Cultafia: Game over

[Yosarian2]

Ah, ok, I understand.

So, what you're saying is, aioqwe recruited you?

[armlx]

Ah, ok, I understand.

So, what you're saying is, aioqwe recruited you?

Oh, I see what you did/are trying to do here.

[Norinel]

Prodding Beep! Beep! and SlySly.

Vote Count:

aioqwe (3) - SlySly, Beep! Beep!, Skruffs
Beep! Beep! (1) - the silent speaker
Skruffs (1) - mnowax

Not voting (5): aioqwe, armlx, NabakovNabakov, vollkan, Yosarian2

6 to lynch

[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.

[Beep! Beep!]

I've heard enough. You're too invested in this game to not be a recruiter.

unvote, vote: vollkan

[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.

[Beep! Beep!]

Looks like I caught a live one.

confirm vote: vollkan

[aioqwe]

I'm back:
I think I'll change my stance on Mno from yesterday. I think he can be a vig still... although he might be a recruit now. I am unsure. I don't think he is a CR-er.
I am town. I didn't recruit armlx or anyone for that matter. Why are we still discussing this? Although, I do agree with yos being "most cunning manipulator"
I think Volkan is going somewhere with his attack on skruffs.
I don't understand what BB is doing.

[Skruffs]

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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 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.

So:

she's a reasonable lynch, but, I'm suspicious for voting her. She's likely a cult recruitor, but we shouldn't vote her so quickly, because of that. And there's no real way to tell who the recruitors ARE, but the tells we DO have should be ignored. All wrapped up with an "I'll vote her too, maybe."

To paraphrase you:

" ... "

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.

[Skruffs]

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.

This is completely different from, say, you ragging on the quality of people's cases yesterday, and, oh, your scorning of people for pushing probes today, too, all while insisting you have nothing to contribute yourself.


Right?

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.

You're asking Beep! Beep! for logical arguments? and proof? I feel sorry for you. You yourself have concluded how hard it is to "know" who the bad guys are, and yet you have no problem criticizing other people for not knowing.



I don't really agree that activity = cult recruitor.
I invest myself in every game, for example, regardless of my role. I can imagine that cult leaders are picking and choosing from lurkers to swell their ranks quietly, but the cult leaders most importantly don't want to get caught themselves. So I would imagine that they are trying to play as pro-town as possible without actually drawing too much attention to themselves from the variouis other killing roles.

[Yosarian2]

Armlx: Could you explain why you think aioqwe is "more likely recruiter then recruit"?

[the silent speaker]

... I was all set to propound a theory that Beep and Yos had as a third partner Vollkan, and then Beep posted one of the most absurd reasons to vote in a long time. I suspect he may be trying to deflect the aioqwe wagon with that vote, which makes my suspicion of aioqwe go way up too. But boy am I glad of where my vote already is.

[armlx]

Armlx: Could you explain why you think aioqwe is "more likely recruiter then recruit"?

I don't feel a recruiter would put themself into this scenario by lynching an OBVIOUSLY confirmable role like mason.

[SlySly]

At this point in the game, lynching any scum is a good lynch. A recruit being lynched doesn't make it a certainty that someone else will be recruited in their place.

TSS, your suspicions of Beep and Yos are unfounded. If you keep pushing against them, I am going to think you are a recruit(er).

[Skruffs]

*Groan*

Someone saying something you don't like doesn't make them more likely to be a recruiter, slysly. Extortion is not your strong suit.

[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.

[SlySly]

CLs and CRs are both scum, but the point is that lynching a CL is the superior option.

QFT

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

Technically, your statements are correct but as the game gets farther along, the point you are making becomes less important on each new day. There have been 3 nights. If there are 2 recruiters, there are now 6 possibilities of recruits. With 10 left alive, that would make the game 8 cult (2 recruiters, 6 recruits) vs 2 non-cult, which is highly unlikely at this point for multiple reasons.

Obviously lynching a recruiter is better than lynching a recruit in every case but I don't necessarily think holding out for a recruiter is the only good idea anymore.

Lynching ANY cult is a good lynch now.

[Skruffs]

Vollkan:
You started with the snide tone. Rmember this?

*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.

e returning your 'snide tone' back at you, then perhaps you shouldn't act like a pompous ass when you direc conversation at me.

Just sayin.

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.

Vollkan, baby, you said, in exact quotes:

a recruit claim makes it more likely (...) that they are a recruiter than any random player

Thus, whilst a recruit claim might well be a positive factor, it is not decisive.

(...)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.

To sum up! And I am paraphrasing:

"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!

This is why I think you are one of his recruits.

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.

Still waiting on this one.

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.

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.

For example, you have been sweating under the collar ever since I put my vote on Aio.

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?

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.

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?

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.

You are basically saying that I (me, not you) should determine a way to "prove" with "Evidence" that someone is a cult recruitor. The only way I can think of that someone can PROVE someone else is a cult recruitor is by being a vig, cult recruitor, or serial killer. You are cussing me of strawmanning, which is interesting because I'm attacking the sole point that you are bringing up as a reason not to vote aioque at this juncture.

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.

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?

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.

What's unproductive about lynching cult leaders?

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.

[armlx]

This just seems like a bunch of noise to me. Let the war of the brick walls commence and what not.

[the silent speaker]

Sly, I'll freely admit that I have nothing on Yos but hunch, which is why I have mentioned it exactly twice (and even if I'm right I figure him for recruit rather than recruiter). But why do you say my suspicions of Beep are unfounded? Remarkable certain you sounded about it, too.

[Skruffs]

MNOWAX: If aio is lyched and turns up cult recruitor or cult, who will you vig tonight?

[Skruffs]

I believe that I am merited to ask considering he's been voting me in a bizarre fashion for the last two days.

[aioqwe]

A better question to ask is, if aio is lynched and turns up town, who would you vig?

Because that is what would actually happen.

Why is armlx ejecting himself from the conversation? Although, I would request volkan and skruff to please try and contain their posts a tad. It's very annoying for others to try and inject comments into pages and pages of posts...

[mnowax]

i honestly have no idea.

[Norinel]

(bumping vote count)