch against Yos?

I mean, aside from the RB issue, I don't see the rationale for mno-recruiter to do something like that. Moreover, I give mno more credit than to think he'd really be that careless as a CR.

[vollkan]

vote skruffs

Eagerness to claim = very town

unvote, vote: vollkan

Explanations? Justifications? Thoughts? Unexplained votes are bad, no matter how impending the deadline is.

Pursuant to my scumdar, my vote goes to Skruffs. Beep! is second-ranked candidate.

Unvote, Vote: Skruffs

[vollkan]

Funny that you are asking her for explanations for saying that, but you provide NO EXPLANATIONS or reasons for your own vote.

HER post isn't directly trying to get someone lynched. YOURS is. Who's should more likely be packed with reasons?

Thought so.

Skruffs, I've explained ad nauseum why I suspect you. Would you like me to quote my previous posts?

And I don't get how you draw the distinction between her vote and mine. What makes hers not seeking a lynch?

[vollkan]

Skruffs has to be town. He's attacking you for attacking someone attacking him.

Huh? You're being ironic here, right? If not, I really don't understand where you are coming from.

Yos:
But you didn't post a significant case against CKD, which means your vote is effectively a throwaway vote: Nobody is going to follow it. Unless CKD responds (and he probably won't or he would have put more in the post in which he voted me) nobody is going to pay any attention to it until tomorrow, after someone has been lynched. Do you think Vollkan is more likely town than I am? If so, then your vote is justified. If not, then you should be voting me.

*I* would vote for CKD, and was even tempted to, but unvoting someone who has more votes than me is effectively making the votes on me stronger. And I know you know this because you got an award for exactly the kind of stuff I am asking you why you are doing.

1) You criticise yos for not posting a significant case.
2) You admit that you yourself feel inclined to vote CKD

There's some incongruence in the fact that you would expect another player (Yos) to effectively push a wagon on CKD whilst you yourself are seemingly comfortable to abstain. If you genuinely think CKD to be scum, the most rational thing for you to do would be to push a case yourself. Sure, self-preservation justifies not moving your own vote, but I don't see how it justifies you not pushing a case against the person whom you claim to be inclined to vote for.

unvote, vote slysly...Mno is not the lynch today..again, at best he could be a recruit..you never answered my question sly sly, and I know you saw it..do you think that there is Vig, if Mno isnt?

This close to deadline and you are voting because someone missed/avoided a question?

I disagree; the concept of multiple roles had already been introduced yesterday, so a *smart* vig may have thought that it was possible that there were multiple vigs.

See how my theory encompasses said issue. Its really convenient to have everything fit together so well.

Well, yeah, except..it dosn't make much sense or seem especally likely. But other then that it's a good theory...

It seems less unlikely that there would be two vigs, but if you were a vig and another player claimed vig, I think there is a good case for not killing them. It all depends on how the role distribution is calculated.

[vollkan]

It is now Day 3, 10 alive means 11 to lynch.

10 alive...11 to lynch

Hmm, that makes things easy. I <3 counterclaims.

Unvote, Vote CKD

Point me to the counterclaim that you <3 so much.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: The quote above is by armlx...not CKD

[vollkan]

That was seriously bad claiming. GG.

vote: CKD

This. I see no reason to call a mason claim "bad claiming" unless you yourself are a mason or lying scum.

Vote aioqwe

as per above.

Or unless you are in..I don't know...a game with cults?

That said, I don't see why it was assumed that CKD was non-steadfast.

[vollkan]

Great, now the cultists can infiltrate the mason society, if that's what he is.

In my read through I just keyed in on that and didn't think about steadfasts. My bad.

Okay. Assuming that you did "key in" on the possibility that CKD may be recruited, can you explain why it was pro-town to push a claimed-mason lynch?

[vollkan]

armlx's blind acceptance of aio's statement as a counter-claim is bizzare, but I don't really see what scum motivation he could have had for making such an odd assertion with little benefit to be had (CKD was likely going to be lynched regardless of where armlx's vote was and why).

But the assertion does provide a good out. It's one thing for scum to find a good reason to vote somebody; it's much better for scum if they can find a way to blame their vote on somebody else (ie. "I thought aio was counter-claiming. Bad aio for being so misleading!").

We'll find out.

vote: aioqwe

I'm curious as to why you would vote somebody on them apparently claiming recruit. Sure, they might well be recruiter, but that's not really a good enough reason. It's been discussed ad nauseum why Recruiter lynch >>>>>>>>>> Recruit lynch, so surely a recruit claim doesn't automatically merit a kneejerk vote?

[vollkan]

I'm curious as to why you would vote somebody on them apparently claiming recruit. Sure, they might well be recruiter, but that's not really a good enough reason. It's been discussed ad nauseum why Recruiter lynch >>>>>>>>>> Recruit lynch, so surely a recruit claim doesn't automatically merit a kneejerk vote?

\

I tend to think that a recruiter is at least as likely to claim recruit as a recruit would be. Besides, if someone claims recruit, then we know that they've pretty much got to be some kind of scum but we don't know what kind, which automatically makes them a pretty good lynch at least.

Well, a recruit lynch is obviously vastly superior than a town lynch, but it also is not as good as a recruiter lynch by far. The point I was making was that voting recruit-claims on a kneejerk is not a good policy since, necessarily, the opportunity cost may be not lynching a recruiter. Nuanced judgment of the claim is needed, rather than simply reacting with a vote - as Beep did.

Wow. Yos's last post was incredibly insightful. Bravo, Yos.
Unvote, Vote: Aioqwe

Yos's post was very much correct, but I don't see how it justifies this vote by you.

[vollkan]

Oh. Were only other players allowed to read Yos's post? Or are you saying that I'm not supposed to be voting right now?

Aioqwe has as much sa claimed recruit. Yos explained why someone claiming recruit is most likely NOT a recruit, which means they are more likely a cult recruiter or an SK.

You agree with his post but you don't agree with putting his post into action?

IGMEOY Vollkan

I think that's two eyes on you now.

Er...no. Maybe you could explain this in more detail. My understanding of Yos's post was as follows:
"Anybody that claims recruit is scum. Thus, they are more likely than any player taken at random to be cult leader. Since they are scum anyway, that makes them a fairly good lynch"

I agree with that.

What I do

not

agree with is seeing a recruit claim as justification for slapping a vote down.

So, let me ask you, what makes you think that aio is a recruit

er

as opposed to a recruit (why isn't the word 'recruitee' by the way? I mean, we have "employer" and "employee", not "employer" and "employ". Answer THAT as well skruffs!)?

[vollkan]

I'm sorry.

Did you really just say that claiming scum is not enough of a reason to vote someone?

You did.

How about this:

If you really think that Yosarian2's statement is fairly accurate BUT that it shouldn't be held applicable to Vollkan, why don't you go ahead and point out who you think the recruiter IS?

*headdesk*

Let me step you through this slooowwlly.

Objective is to lynch recruiters. That means that our goal is not 'to lynch scum'; our goal is to lynch recruiters. Roll that around in your head for a few seconds and appreciate how the two are different.

...

Good. Now, just because somebody claims 'recruit' does not justify voting them. Sure, a recruit claim makes it more likely (I think...probability is not my strong point) that they are a recruiter than any random player (since they confirm themself as scum) but, remember, that the goal is to lynch recruiters. Thus, whilst a recruit claim might well be a positive factor, it is not decisive.

Thus, as I have said repeatedly, a claim does not justify a kneejerk vote.

To play DA with myself, the other issue is the inherent difficulty in separating "cult leaderish" play from "miscellaneous scum" play. The assumption that they are necessarily different has some theoretical merit, but I am wondering how practical a distinction it really is.

That doesn't justify "knee-jerking", but I think it is important to keep in mind that there is not some silver-bullet alternative.

As for who I suspect most of being CL, my current #1 is yourself Skruffs. I see aio as a reasonable lynch, but I think I need to reread her closely.

[vollkan]

Oh wow. Two headdesks in a row, and to different people.

Ahem....

*

HEADDESK

*

I don't know where to begin with this vote, but let me rattle off the problems that come to mind:
1) You are deterring against activity. That's anti-town at best and scummy-as-hell at worst.
2) You've failed to actually prove your assumption that "activity = recruiter" (which, incidentally, goes against the arguments that have been reigning in this thread for some time). Thus, your vote has no established logical basis.
3) You've completely ignored the fact that activity levels are inherently individual and applying any common sort of "Active = Recruiter" is completely unreliable.
4) "You've heard enough"? Those are mighty strong words to be throwing around, especially for such a baseless vote. (Then again, tough rhetoric is quite clearly all you have to go on .)
5) By virtue of 2), your argument can actually be feasibly applied to any alignment. As I've already indicated in 1), activity is pro-town. Thus, by your own logic (if were valid, which it most definitely isn't), I can tenably argue that, by virtue of the mere fact that I have been 'invested' in this game, ergo I must be therefore be town.

[vollkan]

Looks like I caught a live one.

confirm vote: vollkan

Yes, because digging your feet in is the appropriate response when your argument is shot down in flames.

Vollkan, cult recruitors... are scum. I know you can't POSSIBLY be saying that they aren't... but you appear to be trying to differentiate between scum, and cult recruitors.

You know perfectly well what I mean. CLs and CRs are both scum, but the point is that lynching a CL is the superior option.

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All CLs are scum, but not all scum are CLs.

So you are basically defending the idea (That Yosarian2 posited) that "recruit" is a safe claim. You yourself are saying that recruits should not be l ynched - so what else would a cult recruitor claim?

You are literally saying that a person claiming recruit shouldn't be lynched because, even though a recruitor is more likely to claim recruit than any random player, that it isn't enough to base a decision on.

Amazing!

That's exactly what I am saying.

I like the fact that whilst you put on a snide tone and deride my position, you don't actually explain how I am wrong to say that kneejerk voting recruit claims is bad.

Oh. of course not. I completely understand why you would be suspicious of a person who is voting someone who claimed scum in a game. You do realize that you are defending claimed scum, which means that it is even more likely that YOU are in his cult, regardless of if he is recruit or recruitor? I can't imagine a cult recruitor would be defending a recruit like you are, but I *can* see it the other way around.

I'm not defending claimed scum. I'm questioning the sense of voting the claimed scum without making an effort to explain why she is the best lynch. I find that accusations of 'defending' are among the most stupid sort to make. If somebody votes a claimed scum for what I see as a poor reason, why is it wrong of me to point it out?

So it's really hard to figure out who the cult leaders are. But there is one way that is more likely to tell if someone is a cult leader or not (claiming recruit), but we shouldn't listen to it because it's not decisive enough? That's what you are saying? That we can't figure out who the cult recruiters are, and we shouldn't even pressure those most likely to be cult recruitors?

That is not what I said. Don't strawman.

My point was that, even if there is little that is solidly "CLish" as opposed to just "scummy" generally, a claim doesn't immediately justify a vote in and of itself.

And I have no clue where you got that I said that CRs should not be pressured. I've already been clear that they might well be CLs, so of course they should be scrutinised.

Can you explain how my actions lead you to think that *I* am a cult leader? IF you are going to say it, you MUST have a reason, and if you have a reason, I can compare what you say about me, versus Ai, and then point out how you are intentionally trying to deflect attention away from her.

It's no secret that I've had problems with your play for some time now. But what makes that likely CLish to me?

This is exactly my point from before - there isn't practically anything that, universally, can be construed as distinctly CLish as opposed to scummy. Frankly, I think that after it's been harped on that "CLs will be quieter" then it is basically just WIFOM to follow that line of thinking (or any similar sort of generalisation).

I'm not trying to deflect away from aio. I just don't see how auto-lynching claimed recruits is actually productive. I don't think I need to point out, that such a policy could very well suit the cult just fine.

[vollkan]

"This guy claimed recruit. I agree that someone claimed recruit is more likely to be a recruiter than another form. I can't think of any other ways to determine if someone is likely to be a cult recruiter. I stringently oppose you pressuring that player, even though they are the most likely player in the game to be cult leader and I Can offer no other ways to determine if someone is cult!

I can't remember how many times we've been over this again and again now, but you have just misrepresented me.

All I have opposed, from the beginning of this, is snap-lynching recruit claims. I don't see how you can find that even remotely controversial. I've admitted fully that they are more likely to be CL than any player at random. I've admitted that they are probably good lynches by and large. All I have argued against is voting purely because somebody claims.

At one end, there is the potential for recruit claims to be used strategically (by CRs, not CLs obviously) and, at the other end of the spectrum, there is the risk of mere opportunity cost - not going after a heavily suspected CL and, instead, taking the safe claimed option. I'm not saying that lynching the claimer is bad, or wrong, or anything. I am just advocating what I thought would have been the obvious thing which is just not to approach this with tunnel-vision.

I can understand why you are so worried abou kneejerk voting. After all, the last time you voted was a reasonless bandwagon hop onto my wagon, May 17th. Perhaps you ahven't heard o f the concept of "Pressure Voting", but it's a tactic wherein players vote a suspicious player to A) get reactions from them and B) get reactions from other players.

I've been quite clear throughout my posts about what I don't like about you. If you've forgotten, view my posts in isolation and search "Skr".

As for pressure voting, bear in mind that I am not a player who likes to move my vote around. Unless the game is dying, I don't trust pressure voting as a good means of garnering information. My reason for this (and this is really a MD discussion for later, so please don't backchat to me) is that I do not like game plays that are equally amenable to town and scum. Making a strong, logical argument as scum is much more difficult than relying on pressure and conjecture. Hence, my opposition to hunches, and gut and so forth.

I'm not defending claimed scum. I'm questioning the sense of voting the claimed scum without making an effort to explain why she is the best lynch. I find that accusations of 'defending' are among the most stupid sort to make. If somebody votes a claimed scum for what I see as a poor reason, why is it wrong of me to point it out?

This doesn't work, though. You agree that they claimed scum. You agree that the reasoning on her is sound (Recruitors would claim recruit), and you can't think of any other way to determine wether she is scum or not. You basically are saying you just don't want any attention on her, even though she claimed scum.

For starters, nice strawman, but I might suggest a bit more subtlety. I say that I don't want snap voting - and you attack me for not wanting "any attention" on the claimers. Bravo.

I've explained my position above.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out 'poor reasoning' for voting someone, bu in this case, you have outright said that you AGREE with the reasoning. However despite that you are questioning the peopple voting her (more than one) And directing no questions towards her, yourself.

Wonder why not?

Ah! Now we get to conspiracy arguments. The fact that I am questioning you and not her indicates some sinister design on my own part, does it? Equally, it's fascinating that you are spending all this time focussed on me whilst (eeny meeny miney mo) ignoring Yosarian2. See what I did thar?

I'm questioning and arguing with you because I had a problem with your play. I don't have anything I want to ask aio at this point in time. It's as simple as that.

This is what you say, but not what you do. FOcussing on other players and ignoring the scum. Tsk. You're a defense attorney, aren't you? How is aio paying you?

Skruffs, I think that focussing on you and focussing on the scum are very much one and the same.

I just really don't like the whole "I am not going ot analyze or offer input of my own but I'm going to criticize you for yours because I think it's flawed!" line of thinking you have. Something abou it is very wrong.

Nice. "Something" is wrong, but you aren't going to say what. Gut-fluff, in other words.

You are missing the fact that I am putting my reasoning out in the open through this argument. It can't be said that I haven't been clear in who I suspect (you).

Um guys, I think there's something getting lost here.

When aio posted something along the lines of "well, if it looked like I was a recruit, it would be silly to lynch me." I decided to amp that up and accused him of softclaiming. In (serious) posts since then, he has stridently denied this.

So first we have to decide if aio actually is cult who got spooked by insta-pressure or townie who got caught theorizing. One thing is certain, he's not standing up there and saying "I'm a recruit, don't lynch me" (which is what some people are basically boiling it down to)

Good point. I'd like to know if skruffs thinks that such a claim actually merits insta-votes.

im killing skruffs, unless there is a problem with anyone other than skruffs saying there is a problem with it.

Fire away. Unless we lynch him first.