TV Mafia Game Over - Scum Win

[vollkan]

Hello all. I will read up as soon as possible/

[vollkan]

First off, to get my standard "How I Play" PSA out of the way: I rank my suspects from 0 (absolutely town) - 100 (absolutely scum). Everybody starts at 50. Because I

don't

believe in towntells and am skeptical about most scumtells, it is common for people to stay at 50. 50 does not mean "no opinion" - it means "I don't see scumtells" from this person. Absent claims, need for deadline compromises, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score.

16:

Vezok+5

for supporting a mass name-claim. Vezok is notorious Village Idiot, so Iam comfortable ascribing his support of a MC to opportunism rather than any thought-out strategy
17:

Vifam+5

for same reason, though this time it is the passive nature of the support ("no reason not too, but I'd hold up on it")
66:

Rodion+7

for trying to escalate the obv-early Vezok wagon to a fullclaim
96: Expand that with a further

Rodion+3

for a very weak defence of his original position (because he presents the fullclaim as if it is a point for consideration before a lynch, rather than an escalation of the situation)
114:

Pinky+5

for a weak boilerplate attack on my precedessor. Presenting as "fencesitting" the fact that my predecessor had a conflicting meta view on vezok not only has no bearing on this game, but is a misrep of her initiial statement
115:

Vifam+3

for sheeping 114
141:

Leon+7

for voting my predecessor based on a "defence" of vezok, when all she'd offered was a meta position. You can't "defend" somebody who isn't under attack - so this just screams of being a weak effort to join an existing wagon.

[vollkan]

*to be continued, obviously

[vollkan]

148:

3isfrench+5

for attacking Vifam based on the number of suspects, which is a weak argument even in mini games, let alone when it is only 5 people in a large
159:

Vifam+7

for a "hey look over there" defence on the sheeping issue, which also involves a tacit admission that her own conduct was scummy
174:

DX+5

for egregious fence-sitting on Jily. (though, I don't think the attitude on Vifam is fence-sitting, since he makes his opinion clear)
239:

killer+5

for this accusation against Leonshade. Leon makes a perfectly reasonable post explaining why he isn't going to join the vifam wagon, and killer spins it as "distancing from the wagon". Of course, in a counterfactual, I have no difficulty believing that he would also have attacked Leon if Leon joined and escalated the wagon
267: @MOI: I'm confused here.The post Killer quoted had Leon agreeing with the VIfam wagon but not moving because it was too large (in fact, Killer himself made the vibes claim in favour of Vifam in 177)
285:

silverdrummer+5

for a very weak and game-irrelevant reason for voting Vifam. He openly admits that Vifam seems newbish, but then undermines this on the basis that if Vifam thinks he is experienced enough to have an alt, he can't be a newb. Needless to say, ANYBODY can make an alt; newbs have no reason to, but it doesn't mean that a person who has an alt is not a newb
289:

Leon+7

Pinky makes a very good case on Leon here. I don't agree with (A) on the distancing (see above), but the inconsistency point is valid

I join. From now on, I will play with fullquotes rather than review-style

---

This would be a contradiction if me thinking that Vifam has enough votes was a viewpoint that existed in a vacuum, but it did not. I don't think that there's a limit to the number of votes any given player should have, I just felt that Vifam, at that moment, had enough votes. I later found him scummier, thus meriting more votes.

So basically this comes down to a subjective judgment about how many votes is appropriate? What changed to make you think more votes was appropriate?

I think you had to run prematurely (post to be continued?), but these are your top 2 at the moment. I'll wait for the rest of your readings, but do know I expect a vote from you on your top scumspect.

Yeah, that's the way my system works.

I'm town tracker, nice BW putting tracker at L-2 derp.

I won't be voting Junpei today, absent CC

---

Player	Score
Meransiel	50
vezokpiraka	55
MagnaofIllusion	50
PeregrineV	50
Pappums Leather Jacket	50
Zinger2099	50
chkballin	50
marco1610	50
Pvt Slate	50
Nero Cain	50
David Xanatos	55
easjo682	50
Pinky and the Brain	55
ZeL1nK	50
andrew94	50
izakthegoomba	50
Pine	50
Chevre	50
ThAdmiral	50
Vifam Junpei	65
Rodion	60
Leonshade	64
ThreeIsFrench	55
killerjester	55
Oversoul	50
silverbullet999	55

Vote: Leonshade

[vollkan]

I don't really care if he's usually inactive, I want him to be active this game. Creating a meta of being inactive d1 is stupid, and is a habit that needs to be kicked. If you are town then stop using your meta as an excuse to be lazy and help out.

I do that only in larges. Too much of a headache. Pretend there are 26 players for a day, it's not going to hurt you that much.

I agree with this. Lurkers are frustrating, but hunting them just wastes time - especially when the lurker is 1/27 rather than 1/13

[vollkan]

@Meransiel: What is the benefit in you not posting D1?

[vollkan]

@Silver: Why is Pine scum in this game?

I'm less bored.

No, I was talking about me. Yes, I am doing something that would benefit me were I scum.

There's only one way of dealing with this sort of player.

ULTIMATUM:

Your responsibility in this game is to advance your win condition. No matter what your alignment is, you must see that being lynched inherently goes against that. Thus, my ultimatum to you is that unless you post a list of your top 5 suspects, with reasons, in your next post, the rest of us will lynch you.

[vollkan]

Nah, I'd rather you guys lynch me. I don't see how that would help you, but whatever.

Okay, that failed.

Lest my attempt to induce a behavioural change by threat confuses anybody, lynching him is a bad idea (it would basically just be a policy lynch). However, he should be vig-meat.

@Silver: you still haven't explained why Pine is scum. Your "case" on him seems to just basically be that he is a lurker

[vollkan]

unvote
vote zinger

I know both zinger and meransiel post on day 1 and make cases.

Right now neither of them does that and just says they are bored. Something is afoot. I believe meran because even if he posts he doesn't post that much on day 1 , but zinger does.

You just contradicted yourself.

First you said meransiel does "post on day 1 and make cases". Then you say "even if he posts he doesn't post that much on day 1"

[vollkan]

Dear God. Do people want to give more input than, "KJ is being silly, he should just believe Leon is town like the rest of us."?

killer, I personally don't care whether you agree with my read, but your case on Leon is stretching.

- Scum fabricate excuses to claim that they find someone suspicious.
- Scum uses manipulation and deceit to achieve their nefarious ends.
- Scum try to look suspicious of someone that is in no danger of being lynched so they are uninvolved with the lynch of a townie.
- Scum need to look like they are trying to catch scum.

Like yeah, these are valid points in general, but trying to apply them to Leon is stretching.

The main reason I think he's probably town is mostly to do with nuances in his posts that give me town vibes. He's also done nothing that really stands out and makes me think he's scum, so bonus points there, considering how many people are begging to be lynched right now.

I made my reasons for suspecting Leon fairly clear -I don't see how you could seriously think that town "vibes" (a word which really discredits you right there) can overcome that

@ volkan: I know you've addressed this before in another game but how does your number system deal with lurkers? They wouldn't get points as they aren't saying anything.

Short answer: It doesn't.

Longer answer: I don't think lurking is a scumtell, so it isn't really a problem. In practice, of course, in an endgame or near-endgame scenario when the uncertainty around lurkers had become a serious and immediately pressing issue, I'd weigh up that uncertainty against scumminess. For example: somebody who had lurked all game probably would not get voted over somebody at 70+, but might well be voted over somebody at 55-60. I admit that I have no clear rules on this point, because, despite being an obvious theoretical problem, it rarely arises in practice, and it isn't the sort of thing that really can be dealt with mechanistically.

@Silver: you still haven't explained why Pine is scum. Your "case" on him seems to just basically be that he is a lurker

*stares at vollkan angrily*
*again expresses general disdain towards Pine*
*suggests you move your vote to Pine*

*farts in your general direction*

unvote
vote zinger

I know both zinger and meransiel post on day 1 and make cases.

Right now neither of them does that and just says they are bored. Something is afoot. I believe meran because even if he posts he doesn't post that much on day 1 , but zinger does.

You just contradicted yourself.

First you said meransiel does "post on day 1 and make cases". Then you say "even if he posts he doesn't post that much on day 1"

I have no idea what I meant to say there.

In the case of somebody as "special" (but for mod rule 2, I would have used

a different adjective

several different adjectives ) as you, I'd normally buy this.

However, if you didn't mean that, then your post simply doesn't make sense. You anchor yourself to choosing either zinger or meran (problematic in and of itself) because, you say, they both post cases on D1. But then, you choose zinger over meran precisely because, you say, meran

doesn't

post much on D1.

Chevre's wall post strikes me as the kind of wall post a lurker scum would make after her scumbuddies prodded her and said "hey, you're lurking too much!"

Obvious question - How do you think it differs from the kind of post a lurker-town would make?

I considered his stalling scummy enough to raise the bar.

Do you have any meta evidence for you taking into account wagon size as being somehow proportionate to your suspicion? It's an unusual way to play

Cognitive dissonance from joking about jesters and then calling people stupid for talking about jesters. Probably caused by me (correctly) calling out his intent behind his first post (see I).

What's "I"?

[vollkan]

unvote
vote zinger

I know both zinger and meransiel post on day 1 and make cases.

Right now neither of them does that and just says they are bored. Something is afoot. I believe meran because even if he posts he doesn't post that much on day 1 , but zinger does.

You just contradicted yourself.

First you said meransiel does "post on day 1 and make cases". Then you say "even if he posts he doesn't post that much on day 1"

I have no idea what I meant to say there.

In the case of somebody as "special" (but for mod rule 2, I would have used

a different adjective

several different adjectives ) as you, I'd normally buy this.

However, if you didn't mean that, then your post simply doesn't make sense. You anchor yourself to choosing either zinger or meran (problematic in and of itself) because, you say, they both post cases on D1. But then, you choose zinger over meran precisely because, you say, meran

doesn't

post much on D1.

I think I remember what the fuck I wanted to say.

Well I think both meran and zinger aren't doing anything, but I saw meran do nothing before, but sometimes he does stuff. On the other hand this is the first time zinger doesn't do a thing.

So you were lying when you said that you "know" that Meransiel "posts on D1 and makes cases"?

I (as in 'myself') numbered (as in 'I, II, II...') the different parts of my case. I'm referring to Part I.

I can't find it...which post #?

[vollkan]

I think he means #289.. he called it A, B, C etc though..

Since A was about Leon, I assume he meant:

I don't like this post. It feels like a "HEY LOOK AT ME I'M UNINFORMED MAJORITY LOOK AT ME ASK ABOUT JESTERS"-post.

The above argument is just weak. Jester speculation is ALWAYS dumb but rarely is it scummy - for it to be a scumtell, you have to do the sort of WIFOM acrobatics that Pinky is doing where you suppose that the person is scum deliberately acting dumb to appear town.

Thanks vezok, I owe you one.

Vote: Zinger

...somebody just sheeped vezok....

Words escape me

Also you guys do know that I am more active than 40% the playerlist, right?

You are also more of an obnoxious dick than 26/27 of the playlist.

[vollkan]

13) vollkan - Jilynne has been scummy and then calls me dumb for believing a vig claim. Avoiding the posts about her fencesitting. Vollkan comes in with weird as shit scumhunting. I don't understand it but I am going to assume he suspects Vezok and Vifam from that post? I like his comment about Leonshade, though. I don't really find Leonshade scummy, but from Vollkan's point of view I can see it.

I use numerical points rather than adjectives (eg. "+5" rather than "very scummy"). This just makes it clearer WHY a particular person is my main suspect (both because the relative strength of the tells is numerically made clear, and because each thing that I consider a scumtell will have points specifically associated with it)

Thus, if you look at the score chart at the end of post 343, you see that Junpei has the most points. This would normally mean he gets my vote but, given his claim, my vote goes to the second-highest: Leon.

Alright, alright, if it is a fullclaim you all want...

I am a Self-Aligned Jailkeeper. Each night I can target someone and jail them. They are both roleblocked and protected that night. I can only do this to each player once.

If I target a specific player, they are instead permanently roleblocked and I am removed from the game with a win.

If that player dies before I get a chance to do this I can no longer win (but remain in the game until it ends or I die).

The flavor is such that I have a deal with the local jail warden (he owes me a favor). He locks up people I chose so I can go into their homes and rob them while they aren't home. A certain someone has something in their home which will be extremely valuable and allows me to give up my life of crime and live the big life.

I did some research, and neutral JK has been used before (Mafia 1059), though it didn't seem to have the lyncher mechanic that zinger is claiming.

That said, the claim sounds BS.

First, the odds of this role working winning (this is a large game; Mafia 1059 was small and just had a survival requirement, not a lyncher requirement) are ridiculously small.

Second, his role is clearly a threat to one faction. Sheer numbers suggests that it is more likely to be town than scum

I say we lynch him, unless he gives us more information about his role.

[vollkan]

Hmm, damn, maybe you're right. I'll go ISO Leon.

Was this addressed to me?

[vollkan]

unvote

vote: junpei

And the tracker claim?

I am a jailkeeper. Which means I also protect my targets, but I guess that's not something worth considering for you guys.

Your motive is not to protect, though. Your motive is to target a specific player.

And that's assuming you are telling the whole truth about your role

I've noticed the majority of players on this website are overconfident and arrogant and rude. I much prefer the other website I play on. The playerbase here sucks.

But alas, you do have a higher activity rate here. It's a shame really.

By the way, I've been lying to you all. I'm actually the town doctor.

Except I'm not, that was a lie. Or was it?

Your mom said hi.

BS. Town doc does not claim third-party JK.

If anything, this is only makes me think it more reasonable to lynch you, since if you are willing to lie we clearly can't trust you. (Also, I think it's arguable that if you are willing to lie to us to advance your win condition, then you are, in the most literal sense, anti-town)

3. REPLACE OUTS ARE A NULL TELL. Sometimes it could be OH SHIT I'M SCUM AND ABOUT TO LOSE, REPLACE ME. Sometimes it could be OH SHIT I HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF STUFF IN REAL LIFE, REPLACE ME. Sometimes it could be I HATE THESE PLAYERS, REPLACE ME. There's no way for you to tell the motivation in any such act and thus it's a null tell and for you to suggest any other motivation from it is scummy in and of itself. Also lurker hunting? I said I was V/LA til friday or whichever day and you guys posted lots... so... obviously i gotta catch up.

Neither side of this argument is correct (this isn't just a theory rant, I promise )

Replacing out is ordinarily a null tell - even if it is a player replacing out under extreme pressure. Why? Because plenty of people don't like to lose. It's only a scumtell if the individual has a particular propensity for replacing out under pressure

as scum

I did not claim an anti-town third party role. You are distorting the facts.

You've claimed a highly improbable third party role which, on numbers alone, is likely to permanently disable a town power-role. Add to that the facts that you have already been willing to lie to advance your win condition, that you have no personal interest in catching scum (your sole motive during day phase is to not lynch people who you think has your item), and that I am far from convinced that you are being completely honest, and there is good reason for thinking that your role is anti-town.

Unvote, vote: Zinger

This is what I am talking about. Look at the arrogance in this statement.

You should trust your mod to do his job and shouldn't tell him how you think it should be done.

All these requests for other players to be replaced, what right do you have to demand someone else be forcibly removed from the game? None.

Actually, any player has the right to request the replacement of another player when that player is, to use the technical term, "being a dick". In your case, I can only presume that you've become embarrassed/upset by the fact that your fail-claim has been poorly received and so now you are lashing out against the players in this game, and the site in general, when the real problem is just that you've done a terrible job playing your role.

3. You are either an arrogant idiot or you know exactly why he requested replacement which you wouldn't know unless you have inside knowledge. Everyone please note this as evidence of bussing or cheating or more than likely arrogance

How is it evidence of bussing? Attacking somebody for replacing out is common. I don't agree with it, but it is hardly evidence of bussing - let alone cheating.

I'm just a standard town Jailkeeper. It was all a fakeclaim. You can lynch me for lying now.

^needs to die

[vollkan]

Neither side of this argument is correct (this isn't just a theory rant, I promise )

Replacing out is ordinarily a null tell - even if it is a player replacing out under extreme pressure. Why? Because plenty of people don't like to lose. It's only a scumtell if the individual has a particular propensity for replacing out under pressure as scum

Then you can only legitimately claim it's a scum tell if you know said person is scum no?
which leads to

How is it evidence of bussing? Attacking somebody for replacing out is common. I don't agree with it, but it is hardly evidence of bussing - let alone cheating.

bussing ala he's a scum partner bussing his scummate

Wait i misread the original post so sorta scratch the above. Does the replacee have a propensity to always replace as scum?

Yeah, that's my question.

It's rarely a scumtell, but it's a reasonable (in the sense of not being scummy) line of accusation.

[vollkan]

I've written two walls in the last 15 minutes, filled with explanations as to why I think he's probably town, but I've deleted them both because it's just me calling Zinger a dumbass over and over again. I can't actually figure out a way to explain it without insulting his intelligence multiple times during the course of the post.

But.... he's probably town. And he's a good vig shot, but really.... not worth wasting a D1 lynch on.

People just need to

IGNORE ZINGER

Stop reading his posts.

Get back to scum hunting and stop being lazy.

Just pretend he's not even there.

Unless you legitimately have a reason to suspect he's scum, and it's more substantial than "durrrrrrr he claimed third party", you should stop using him as an excuse to avoid doing anything meaningful today.

Come join me on this izak wagon. It has minigolf and cupcakes. Fun for everyone.

He claimed a role which is anti-town. No, his win condition isn't "kill all townies" or anything like that, but his role and motivations are still anti-town.

The situation is really no different to somebody claiming SK, then backtracking and claiming town vig. And just like lynching a SK, it could theoretically be more beneficial to mafia overall, but you'd be stupid to take that chance.

[vollkan]

Actually it is totally different, because being a SK is actually a believable role. Being a self-aligned Jailkeeper with a lyncher-esque win-con? Nope.

All of the reasoning for the Zinger lynch gets demolished by one simple fact: Zinger is a dumbass. He is so much more likely to do this as town than as any other alignment.

Which is why I think he should just be replaced or ignored until he gets replaced.

As I've said, neutral JKs have been around before. The role he claimed is highly implausible, yes, but it does NOT follow from that that he is more likely town. For one thing, he could just be ordinary scum, or, as I think is most likely, he is lying about his powers.

Now, I think it's obvious that Zinger is a VI. However, he has claimed an anti-town role. On your reasoning, our only option for dealing with him is to let him live and hope he gets tired of the abuse and asks for replacement - because, if we don't lynch him for claiming an anti-town role, we really can't lynch him for anything.

I’m going to give you a scenario that should help you explain why it is a scumtastic thing.

We have Player A. Player A votes for Player Z in a non-RVS fashion Day 1. Later in Day 1 Player A, in response to a question, says “I didn’t see the reasons for the wagon on Player Z at all”. Is Player A scummy for taking directly conflicting stances on Player Z?

Because regardless of whether you are a hydra or not you are one player – Player A. You as a slot are judged by the same standards as any other slot. You don’t get special dispensation to post in a dissonant manner in thread just because you are a Hydra.

You have conflicts between the heads? Resolve them in QT.

/agree

This is one aspect of hydras that I hate. I've been a hydra head myself in the past, and I refused to make the heads separate (as in, signing off as different players). The analogy to the hydra is actually unfortunate, because a hydra player is meant to be of ONE MIND. Otherwise, playing as a hydra is effectively a massive advantage since it allows you to get away with holding inconsistent opinions - and analysing contradictions is pretty much a fundamental element of most people's scumhunting.

I've been Neighborized by two seperate players today. Both have claimed the same mechanics behind how they Neighborize.

I've come to the conclusion that it is unlikely as heck that both are Town. One may be Third Party. One may be Scum. Both might be Scum.

Discuss the ramifications ...

Too much setup speculation involved. Two town neighbourisers seems unlikely in the abstract, but this is a theme game so I think it's best to suspend disbeleif (ie. not assume one of them is prob-scum). Though, you're in the best position to judge their alignments.

I don't care if MS.net is supposedly the best mafia forums around, the people here (and I know I am generalizing, there are obvious people here who don't fit that persona) have given me a horrible first impression of it. Just because you are a member of the most prestigious mafia forums and you've been here for years and can quote theory out the wazoo doesn't make you any better than the noob who started playing his first game 2 hours ago. I'm not just talking for myself either, as I usually don't care when somebody is a dick to me, but I can't stand watching people 'bully' others.

/disagree

This isn't strictly game relevant, but it needs to be said. If you start playing soccer, and kick the ball into the wrong goalposts, you are "doing it wrong", and any other player would be justified in getting angry at you for it. It's the same situation here. Obviously, there is a greater variety of ways that you can play mafia than many other games, but the reality is that, from a theory standpoint, certain modes of play are far superior (in the sense of likely to advance a win con) than others.

The "it's just a game" excuse really doesn't wash when you take into account the fact that for those of us who have a serious commitment to this game, it can be something like three hours a day stretching over a period of months per game. Surely you can see why we get annoyed when we see a newcomer not taking the game seriously and, effectively, causing us to waste our time. It's not that the people on MS.net are more arrogant or bullying, it's that we take the game far more seriously than other sites.

Here's the thing. Zinger probably is telling the truth now. He probably is town, and this was probably some fail gambit or something that completely backfired. He's most likely not scum, and the chance that he's actually third party and unnecessarily did all this D1 is also very, very small.

If you're going to vote for Zinger, tell me which part of this line of thinking you disagree with and why. If you're just going to repeat "he claimed Third Party" over and over, ad nauseum, then this discussion goes nowhere. I also don't want to hear any more about how "stupid" it was for him to do; it was stupid to do as any alignment, and being stupid isn't a tell of any sort.

See above.

[vollkan]

I'm not suggesting keeping Zinger alive for the whole game, so I don't see that as a reasonable objection.

What I'm suggesting is to hunt scum today, go after Zinger at a later stage if he's still around and people still consider him possible third party/scum.

He dies at some point in this game. Doing this as scum is suicidal, and this whole thing being a gambit by Zinger-scum is simply not a possibility, as far as I'm concerned. Doing this as third party is also very unlikely because it simply doesn't benefit his win con.

On the other hand, I can see possible reasons he'd think it was a good idea as town. For example, it could have been a reaction-fishing gambit. It could have been a gambit to make himself look like he wasn't a threat to scum. etc etc.

This is the kind of gambit that just doesn't come from VI-scum or VI-third-party, but could come from VI-town.

In any case, even if you completely disagree with everything I've said, do you think Zinger is a threat? He's going to die, one way or another, at some point in this game. Would it not be beneficial to hunt for people more likely to be scum in the mean time?

It is a reasonable objection because, if we keep applying your standard, nothing that Zinger does this game will get him lynched. Tell me, Zel1nk, what would Zinger need to do to make you

support

lynching him?

I completely understand giving VIs a high level of tolerance. But, for example, if Vezok did the same thing that Zinger did, I'd lynch Vezok in a heartbeat. There are certain things (claiming scum, fakeclaiming guilties, etc.) which, even from a VI, must be treated as a lynchworthy scumtell. This is not, by the way, for policy reasons (eg. deterring similar play in the future); it's because, once you give them a pass for that level of terrible play, you've necessarily given them a pass for absolutely everything.

Pointing out that his play is irrational is irrelevant. His play is irrational no matter what his alignment is. The point is, he has claimed an anti-town role.

Raising the 'possibility' of a gambit is an enormous stretch. Zinger hasn't claimed it was a gambit, and the way he has dealt with it (repeated backflips, anger and now contrition) are completely at odds with gambiting behaviour. Also, you ignore the prospect that this is actually a gambit from zinger-scum

In any case, even if you completely disagree with everything I've said, do you think Zinger is a threat? He's going to die, one way or another, at some point in this game. Would it not be beneficial to hunt for people more likely to be scum in the mean time?

If his role is what he initially claimed, he is a serious threat - especially if he has other powers. Scum would be crazy to kill him. And the longer this game goes on, the less willing people are going to be to lynch him. Getting rid of him now eliminates somebody who: 1) Is a probable anti-town role and thus a probable threat; 2) Is DEFINITELY an anti-town player; and 3) will be an enormous distraction going forward.

[vollkan]

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 4#p3261544

He claimed it was a gambit of sorts

Well, it's not a reaction-testing gambit, which is what Zel was referring to.

Moreover, I don't think it's plausible that a town JK (who should want to remain unseen) would decide to draw attention to themselves in that way. From scum's perspective, he would still be a non-their faction JK.

[vollkan]

Tell me what you think you'll learn from today if he flips town.

It wouldn't be alignment-irrelevant for other people. In particular, I'd be prompted to pay closer attention to those who have given tacit support to his lynch, without openly or vociferously advocating it.

[vollkan]

Raising the 'possibility' of a gambit is an enormous stretch. Zinger hasn't claimed it was a gambit, and the way he has dealt with it (repeated backflips, anger and now contrition) are completely at odds with gambiting behaviour. Also, you ignore the prospect that this is actually a gambit from zinger-scum

Actually I did claim it was a gambit. Just saying.

I've already addressed this. Zel raised the previously unstated possibility of it being a reaction-test, which you never suggested. You raised the (frankly ridiculous) notion of a gambit where scum wouldn't kill you because you are third-party.

Spoiler: Zinger v Vollkan

In your given example, yes the team-mates would be furious. But this is hardly the World Cup of Mafia games. This is backyard soccer at best. I hope you can appreciate how your example is hardly consistent with the circumstances. I say again: sure the teammates might be miffed that one of their team kicked the ball into the wrong goal, but they aren't going to throw that teammate to the ground and kick him and say "I don't ever want to play soccer with you again," nor will they go to the referee and say "can you kick him off the team because he kicked the ball into the wrong goal?" You won't see that behaviour in any kind of soccer game, not even professional ones. I have seen that kind of behaviour here.

This is what you don't seem to get: mafia on this site is treated like the World Cup. It's a time-intensive, lengthy commitment that people put a lot of effort into. You openly admitted that you were effectively playing "for lulz" - which might be fine if you have an agreement from everybody else that the game is purely for a laugh (eg. Marathon Games on this site are typically not very serious), but is quite simply selfish and sabotaging behaviour in any other context.

Multiscum game. I rest my case.

How does that prove your case? Mafia JKs are by no means an unusual or weird role; the fact that a game is multiscum doesn't alter that.

Please provide my any circumstances (Town / Scum / 3rd Party) where it is plausible for someone to make claims as Zinger has? You immediately ruling out Town when I can’t see a single scenario that is net gain for Zinger’s alignment to act as he has troubles me. It's a stupid move regardless of what alignment he is.

I've actually said myself that it's irrational no matter what his alignment.

My point is that the role he claimed first up was an anti-town role. He gets pressured and, after a number of contortions, claims town JK, under the pretext of a gambit. If he'd claimed mafia or SK and then backflipped with a "lol, sorry - gambit", he'd have been lynched five pages ago. Every action he is taken since his initial claim is referable to a survival motive. Thus, we have an anti-town motivation and the absence of any town motivation.

So I'm leaving silverbullet to reap what he's sown. I'm sorry if that doesn't sit with you, or whatever, but I think that I shouldn't have to be part of silverbullet's argument if he didn't originally check with me on the vote, or anything.

I don't think this is scummy so much as something that you guys are going to have to stop right now. Hydras are normally not a violation of out-of-game-communicatoin rules, but once you start saying "I'll defer to my other head on this one", you are ceasing to play this game as a single player.

[vollkan]

@volkan - It does. Only multiscum have a reason to have Mafia JK. We will know that this is multiscum after the night passes. We can PRETEND this is not multiscum until a night passes. Comprendre?

That's not true at all.

A JK has two functions: 1) Roleblock, and 2) Protect. Roleblock is ALWAYS useful for scum. Protect is useful if there is multiscum OR a town vig.

Moreover, the fact that a JK power is redundant in a no-vig, single-scumgroup game doesn't militate against the presence of JK; it must means that a JK has less utility in a setup (as in, it's a balance consideration)

[vollkan]

No, it's not a balance consideration. 99% of the time it is just as strong as a mafia roleblocker, so there's nothing really different balance wise.

You misunderstand me. The fact that a role is redundant is no reason not to include it; it just means that the role has less utility than it otherwise would.

Eg. in a setup without cops, an inv-imm GF is useless for scum, but plenty of mods, if only out of slight bastardry, will include one

Less bastardly, including a JK in a setup where the protection power is of little to no use does not make the role itself inherently untenable

[vollkan]

Rodion > Bit of idiocy on my part there I'm afraid. I was JK in a two-scum player game in which the first died night one.. so any unblocked kill ended up confirming someone. Didn't quite think about the mechanics of it when not applied to that.. I feel a bit prattish now. >_<

And I note that MoI still hasn't responded to my reply, and now ThAdmiral is using his post to justify a vote on me.. once again, skimming or an actual attempt at misrepresentation?

Zinger 10 - Vezo,Leonshade, Junpei, 3isFrench, Izak, Pappum,Cherve, KillerJester, DavidX, Vollkan
Silverdrummer 5 - Slate, Oversoul, Nero, Meran, MoI
DavidX 4 - CHKBallin,PeregrineV, Rodion, ThAdmiral
Izak 3 - ZeL1nk, Pinky
Pine 1 - Silver
Chkballin 1 - Andrew

DX+5

THad's point was a reiteration of MOI's point that your reasoning for lynching Zinger appeared to be not that he was prob-scum but that he was "prob-town who needs to be taught a lesson". How does this respond to that? (and the 4.30am excuse in your next post doesn't cut it)

Survival mode isn’t more likely to come from only scum. Sorry, a Town PR is just as likely to enter survival mode after a grandly stupid move because lynching them is very damaging to Town. You’ve been around to have seen this and that you still are pushing it as a scum-tell based on your own personal standard troubles me.

This much is true, but I would emphasise the point I made earlier about the number of contortions between his alleged gambit blowing up in his face, and his town JK claim. Even if I could see town making this as a gambit, and I can't, the "oh shit, oh shit, need to come up with something" mentality is, pretty much by definition, scummy. If such a gambit fails, town is far more likely to simply come clean about the whole thing - which is still a survival instinct, in a sense, but without the jettisoning of truth in desperation.

What do you think of Pappum’s “Newbie Escalator” theory?

You're implying that the zinger case is an example of Newbie Escalator theory?

I think the theory is valid, in a sense. Pressuring newbies is not bad in and of itself. The problem is really just poor scumhunting abilities - ie. people don't take account of inexperience in evaluating a person's reactions. So, for practical purposes, it is generally better not to pressure newbies so much, if only because other people are liekly to misconstrue.

I don't see what the relevance of that is here, though. I've already said repeatedly that I think his actions are irrational no matter what his alignment. The point is that the initial claim was anti-town, and the subsequent contortions are scummy. Obviously, I'd be remiss to ignore the possibility that he is simply a monumentally terrible VI, but, as I keep saying, if he had initially claimed SK, we would have lynched him 10 pages ago.

Moreover, you claiming that town has a survival motive undermines your own argument in this context. It's simply ludicrous to suppose that a town-JK would think "Oh, maybe I should claim neutral with a permanent RBing power. That way, nobody will perceive me as a threat and nobody will question me and I'll be able to coast on by". That sort of strategy is about as suicidal as can be imagined.

Now.. try to keep up here. I asked you for an IMPERSONAL description of what each said the role did and the limits thereof. In other words, "Person A said this, Person B said this.". From that, we'd have a basic grounding, without names, to say "Well, X, Y and Z in Person B's post look out of place.." (Psst, I said this in post #711 by the way)

DX+5

Huh?

(as I see MOI has already noted) You specifically asked for their names in 694. Which is about as PERSONAL as you can get.

[vollkan]

silverdrummer: Properly rank the six players on your list, from 1 to 6 where 1 is the scummiest player and 6 is the least scummiest, without any ties, and present a larger case on Nero Cain, since he is the "star of the show."

Why are you insisting that he not include ties?

[vollkan]

silverdrummer: Properly rank the six players on your list, from 1 to 6 where 1 is the scummiest player and 6 is the least scummiest, without any ties, and present a larger case on Nero Cain, since he is the "star of the show."

Why are you insisting that he not include ties?

Not everyone uses your point system.

Tell me vollkan, if two people have 62 on your scorecard does that mean they are both equally scummy to you? If you think about it and from what I've examined from your points you are inconsistent with what warrants how many points. There is always a rank you can give people if you must.

If two people have the same score, then that means that they are equally scummy.

That doesn't mean my choice is then "random" - it then goes to relational tells, information, claims, etc.

As for inconsistencies: if there are any, I will always correct them if pointed out. The flipside of the added certainty that I get from my system is that I tend to receive a lot more flak for any discrepancies.

silverdrummer: Properly rank the six players on your list, from 1 to 6 where 1 is the scummiest player and 6 is the least scummiest, without any ties, and present a larger case on Nero Cain, since he is the "star of the show."

Why are you insisting that he not include ties?

Because there were obviously some discrepancies in the last list. I don't care if its the smallest twinge of the gut, just fiind something that differentiates between one rank and another.

I don't think that's helpful. Making artificial demands of people just creates a form of the Newbie Elevator - you demand contrived reasons ("the smallest twinge of gut") and then, invariably, will hold the person to account for something that they weren't actually confident enough in their opinion on to say to begin with. Having a "tie" is as much about saying "I cannot confidently distinguish these people" than about saying "These people are exactly equal"

[vollkan]

I'm under the impression here you didn't bother reading either. Firstly, that post was mostly a response to Rodion. As was my next post with the "4.30am excuse" as you put it.

That was post #742. I explained in post #744 I clicked "submit" too soon instead of "preview". See post #744, and in a very similar vein, #746 for this. I've already given my full reasoning. To reiterate, it's nothing to do with "prob town that needs lesson", it's "dodgy as hell, now claims town, but has changed claim 4 times. I see no reason to believe his latest face-saving claim either."

Okay,

DK-5

. I did read, but it didn't really click until I read MOI's post, by which time the only thing I could remember reading from you by way of explanation was a confusing Numerical Soup post. 744 isn't MUCH of an improvement (there WAS a wolf at the end of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"), but 746 clarifies it.

In other words, you just cut out a pretty damn key part of narrative, namely "At which point, I took a step back, and said the following"

That is the IMPERSONAL description I refer to. MoI gave a reason for not wanting to name, and I took it at face value, so I then asked for some details that would NOT implicate anyone, but that Town could work with MoI on, to determine which, if any, looks forged/edited.

I don't see how the fact that you back-tracked from initial role-fishing makes said role-fishing okay. As in, town-DX had a choice between:
a) Defending his initial fishing as pro-town (which, for obvious reasons, I don't think is viable, since it was an anti-town request); or
b) Mea culpa

Instead, you basically just changed tact completely and asked for something different.

Tell me, did you ever actually retract your call for a nameclaim?

Vollkan > Reads as Town to me, but tunnels rather heavily on Zinger.. I can see the logic and reasoning behind it, but I get the impression he may be getting a little blinkered. This is another one who I'd love to see his current reads.

I do have a tendency to tunnel. The fact that I argue a lot probably makes it more explicit than for most people, but I think tunneling is something that's almost unavoidable in this game (as in, it would take a LOT of effort to simultaneously pursue the leads that you find most promising AND maintain 100% focus on everything else). If I have missed anything, please just let me know and I will reread it.

vollkan is town due to his system of points that will be very easy to see if he's abusing. It's a clear tunnel into his brain and that is something scum wouldn't give for free like that, if he's scum it'll be easy to tell later in the game.

vollkan: How long have you been using your points system now?

I ask this because whilst going through your ISO, I noticed at the point which you switch from voting Leonshade (on 64 points) to Zinger (who was at 50 points) - but you didn't award Zinger any points, so using your points system you would still be voting Leonshade...

It also worries me that since your post here, (ignoring the ambiguous Zinger case) you've only seen two scummy things (ie. things fit to award points for - both from DavidX). You awarded over 60 points in your catch up for the first 290 posts - yet we're approaching post 1000 and you've awarded a grand total of an extra 10 points in that time. That doesn't seem right...

I'll address the above together.

1) I have been using my points system since, IIRC, 2008. I did have a break from it at some point, but I'd say that I have definitely been using for most of my time on site. For this reason, Junpei is incorrect to treat it as a towntell from me; it's part of my meta no matter what my alignment.

2) On Zinger: in my initial post, I included my standard PSA which includes the caveat: "Absent claims, need for deadline compromises, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score." My reasoning for voting Zinger was essentially claim-based. Obviously, behaviour comes into it, but because it rests on a claim it basically becomes a binary choice between "To vote, or not to vote" rather than a spectrum/relative question like most people's scumminess. In that sense, my points system becomes kind of redundant, since it would just dictate that I give Zinger something like +40 points to clearly stake him out as scum, other than somebody explicitly claiming scum.

3) On the number of points given: I noticed this myself, and I think it's largely attributable to the fact that the Zinger issue has been dominant for most of the interim period , and it's an issue on which very little from anybody strikes me as "scummy".

[vollkan]

Are people still demanding my clarification on the "list" or no?

Also I'm gonna use this account as my other head has more or less flaked I believe.

(This is silverdrummer)

I don't want a "clarification". Just post the list (with or without ties :gasp:) and expanded reasoning for Nero Cain

[vollkan]

Pine - 1st
Marco - 2nd
Meran - Tied for 2nds
magna -4th... or 5th... well last for the moment.
goomba - 3rd
Nero - Tied for 1st

How the F... is this hard to see

@chevre and anybody else who was previously attacking the list:
I can't see the problem here I thought maybe he would post something inconsistent with the previous, but it's exactly the same, other than with NC being included expressly as #1, rather than being dealt with separetely as the major suspect.

[vollkan]

PEdit: Vollkan, frankly, it's not the list itself, it's the lack of clarification behind it. The fact his apparent "tied for #1" is someone with.. 2 posts? 3 posts? Doesn't exactly help.. :/

The Pine thing seems to be a meta-grudge, though.

[vollkan]

That actually makes it worse. He's then essentially saying "I'm voting for this person because I don't like them. There is no evidence on them but I want them lynched simply because I don't like them."

Surely by this point, there's more than enough evidence on more than a few people that a meta-grudge should have been sidelined long ago in favour of actually scumhunting?

/agree - see my earlier failed attempt to budge him on this.

[vollkan]

By the way. Any response my my reply RE: the nameclaim thing, or have I clarified it satisfactorily?

Sorry, forgot to respond. Addressed below:

No, I did not, because for me, the nameclaim thing was basically a way of breaking the ice. I don't believe the names have any grounding in the actual roles (Given that it'd mean that bad guys would be lynched immediately, and I don't think Jason would do that), and therefore it wouldn't have hurt the Town. As I said, it may not have particularly helped, but I felt it might have added another element to RVS, discussion based on the names et cetera. It's a theme game, a little in-character RVSing might have been entertaining.

This doesn't really address my concerns; the same can be said about any nameclaim. The fact is that any name info is inherently unlikely to be of much use to anybody who is uninformed, but is inherently more likely to be useful to scum (as in, knowing names is not likely to tell us anything meaningful - even if it does add something to "discuss")

I hold no grudge against Pine. I have no freakin' idea what this crap is.

If silverbullet's gonna just jump onto Pine like that without talking to me AT ALL about it, he can do this on his own. If he won't do the Hydra thing, I won't bother doing it myself.

I'm willing to accept that the Pine thing was an idiosyncrasy of the other hydra head, particularly given that it would be extremely poor form for silverdrummer to lie about their hydra-level interactions (as in, because it is not something within the game, it is akin to lying about being VLA because your grandma died when in fact you werejust lurking)

[vollkan]

How do I go about getting scum lynched D1?

By voting Zinger

[vollkan]

13)

jilynne1991

vollkan - I generally like how he thinks. Most posts are accurate. I have an objection in the way he quickly backed out of his

ultimatum

on Meransiel. The lesson I learned is that his

ultimata

carry no weight and he will never be able in future games to pressure anyone who read this game through an

ultimatum

. Even if he thought Meran was town, I think he had to keep his word in order to establish more credit to his

ultimata

in his future games. I'm not sure if that falls under the policy lynch definition, but I feel his response to Meran's refusal to cooperate was wrong.

It's basically true that they carry no weight (shhh.... ) . I was relying on Meran not knowing my meta hatred of policy lynching (I think policy lynching a fundamental violation of the play-to-win rule, and so it's something that I will never ever support).

The last two sentences were chopped because, again, you like to talk and talk until the original point is diluted. Thanks. My point isn't about Admiral, it's about the fact that you're trying to justify your vote on Vezok (which you're still doing here, you're just using different words - neat scum tactic) and trying to look as town as possible when doing it. It's not convincing and, most of all, still not town-motivated.

Does anyone think David is acting in a town-motivated manner here?

In defending his vote?

Sorry, I can't see what the crux of your case on DX is.

[vollkan]

Hypocrite scum is hypocrite. In 896 the slots voting me for a very similar post to silver's 436.

The post he voted you for was:

I really dislike how scummy Silvers bandwagon has no momentum.

His reasoning here was, it seems, simply that your post was unproductive

It's such a productive post that he wins my vote for the moment since a Pine lynch doesn't appear to be happening yet...

435 (I assume you mean 435, because 436 was by marco) was:

Less bickering, more votes on Pine plox

I'm assuming that the hypocrisy here is that both posts are fairly useless?

[vollkan]

@Rodion: If the best player is scum that means they won't NK me because I buddied to them.

WIFOM aside (they could NK you because you buddied to them and use that as proof of innocence), that seems like a good strategy for survivor/SK. For town? I don't think so.

@Vezok: In what other games have you tried this buddying strategy? If you haven't tried it in any other games, why are you trying it here?

Which clearly seems like you are worried about chkballin is going to say about you, and that you plan your responses so as to receive the least negative response. Which strikes me as something scum is more likely to be concerned about.

I don't agree with this at all. I don't see how DX reiterating to avoid a particular line of attack is scummy. If you're defending yourself already, it's simply pro-"your survival" to make sure you present your defence in a way that isn't going to antagonise people further.

Hypocrite scum is hypocrite. In 896 the slots voting me for a very similar post to silver's 436.

The post he voted you for was:

I really dislike how scummy Silvers bandwagon has no momentum.

His reasoning here was, it seems, simply that your post was unproductive

It's such a productive post that he wins my vote for the moment since a Pine lynch doesn't appear to be happening yet...

435 (I assume you mean 435, because 436 was by marco) was:

Less bickering, more votes on Pine plox

I'm assuming that the hypocrisy here is that both posts are fairly useless?

Neo Chain

In my mind I've found scum therefore I want to lynch scum. So my post was questioning why his wagon had no momentum and asking others to go back and look at it and vote if they agree. His posts was asking for more Pine votes. If he says that my asking for more votes on a scummy slot (which happens to be his and that might be why he's pissed) is unproductive then his post asking for more votes on a scummy slot is just as unproductive so that's how I see that.

(reference back to Murder at Hotel Death )

That's what I thought - both posts are basically the same, but he thinks yours is scummily unproductive, to the point of justifying a vote.

There is a smaller time gap between his "useless" post and yours, but not so much that the differential treatment is justified.

Silver+5

The accusation of hypocrisy is bullshit because I've been fully outspoken on the lynch for pine.

This just ignores the point that you vote Nero for making a "useless" post which is the same as a post previously made by you

[

[vollkan]

Why isn't zinger dead yet again?

I asked you a question Vezok:

@Vezok: In what other games have you tried this buddying strategy? If you haven't tried it in any other games, why are you trying it here?

[vollkan]

Could everyone please tell me in what order they rank the following possibilities:

1) Zinger is town
2) Zinger is scum
3) Zinger is actually third party?

Ditto. 3-2-1

[vollkan]

I'm in agreement, but I maintain that I believe hostile third party. I just don't see a neutral third party doing that, alerting people to their wincon..

I think it goes without saying that if he is third-party, he is "hostile". As in, the JK-lyncher-role (or any variant) is inherently anti-town. I severely doubt he would have claimed the way he did if he was a neutral third party.

[vollkan]

@Thad:

People who are voting someone with only a couple of votes need to start thinking about taking sides: zinger or silver.

Nah, I'm quite happy not voting for a townie.

Excuse me while I prod dodge until izak is back so people don't feel guilty about voting him or whatever.

Reading the above, it occurred to me, with the deadline not being until 12 August, what is the "need" for the lower wagons to dissipate?

[vollkan]

I don't agree with this at all. I don't see how DX reiterating

to avoid a particular line of attack is scummy.

If you're defending yourself already, it's simply pro-"your survival" to make sure you present your defence in a way that isn't going to antagonise people further.

It isn't the reiteration. It is him saying that he assumed he would get attacked if he didn't reiterate.

Yes? As I said, I don't see how him reiterating "to avoid a particular line of attack" is scummy. It's good tactical play.

the day has gone on long enough and I think it's time we reach some consensus. I think competing wagons are optimal for town. I think people not involved in a wagon that has a chance of going to lynch at this point are wasting their vote, or potentially flying under the radar purposefully.

Ah, sorry.

Purely theory argument, but I don't agree with this sort of thinking. (creates a contrived scenario...etc.)

@Volkan: Most of the games with Fate. Some games with Reck. Let me dig a link if I can find one. Check mafia dating show.

Okay, thanks for that meta.

I point on this, Vezok. Earlier, you said:

@MoI: I'm used to having either fate or reck in big games. When I don't I tend to buddy to the best player in the game. Right now it was between you and volkan and you are better at solving people.

From that, it seems that the reason you buddy is because you prefer to trust the suspicions of good scumhunters (your reason for choosing MOI over me is that you think he is better at "solving people" than me.

But later you said:

@Rodion: If the best player is scum that means they won't NK me because I buddied to them.

Which makes it sound like your main reason is surviving NKs.

So, which is it: scumhunting or survival?

[vollkan]

Yes? As I said, I don't see how him reiterating "to avoid a particular line of attack" is scummy. It's good tactical play.

I'm not saying it isn't, but I am saying it is something scum would be more likely to be concerned with.

I don't accept that.

EVERY player, town or scum, puts some thought into crafting their posts so that they aren't received poorly or miconstrued. Scum, arguably, have more individual incentive to want to avoid being attacked (this is something I am skeptical of), but I don't think you have any basis for assuming that that translates into a statistically significant likelihood of it being scum.

The only difference between this and any other case is that DX admitted that was what he was doing.

[vollkan]

Also pretty sure it is 3-2-1 as well, highly doubt zinger is town. Like a 2% chance maybe.

I'll be sure to have a laugh at your expense when I flip town.

Also, to answer the question everyone's been answering:
1-3-2

Why do you think that you are more likely third-party than scum?

[vollkan]

Also pretty sure it is 3-2-1 as well, highly doubt zinger is town. Like a 2% chance maybe.

I'll be sure to have a laugh at your expense when I flip town.

Also, to answer the question everyone's been answering:
1-3-2

Why do you think that you are more likely third-party than scum?

Is this a rhetorical question?

Kind of. If you are town, then from your perspective 2 and 3 should be both equally impossible.

I never said we had three weeks left.. I did say newbie games have three week deadlines... and this... is not a newbie game.

*cough*

2. Why are people aiming for a lynch... with 3 weeks still being left before deadline...

But seriously this town needs to pick it's game up... it's sad that a lynch is being spoken of when there are 3 weeks left... downright disgraceful even. I'm more than happy to be the lynch over zinger... but lynching me before August 9th/10th/11th just doesn't go at all to town's advantage.

[vollkan]

Hey everypony.

Vote Zinger

This day should have ended in his lynch about 20 pages ago. Plus silver has town telled a little.

I know you've recently come into the game, but perhaps you could elaborate on the silver town tells?

His early reaction to the claim from Zinger. Him being on that wagon is actually the only reason he is not one of my top town reads.

Rainbow+7

Wait...what?

Your reason for not having silver as a "top" town read is that he is now on the Zinger wagon...the very same wagon that you just joined.

In fact, when you say this:

All anti-town claims should be lynched on site. This includes claims of maifa, survivor, lyncher or anything else that does not contain the town win condition. We are going to lynch him, so continuing to bicker and everything else like we have been is going to first create massive clutter like already has happened, which leads to ponies apathying out of the game. It also allows scum to make more of an optimal kill as they know more about who is lynchable, who has what reads, and who is going to the a threat to them in subsequent days. So not saying my other reads. Zinger is the lynch today, that is all. The fact the day has not ended is disheartening.

it baffles me how you can treat it as a scumtell at all.

drmyshottyizsik

replaces EasJo

Shotty AND vezok

*headdesk*

[vollkan]

Oh my god, Volkan's in this game... I now see why so many people replaced out.

lolirony

Where am I on your bias points chart today Volkan?

You're at 50.

Player	Score
Meransiel	50
vezokpiraka	55
MagnaofIllusion	50
PeregrineV	50
Pappums Leather Jacket	50
Zinger2099	50
chkballin	50
banshee marco1610	50
Rainbowdash Pvt Slate	57
Nero Cain	50
David Xanatos	60
drmyshottyizsik easjo682	50
Pinky and the Brain	55
ZeL1nK	50
andrew94	50
izakthegoomba	50
Pine	50
Chevre	50
ThAdmiral	50
Vifam Junpei	65
Rodion	60
Leonshade	64
ThreeIsFrench	55
killerjester	55
Oversoul	50
silverbullet999	60

[vollkan]

@Volkan: How is zlinger still on 50?

Do you think he is as townie as Zelink?

I've answered this already:

2) On Zinger: in my initial post, I included my standard PSA which includes the caveat: "Absent claims, need for deadline compromises, etc. I will always vote the person with the highest score." My reasoning for voting Zinger was essentially claim-based. Obviously, behaviour comes into it, but because it rests on a claim it basically becomes a binary choice between "To vote, or not to vote" rather than a spectrum/relative question like most people's scumminess. In that sense, my points system becomes kind of redundant, since it would just dictate that I give Zinger something like +40 points to clearly stake him out as scum, other than somebody explicitly claiming scum.

[vollkan]

Meransiel - I hate this no posting garbage and I think you softclaimed scum

Where was this scum softclaim?

[vollkan]

I meant this.
This is just filled with WIFOM. Then it's followed by content. But this post still exists, and shouldn't be overlooked.

Noted.

Meran has just jumped up on my scumlist for responding to that post with nothing at all.

You have made posts that imply you'll eventually post something until you finally make a post saying to never expect anything from you. And then you say that you're too lazy and it 'isn't' going to hurt me that much' to have you gone all day? This seems like a scum tactic to get a free ride day 1.

It is a scum tactic to get a free ride day 1.

You really think it's more likely that that was a scum softclaim than sarcasm?

If yes, are you an alt/from another site, or are you a genuinely inexperienced player?

Secondly what is "scummy" and where did meransiel allegedly "softclaimed scum"?

@Thad: See above

[vollkan]

@Vollkan: How is that particular variety of sarcasm helpful to town? Is it your experience that scum never use sarcasm in this way?

1) The test for whether or not something scummy is whether or not it would be unreasonable for a townie to do it - not whether it actually HELPS town or not. (use of proper punctuation doesn't help town, but you'd hardly argue that that is a scumtell)
2) Likewise, it's absolutely not true that unless scum "never" do something, it's a scumtell. (to use the above analogy, I am sure many scum use proper punctuation)

[vollkan]

1) The test for whether or not something scummy is whether or not it would be unreasonable for a townie to do it - not whether it actually HELPS town or not. (use of proper punctuation doesn't help town, but you'd hardly argue that that is a scumtell)

Do you believe it reasonable for a townie to refuse to post during Day 1 and, when called on it as a likely scum strategy, to agree in the particular way Meransiel did?

The reason this situation is full of WIFOM imo is that I can't see scum making that statement either. I can't think of a good reason why anyone would behave as Meransiel did and then make that statement.

This isn't the equivalent of using good punctuation; the analogy is bad. This is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on oneself and standing in the middle of a crowd asking if anyone has a light. It IS unreasonable for a townie to do it; it's also unreasonable that scum would do it, hence the WIFOM.

Sarcasm is harmless...self-immolation isn't.

The lurking doesn't really come into this at all (you are conflating that with his sarcasm)

[vollkan]

1) The test for whether or not something scummy is whether or not it would be unreasonable for a townie to do it - not whether it actually HELPS town or not. (use of proper punctuation doesn't help town, but you'd hardly argue that that is a scumtell)

Do you believe it reasonable for a townie to refuse to post during Day 1 and, when called on it as a likely scum strategy, to agree in the particular way Meransiel did?

The reason this situation is full of WIFOM imo is that I can't see scum making that statement either. I can't think of a good reason why anyone would behave as Meransiel did and then make that statement.

This isn't the equivalent of using good punctuation; the analogy is bad. This is the equivalent of pouring gasoline on oneself and standing in the middle of a crowd asking if anyone has a light. It IS unreasonable for a townie to do it; it's also unreasonable that scum would do it, hence the WIFOM.

Sarcasm is harmless...self-immolation isn't.

The lurking doesn't really come into this at all (you are conflating that with his sarcasm)

EBWOP: with the first sentence, my point is that your attempt to compare it to setting oneself on fire is bad because it compares it to something that is very clearly harmful. Sarcasm may be impolite/flippant, but it isn't destructive or anti-town

[vollkan]

But if it puts him/her up as heavily suspicious (note: Not talking the Mera example here, making a general point) then surely, if s/he's lynched, it is anti-town? (Assuming he's town)

Yeah, but again - that can be said about anything. The point is that sarcasm isn't ordinarily going to be treated as a scumtell, because most people will pick up on it (seriously, what's more likely - that a person claims scum or that they are being snide?).

I think the comment (sarcasm or not) is a direct response to being called on the lurking, so I don't think you can separate the two issues neatly. The comment REFERS to the lurking.

I'm not sure how you're using harmful. Nothing that happens on this site is harmful in the real world, I suppose. But the use of language, including sarcasm, is the basis for lynching people in this game. So I still think my analogy is closer than yours.

Lurking's one of those player-specific things that is bad but usually not scummy. In Meran's case, it seemed to be a laziness thing - which is perfectly in keeping with him responding sarcastically.

I'm using "harmful" in the sense of "objectively anti-town".

[vollkan]

Wait...what?

Your reason for not having silver as a "top" town read is that he is now on the Zinger wagon...the very same wagon that you just joined.

In fact, when you say this:

All anti-town claims should be lynched on site. This includes claims of maifa, survivor, lyncher or anything else that does not contain the town win condition. We are going to lynch him, so continuing to bicker and everything else like we have been is going to first create massive clutter like already has happened, which leads to ponies apathying out of the game. It also allows scum to make more of an optimal kill as they know more about who is lynchable, who has what reads, and who is going to the a threat to them in subsequent days. So not saying my other reads. Zinger is the lynch today, that is all. The fact the day has not ended is disheartening.

it baffles me how you can treat it as a scumtell at all.

Silver made a statement early in the game which I took as a significant town tell given its relationship to the Zinger wagon and his location elsewhere, I also am choosing not to point out this tell specifically since if it was accidently dropped by scum, which it would have been given the nature of posts from silver unless he is greatly underselling his smarts, there is a good chance he can drop it again as town and make it a far more solid tell, or contradict it heavily as scum and get busted.

The tell relies heavily on silver NOT being on the Zinger wagon, which is why I brought it up as actually being a tell if I had read whatever votecount that was which I thought silver was voting him. Since silver isn't voting for Zinger, it means silver is one of my top town reads, and I will defend him fully if he ever cements that tell.

Also for everypony who asked, after finishing reading this game PeregrineV is the best non-Zinger lynch by miles.

Okay, so in essence what you are saying is that the towntell is not yet entirely formed/complete. For a towntell-based argument, that makes enough sense that I no longer see this as contradictory

He first drew my attention when I felt that he was lock-jawing on me. His rebuttals to my posts appeared to be conveniently worded to not only defeat the purpose of my posts but at the same time make me look bad. I didn't follow up on this notion because I believed I was simply reacting strongly to him because he suspected me, and thus my opinion was biased.

However, when another player came along (I believe it was TheAdmiral, but don't quote me on that) and basically accused Junpei of the same things I was seeing, it solidified it in my mind that I wasn't simply seeing things that weren't there. I agreed with this person's post and continued to examine Junpei more closely from that point on.

Since then, all of his arguments have had the pretense of being logical and sound yet he seems to come to illogical conclusions. I get the same feeling from his posts that you get from, say, a car salesman who manages to convince you (through sound logic no less) as to why you should buy this car, but you can't help having a sinking feeling that he is twisting reality just to make it look the way he want's it too.

A few times he had back-up in his arguments, which at the time seemed like they might be a scumbuddy helping him out.

He is so sure of me being scum (to the point of overconfidence, which I explained to be a potential scum-factor).

A few other things here and there that made me think he was scum but I can't really remember what made me think that (it's enough that they did).

tl;dr version: "I think Junpei is scum because I disagree with him and he is smug"

No, that’s absurd. 4 votes when 14 are required to lynch is hardly significant pressure. In a game this size you can fall into 4 votes via RVS quick as a blink. Being tied means that at least one other person was under the same ‘level’ ( I use the term loosely) pressure so that hardly causes a rational player to panic.

Analogising it to the size of an RVS wagon is just silly. RVS wagons have far less "pressure" than serious wagons.

[vollkan]

It reads more like an overly-specific way of criticising the two leading wagons

[vollkan]

It reads more like an overly-specific way of criticising the two leading wagons

Sorry if I didn't notice, but who is this addressed to? I think the silver wagon was good.

It was not addressed at anyone in particular; I was just stating my view on whether or no peregrine's "slip" was actually likely to be a slip (ie. I think it was just an oddly-worded way of saying "I don't like the silver or zlinger wagons")

[vollkan]

It's 7am and I'm approaching it from the wrong direction. Consider it a monologue of sorts. I should probably go sleep..

On that note actually, is this considered twilight, or is it still considered part of the actual day phase? (I thought sleep, then night, then wondered. I have strange thought processes..)

It's twilight from the point that the hammer was placed.

[vollkan]

I've watched a fair amount of MLP

Joined : June 25, 2011
Gender:

Male

One of the above quotes is a lie.