Mini 611a - Troy, Meet Helen (Restarting)

[Netlava]

confirm

[Netlava]

omg, ftp!

Vote: Macavenger

How do you usually confirm?

[Netlava]

Ah, such a shame that I have nothing to compare "firmcon" to. (PS I think it's strange)

[Netlava]

On a scale of 1-10 rank his scumminess in your eyes right now.

Scum tell!

Netlava you think what is strange? Mac saying firmcon, or you not being able to compare it to anything? (just wondering)

Mac saying firmcon.

[Netlava]

Charter you say Blackberry's actions seem odd. On a scale of 1-10 rank his scumminess in your eyes right now.

Actually, I'll need a few more posts in order to get a read so I'll refrain from pointing out why in order to not influence your posts.

FTP = first to post!

[Netlava]

Charter you say Blackberry's actions seem odd. On a scale of 1-10 rank his scumminess in your eyes right now.

This post is scummy because of the way you force charter to take a stance on Blackberry this early in the game while placing the responsibility entirely on him. Charter says Blackberry's actions seem odd? What do they like seem to you? I would consider that a loaded question.

Charter's response isn't scummy to me, because I consider CF Riot's question a loaded question, and therefore his response is justified.

Netlava you think what is strange? Mac saying firmcon, or you not being able to compare it to anything? (just wondering)

I'm curious why you ask?

Post 38

Pretty convincing. However, "On a scale of 1-10 rank his scumminess" does not seem like a question you would ask if you were suspicious of charter in the first place. I would expect a question with a distinctively different flavor.

Unvote, Vote: CF Riot

[Netlava]

Walnut's post sounds like a joke vote.

I was more asking him to stick to his guns and expand on his meager posts.

The thing is, the blackberry issue looked pretty insignificant. "Obviously it can't be very odd, or even odd enough to raise much suspicion." I'm thinking that you (as scum) may have overestimated the situation and tried to encourage a bandwagon while avoiding responsibility.

[Netlava]

I'm not defending Charter. I think his reaction was justified, but I don't think he's necessarily innocent or guilty.

However, I do think you're guilty, so that implies that Charter isn't scum, unless you are bussing him, which doesn't seem as likely.

Being the first to accuse Charter doesn't mean much, because that's not why I think you're scum. For now, I'll take your word on what your intentions were though.

My other suspect at the moment would probably be Mac.

I don't know when the lynch will come, but assuming we vote Charter and he flips town, I'll have to rethink what's gone on, but my most likely target will be Batt. If he hangs and flips Mafia, I don't know yet who may be with him. Maybe a better guess if more people post. Mac, Near, either of you still with us?

I don't like how you're setting up links Charter flips town. Setting up links if someone flips scum, I can understand (with some caution), but not if someone flips town. This suggests that you are scum who knows whether Charter is town, and are thus taking precautions or setting up future votes. It also suggests that you may not be too convinced whether Charter is scum, even though you entertain the idea of a Charter lynch.

@ Mac and Had, your votes would seem to indicate that you guys are suspicious of Charter and would support a Charter lynch. How guilty/suspicious is Charter in your opinion?

[Netlava]

You're being totally inconsistant in why I'm a suspect, yet you do think I'm guilty. Okay wait, now that I think about it, not

totally

inconsistant.

I think you're guilty, but I do try to give you the benefit of the doubt for some of your claims.

Is that one scum tell from page 2 really the only reason you're voting me? Because you would interrogate a suspect differently in my situation?

The question, "On a scale of 1-10 rank his scumminess," is scummy because it's not a question one would ask when suspecting someone, which makes me doubt your earlier claim that you suspected Charter when asking that question. What info did you hope to glean from such a question?

I suspect you had ulterior motives with that post i.e. egging on a bandwagon without looking suspicious. I think this quote from post 38 explains it pretty well:

You were the one to say it was odd behavior in the first place, not me.

About me thinking ahead to day 2, if I knew what Charter's role was for sure, I wouldn't need precautions. I'd know I was right or wrong ahead of time. Your logic doesn't make sense. I think Charter's actions give off a very strong scumminess, but I'm not convinced of anyone.

It's a scum tell because baddies know who is scum. So when accusing a player, they know their alignment beforehand and the fact that they'll inevitably be "wrong." Your posts seem to indicate this by trying to shift the blame already in the case of a mislynch. Usually when townies try to get someone lynched they are at least reasonably convinced that the person is guilty. Granted, nothing is certain, but if you aren't convinced whether someone is guilty why lynch?

Not seeing this. I get no implication that he's scum knowing charter is town from that.

The "tell" here is that he considers the idea of a Charter lynch while he speculates what would happen if Charter were to flip town. Contradictory.

My other suspect at the moment would probably be Mac.

Reasons? I see no justification for this in any of your posts.

Firmcon

But mostly because of the timing of your Charter vote, which looks off.

Netlava: What he, (Mac), said. But seriously, I don't get why you voted CF. Is it because he jumped on a bandwagon, or was it because he asked Charter a loaded question (which I don't find loaded at all, and in fact helpful to town)?

The question he asked was scummy and also because of his recent let's lynch Charter-is Charter innocent? post.

Post 33 is serious. I think it's a legit scumtell.

[Netlava]

Macavenger, are your unvotes and votes always this methodical, or is it just me?

Also, Mac, how guilty was Charter in your opinion at the time of your vote? I noticed that your unvote of him was quite timely (after I asked this question).

Justify. This early, why wouldn't you ask that of someone you have a tiny suspicion of?

An answer to this type of question wouldn't have given any insight into Charter's guilt/innocence at that point in the game, yet it puts him in a bad position by forcing him to commit that early on over apparently nothing. It also grossly overestimates the significance Charter's "that's odd" post.

Explain why the timing of my vote is off, but Hadhfang's or Battousai's isn't.

Had was the first to vote, and his reason was pretty trivial. It seemed more of an upgrade over a random vote. On the other hand, your reason indicated the beginnings of a case on Charter.

Battousai, I'm not so sure about it because it's a pressure vote, so it's harder to guess at its intent.

Your vote was the second vote after Tinsley's FOS, and the reason for your vote was a bit ambiguous.

I also think an accusation of "not taking a stance" for a middle number would be seriously silly, since giving a number is pretty much by definition taking a stance.

I think having someone take a stance that early in the game was an unrealistic expectation. Mac, rank Near's scumminess 1-10!

If it will help prove my township and prove I'm willing to take responsibility for my own actions, so be it. Vote: Charter

This post implies you are voting Charter just to look more town to the town. Another questionable motive!

I'm so mad at this game right now I'm going to cry. I think I'm being played really well by the mafia, but my brain is so fantastical the scenarios I come up with of how they're doing it are too ridiculous to be logical on D1.

I think you are overestimating your predicament - you aren't close to getting lynched. Anyways, what scenarios do you have in mind? Does this mean that you feel the people who are suspecting you are mafia?

No I never meant to imply that I was in fact taking them. Netlava said it appeared that I was taking precautions as scum. I am not scum, and my post was saying "if I were, I wouldn't need them."

I meant that scum may feel compelled to take precautions because they know they'll be "wrong." Innocents don't know, so they usually hope for the best and assume they'll be right.

[Netlava]

CF Riot, how suspicious of Charter were you when you asked him to rank?

[Netlava]

I missed the part where you said it was mainly a pressure vote in your previous post, so that makes you look a little better, I guess.

Completely disagree. The actual number wouldn't have given much information, but the way someone answers (or doesn't, in this case) can be a valuable reaction to look at. It wouldn't have put him in a bad position at all, as very little stock would (or should) be put in that number later.

I still don't see how an answer that question would help. But more importantly, it leads Charter to the conclusion that Blackberry's action was scummy with the phrase "you say that blackberry's actions seem odd." The question almost expects Charter to find Blackberry scummy and makes not finding Blackberry scummy a direct disagreement with his previous post.

This is pretty inconsistent. Tinsley was actually the first to vote, though it was random. Had was the first serious vote, followed closely by Tinsley confirming his.

I fail to see any way my vote was substantially different from Hadhfang's. The only real difference is that I used the word "case," and I did so in reference to what charter had already said himself.

You also already know mine is a pressure vote when you wrote this part, like Battousai's, so why are they still being treated differently if that makes it hard to guess intent?

Your vote didn't seem like a pressure vote. Now that you say it is, I guess I'll have to take your word for it. I'm not so sure about Had's and Battousai's votes either, but yours just feels the most suspect.

The situation is not analogous, and you know it. Near has posted literally no serious content of any kind this game, whereas charter actually had said something of substance about blackberry.

Except nothing was realistically going to happen with the Blackberry incident either, and CF Riot was trying to make something happen.

Lastly, since this is another of my long winded posts, I'm going to try for at least the end of day 1 to start giving shorter posts unless specifically questioned.

Stay active so we can continue to interrogate you

I think I'm being played really well by the mafia

Are you admitting that the case against you is sound?

[Netlava]

Good point, but the way you say it suggests you feel Riot is scummy.

Well, yeah

Netlava - How did Macavenger's vote on charter feel more suspect than Battousai's?

Actually, I think Macavenger may be more innocent than previously thought. His questionable votes and adherence to principle may be more posting style because it's so prevalent in his posts. Battousai - I don't know yet - he may be more scummy than I previously thought.

Tinsley, what do you think of CF Riot?

I apologize for no posts - I've had to go to my friend's birthday, and I've been preparing for my dad's birthday. If anyone has any questions they'd like to me, I'd be happy to answer them.

Anyway, Acid, which post would you be referring to since 89 is your post?

Nice, you're on my list of suspicion already. What do you think of Charter and CF Riot?

Netlava, looking at that it looks like you think the question was loaded, why is that?

He prefaces that question by pointing out that "you say Blackberry is scummy," which leads Charter to that conclusion. "Rank his scumminess" also implies that the action was scummy.

[Netlava]

Odd implies scummy, people.

Charter you say Blackberry's actions seem

odd

. On a scale of 1-10 rank his

scumminess

in your eyes right now.

Although I can't see this as a scum tell, but slightly odd play.

omg, hypocrite

Really? What's suspect about Hadhfang's vote? Cause you didn't seem to imply that you found anything suspect about his when you brought it up earlier.

I changed my mind. Right now, I find batt and had to be the most scummy (explained later).

Why do you suspect ShadowGirl?

Initially, after reading that post I found it strange that was the one thing she had questions about, but upon second consideration, it seems like a simple clarification question.

He said "odd" not "scummy," and it was a direct quote of charter's own words. These do not mean remotely the same thing, and he wasn't leading charter at all.

Big difference!

[Netlava]

Part II The breakthrough

CF Riot has been giving me pro-town vibes as much as I find his actions scummy. Therefore, after re-reading the thread, I think had is scum. Batt would be my second choice.

As you can see, not answering questions is bad. Now I don't think you should be lynched based on that alone, but I will add my vote on you to add on even more pressure.

Implies not answering questions is somehow lynch-worthy.

I'm thinking now that Charter may be an overeager town player or have a power role which might account for his defensivness. Still, I'm going to keep my vote on him for now, becuase I'm not entirely convinced he isn't scum.

Discusses power roles, and not convinced he

isn't

scum? You were convinced in the first place?

I think that you are perhaps a bit too over eager to defend your actions, This might be a scum tell, but i'm going ot see where this leads.

Damn that vote was useful. A few posts later and you unvote, having gained the wonderful insight of that vote, Anyways, defensiveness as a possible scumtell is the motif here.

Thanks for confirming the obvious netlava, any chance you could answer the question now?

ANY CHANCE YOU COULD READ MY ANSWER!?

I did make the point about him him being defensive, but to elaborate on that, I feel that Charter is being a bit too defensive at this moment in time, especially when considering that when he made that post he only had 2 votes on him (I think?) and one of which was a random vote.

Again, with the defensiveness theme. Is defensiveness is your main reason for voting Charter? I find pointing out defensiveness as the main reason for voting scummy because from my limited experience as scum, it is the reason I am most tempted to give. discuss.

I see my vote has gotten a reaction out of you charter. Just so you know, just because I vote for you doesn't mean I want you lynched. I wanted to see how defensive you would become with an additional vote on you.

Post implies you expect charter to be defensive after voting him. Then you use that as a scumtell!

---

To summarize:

Had is scum, batt is probably the second. Third, dunno yet.

Unvote, Vote: Hadhfang

[Netlava]

There is no game setup metadata that says that there are three scum. Would you care to explain?

I'm looking for 3 scum - it seems pretty standard in a 12 player game.

Then we are looking at different dictionaries. odd to me means slightly stange, not scummy.

The only word you need to look up is "imply."

In the context of this game, odd IMPLIES scummy. Why do we point out that something is odd in this game? Is it simply because it's bizarre? No, we say it's strange because it can be interpreted as scummy behavior.

If we take it one step further, what is the definition of "strange?" Something that is not normal. In this game the "norm" is the town, which constitutes the majority of the players and is thus the standard for comparison. We are trying to weed out the deviations from the norm, which are the mafia. Therefore, strange -> mafia.

This "maliciously word twisting" theme is nonsense. You guys are just purposely misinterpreting my posts, and adding some drama to it.

If anything, this should lend credence to the idea that CF Riot's question was loaded, as his question purported the idea that saying something is odd -> scumminess. How come you don't question that?

Oh look! netlava's twisiting people's words, there's a first!

Oh look! Had is just gonna take whatever I say next, and say I'm twisting people's words!

Alright, let's go back to the post:

As you can see, not answering questions is bad. Now I don't think you should be lynched based on that alone, but I will add my vote on you to add on even more pressure.

My comment here was that it implies not answering questions is lynch worthy. Here, we look at the assumptions. Batt dispels the notion that Charter should be lynched solely because he didn't answer a question. To dispel this notion requires the assumption that a person should be lynched solely for that in the first place, which is an absurd idea. Consequently, batt's post seems fake. I also don't like how he subscribes to the general mantra "not answering questions is bad."

I mentioned it was a possibility, but to me it seemed that charter was more likely to be scum than have a power role, Also interesting is that you only notice this once Blackberry points it out.

Doesn't change anything. Were you really convinced that Charter was scum just based off of that in the first place? I feel that the sentence, "I'm going to keep my vote on him for now, becuase I'm not entirely convinced he isn't scum" is an excuse for scum to leave their vote on someone in case he is lynched while they debate whether they are innocent or guilty.

Remember this is day 1. Charter was defensive from the first question posed to him. That to me seemed too defensive for a power roll player, hence my remaining vote on charter at the point i theorised it was a possibility. I was fairly convinced that he was scum, but there was the tiny possibility that he was a power role.

I think defensiveness in general is a flawed scumtell. It varies too much from person to person.

Btw, had, the quote that where it says you are scumhunting for more "correct" reasons is actually macavenger's, not mine.

You didn't answer my question. (Now that I look at it, it seems to be unclear. What I want to know is why you think my question to Charter only leaves him one answer, but not my question to you.)

How many times do I have to repeat myself?? Your question to Charter is loaded because you lead Charter to the conclusion that BB's action was scummy even though it was obvious he thought nothing much of it that early in the game. It also forces him to commit way too early in the game over apparently nothing.

How can anyone not be convinced Charter is Mafia?

I think you're overplaying your "I take responsibility!!" act now. Weren't you debating on whether Charter were innocent just a moment ago? PS I don't think Charter is mafia.

What is it? If it is Netlava saying odd implies scummy, he's clearly being fecetious. Note the rolleyes smily.

Not a joke

No. It doesn't. At all. I'm awed by your ability to bold two unrelated words.

Maybe if you read the words in between, it would help.

Nope, no backsies. It doesn't work this way. My post was the only one in between those two posts you made, and it provided no new information on Hadhfang's vote. You don't get to just suddenly change your mind like that. That's a scummy action.

I changed my mind. woohoo. Because obviously nothing new has happened in this game, am I right?

Translation: "Shit, people realized the bullshit wagon I started on CF Riot was bullshit. I need to start another bullshit wagon so they don't lynch me or my buddy charter!"

LOL, you really think I'm buddies with Charter?

And the case against CF Riot is based around 2 primary themes. The first is his question and the second is the precaution he takes. However, CF Riot's third act, voting Charter to stick to his guns, strikes me as a newb act, so therefore I'm inclined to dismiss CF Riot as a newb townie.

Seriously, this is another example where you don't just get to change your mind cause you feel like it. The timing of this is just too unbelievably convenient. Right as the pressure on CF Riot dissipates, you suddenly find him townie, after all those posts you spent attacking him, giving no indication you thought there was any chance he was town? This is bullshit. You're changing your mind on him because you're scum, and realized you can't mislynch him.

The timing is obvious. But what do you want me to do, pretend that it didn't change?

Funny cause when I read Battousai's sentence, it implies exactly the opposite. He says he doesn't want to lynch you just on that. Could you please at least try to hide the fact that you're twisting everyone's words to say what you want? This feels like shooting fish in a barrel, not a game.

Look harder.

The tells I'm using on Netlava are mainly twisting what people say to mean what he wants, and backtracking/flip flopping.

I think you're town, Macavenger, because you put quite some effort into that long post with a cocky attitude even though you're wrong.

[Netlava]

You totally missed the point here. You said why you think Charter's is a loaded question, which I've read from you already. But the whole idea I want you to explain is how it is any different than the question I asked you?

It doesn't apply to the criteria I detailed earlier.

Joke, right?

mhmmm, as opposed to you misinterpreting CF Riot's question and "taking it one step further" or putting words in his mouth as it were.

I'd like to hear what CF Riot's opinion on the odd/scummy issue here is, and I find it odd *cough* scummy that he didn't comment on it earlier. I thought it was obvious that odd implied scummy in his question.

Also, this goes hand in hand with my point earlier that CF Riot took a trivial early-game comment and turned it into something that it wasn't. The idea that CF Riot was suspicious of Charter may not even be relevant here.

Well if bat was dispelling an absurd notion I fail to see the problem.

Absurd notions need not to be dispelled.

I don't think that Charter is incapable of saying "I think that BB is only 1 on that scale because it jsut seems odd, not scummy to me."

Well Charter's answer was sort of like that, except he called the question loaded. Either, this doesn't change the fact that the question was pointing him in a specific direction.

Why's that then netlava? Why don't you think that Charter is scum?

What makes you so sure Charter is scum? I've been hearing comments that Charter is "extremely scummy" with reasons of "too defensive" or "didn't answer a question." Is that all? This question also applies to battousai and CF Riot, but not Macavenger.

I don't think Charter is scum because of certain inhabitants of his bandwagon with suspect reasons for jumping on.

Well considering everyone except you thinks that Charter is scum, logic would dictate that yes he does.

Great logic there.

Sometimes odd can mean scummy. You're trying to say that it always does, which is not true.

I didn't say "always," there are exceptions. But in this case, it is perfectly applicable.

Lots has now. You changed your mind about hadhfang's vote between post 110 and post 113, between which you and I were the only ones to post.

Time is not measured in game posts.

Again, you're reading tons of crap that isn't there into what people are saying. He's making sure no one misinterprets his vote as him thinking that, emphasizing that it's just a pressure vote. You trying to make his statement into the opposite of what it is is just hilarious.

You're taking things at face value.

Huh. This looks oddly like attacking CF Riot for the thing you just said made him newbie town.

It's scummy, but it also seems like a newbie act.

Ok, so in post 157 he's finally town.

Town? Actually, I am unsure. CF Riot's posts continue to seem scummy to me, but I don't think he's a suitable for a D1 lynch.

Anyways, Macavenger it seems your main points are my "malicious word twisting" and my sudden change in opinion. What you call "malicious word twisting" is actually just my tendency to address the assumptions and implications of posts that you could see if spent some time reading and thinking through my logic. As for my sudden change in opinion, well, things change. Nothing more I can add to that. This game, in general, is not very flexible, and consequently this is also one reason I was so adverse to CF Riot's question, because to have someone commit that early over apparently nothing is a great benefit to scum.

PS Vote hadhfang for great justice

[Netlava]

EBWOP

The response "Joke, right?" was directed at hadhfang's "if we take in one step further" comment.

[Netlava]

Unvote, vote: charter

quicklynch time for ez win lol

[Netlava]

/in for restart!

I guess I'm not too disappointed, seeing as I was wrong about Charter. Charter's lynch seemed inevitable.

[Netlava]

I changed my avatar so I (hopefully) won't get lynched as much lol