Mini 611 - Troy, Meet Helen (Game Over)

[Farkshinsoup]

Tinsley, I'd like to invoke Occam's Razor here: The simplest explanation is the most probable. (I know that this is an oversimplification of this concept, but you know what I mean)

Which is more likely, that I came up with this risky plan, hoping to swing all of these people over, some of whom think that I'm scum, also potentially outing my scum buddies, who would all have to silently agree with me and move their votes - OR - I did a reread, saw some suspicious things, and changed my vote?

This argument is weak, and you should acknowledge that before you dig yourself into a deeper hole.

[Farkshinsoup]

You're right, I'm sorry, I should have voted for someone I didn't find scummy.

I never suggested that you should have. You could have not voted at all. Why, exactly, did you feel the need to put this useless vote on Walnut?

Uh...I called out nearly everyone in that post. I was trying to keep an open mind, and generate some discussion.

Yes, but the first sentence of that post specifically called out everyone who voted for Netlava, who was the correct lynch for Day 1. He was acting very scummy. I'm not saying that scum weren't in on that lynch, it was a great place to put their vote, but there were also clearly townies who thought he was the guy on Day 1.

Also, calling out "nearly everyone" is a move that appears pro-town on the surface, but is actually a way of calling out no one.

[Farkshinsoup]

I will be V/LA from Thursday, July 31, 7:00 pm to Tuesday, August 5, 3:00 pm. All times GMT -4.

[Macavenger]

While I expressed surprise at being continually pressed when I had already refuted the arguments

Answering and refuting them aren't the same thing. Your responses have done nothing to show how any of the points charter and I have brought up aren't scummy.

But your vote did go to waste. That's the whole point of my argument. Clearly you knew that it wasn't going to get Walnut lynched, so the only reason to put it there was to be able to point at it on Day 2.

Why are you only picking on Tinsley for this? What about charter and I "wasting" our votes on Walnut? What about Shadowgirl wasting her vote on Battousai?

I don't actually see how voting Walnut is in any way useless, anyway. It was the largest competing wagon to Netlava, and a sensible place to vote if one didn't want Netlava lynched that day.

Yes, but the first sentence of that post specifically called out everyone who voted for Netlava, who was the correct lynch for Day 1. He was acting very scummy. I'm not saying that scum weren't in on that lynch, it was a great place to put their vote, but there were also clearly townies who thought he was the guy on Day 1.

Correct is subjective. I feel Walnut was the correct lynch yesterday. Netlava was not a bad D1 lynch, but Walnut was a better choice.

[Farkshinsoup]

Why are you only picking on Tinsley for this?

The timing of his vote. As I said, he had just been called out as scum by Thesp, and he believed (as did we all, I think) that Net was about to get the hammer. You and charter had your votes on Walnut for the second half of Day 1. So it's not the same. In regards to SG's vote on Batt, I'll have to go back and look at that.

Further to my point about Thesp, since I was one of the people that he pegged as scum, I can tell you that I thought to myself, "This is trouble. This guy has Paragon of Mafia Hunters under his name." If I had been scum, I would really have been worried.

I think that Tinsley wanted to make sure he had a verifiable vote on the opposite side of that lynch so that he could defend himself on Day 2. Have you noticed how he keeps asking Thesp why he thinks he's scummy? Not aggressive, but insistent. I think Thesp has him worried.

[Farkshinsoup]

Correct is subjective. I feel Walnut was the correct lynch yesterday. Netlava was not a bad D1 lynch, but Walnut was a better choice.

Yes, correct is subjective. I don't mean that he was the only correct lynch, obviously there were others as well, since there is more than one scum. So let me re-phrase that: Netlava was not the wrong lynch on D1. There were a lot of good reasons to lynch him. At least you and charter had been making the case for Walnut for most of the day, but Tinsley came in, and chose Walnut after it was pretty clear that he would not be lynched.

I don't think that the choice between Tinsley and Walnut is necessarily mutually exclusive, by the way. While I don't agree with a lot of the case against Walnut, I wouldn't clear him yet, and it is certainly conceivable that Tinsley was bussing his partner. For me, that's speculation for another day, after Tinsley gets lynched.

[Tinsley]

The timing of his vote. As I said, he had just been called out as scum by Thesp, and he believed (as did we all, I think) that Net was about to get the hammer.

What did I have to gain from voting Walnut rather than just not voting at all?

Further to my point about Thesp, since I was one of the people that he pegged as scum, I can tell you that I thought to myself, "This is trouble. This guy has Paragon of Mafia Hunters under his name." If I had been scum, I would really have been worried.

Actually I shrugged it off because didn't provide much to back it up.

Have you noticed how he keeps asking Thesp why he thinks he's scummy? Not aggressive, but insistent. I think Thesp has him worried.

I explained this in post 565.

[Farkshinsoup]

What did I have to gain from voting Walnut rather than just not voting at all?

Because it makes you look more town by taking a stand, all be it on a lost cause. If Walnut is town, then you can push for his lynch on D2, with the added legitimacy of being on the right side of the Netlava lynch. At the end of Day 2, you've got 2 mislynches on the first 2 days.

If Walnut is scum, then you get to actively bus your partner safely without having to lynch him. If he's the Day 2 lynch, you come out looking very pro-town.

[charter]

Ehh, I'm leaning towards Fark being horribly wrong in his assessment of things, but wrong as town now. He's definately not out of the woods yet, but I'd prefer a Walnut or LG lynch today now. I don't have proof of this, just my feelings.

[Farkshinsoup]

Ehh, I'm leaning towards Fark being horribly wrong in his assessment of things, but wrong as town now.

I'm moving up!

[charter]

Voting Walnut is the best way to move up...

[camn]

Because it makes you look more town by taking a stand, all be it on a lost cause. If Walnut is town, then you can push for his lynch on D2, with the added legitimacy of being on the right side of the Netlava lynch. At the end of Day 2, you've got 2 mislynches on the first 2 days.

This is all very WIFOM. A townie could do all these things too.
Tinsley might actually BE town, which is why he took a stand, allbeit on a lost cause.

If Walnut is scum, then you get to actively bus your partner safely without having to lynch him. If he's the Day 2 lynch, you come out looking very pro-town.

And If we lynch Walnut, and he turns up Scum... Tinsley only looks good if he busses him TODAY.. and we all know about bussing your partner...so he would have to really lead the charge.

Thus I don't think his vote YESTERDAY really helps him in that eventuality. Unless he is really going to railroad a scumbuddy. . which I am not against.

c

[CF Riot]

This is crap.

He votes Walnut, a vote that looks pretty useless at that point, put there more so that he can not be on the erroneous Netlava wagon. Also notice how sure he is that Net is town, and how he's willing to lynch Batt instead (there was no way that was going to happen either)

His vote went to the competing wagon, and put it at 6/4. How is that useless? I understand that in the end, it didn't get Walnut lynched, but that is not a useless vote. Voting someone with no votes would have been useless, but not the competing wagon. Also, are you really saying the correct move in that situation for a townsperson is to not vote? Why would not taking a stance be more protown than taking any sort of stance? You're also voicing suspicion of Tinsley for giving opinions on other players.

Have you noticed how he keeps asking Thesp why he thinks he's scummy?

I think the reasoning behind this might be, Thesp hasn't given any reasons and yet is willing to lynch him. Scummy why?
----
LG hasn't been very vocal today. Until now I hadn't payed much attention to him, and had him at 50/50 in my head. I'd like more posting, and some current opinions on who you think is suspicious.
----
Walnut:
Ok, about the hindsight thing, you are right. That was stretching on my part. I believe Camn's claim and was taking the idea that it is true as fact when it is still unproven. What actually happened is BB claimed "something" and you wanted him lynched, and I thought this a bad move. Then once Camn gave specifics, I believed her and as such saw your opinion to lynch as more severe.

The problem with your fence sitting on Netlava didn't come from a lack of vote. It came from lack of stance. You can say you suspect someone without voting. When questioned throughout D1, you continually took an actively neutral stance whenever possible. You never came up with your own suspects, and only gave (always neutral) opinions on other suspects when someone asked you to first.

His reason was distracting the town, then later it changed to lack of dedication to the game.

D2 Walnut comes out (appearing to be) following up on his LoS and suspicion from D1 calling out Thesp. Thesp gives his null result, but Walnut votes Charter and lines up Mac for D3 if Charter is scum. This is alright except he doesn't mention Thesp at all. He doesn't say, "I believe you." He doesn't say, "That's scummy but I'll wait for tomorrow." He just says Charter is scum because he's focused on Walnut for crappy reasons, when he doesn't even give a good defense to his total fence sitting D1.

Do you have a defense for these?

As for your role changing my opinion of Charter's role: Only two of the things I listed about Charter's play being scummy were related to you. That was one of the reasons why I don't see Charter's scummy play as being actual scum. The things he does that I find scummy are aimed at multiple people, over a variety of different arguments. Therefore, if you flip town, that alone wouldn't point me back to Charter just because he's voting you right now.
----
As I've said I believe Camn, but Charter brings up a fair question. Charter at this point, would you say you believe her or not? Everyone else, if we are going to do something, when exactly does that happen?

For my own opinion, I wouldn't excuse her because of her claim if I did suspect her. So far, I haven't seen anything she's done as scummy, so I haven't worried about it yet.

[Farkshinsoup]

Also, are you really saying the correct move in that situation for a townsperson is to not vote? Why would not taking a stance be more protown than taking any sort of stance?

Don't put words in my mouth, CF. I was not trying to argue for some universally "correct" pro-town way of acting in all situations. I'm arguing about this specific situation, with this specific player.

I think the question you need to ask yourself is, why did Tinsley not put the hammer (well it wasn't actually the hammer, but we thought it was) on Netlava. Either you think he was town, and he had it figured that all of the scum tells that Net was throwing off weren't for real, or he is scum, and he didn't want to be hammering an innocent townie. Clearly I believe the latter.

[Farkshinsoup]

As for Camn, her claim concerns me, because it's made her immune to investigation, but she hasn't done anything overtly scummy, and until we find some of the other scum in this game, talking about lynching her is premature and not good for the town, IMHO.

[CF Riot]

I wasn't arguing all situations either. But you can't look at the situation as "scum would do what he did, so he is scum." You have to look at it from both angles.

I never suggested that you should have.

You could have not voted at all.

Why, exactly, did you feel the need to put this useless vote on Walnut?

You're saying the way he voted for Walnut is scummy, so I took this bolded statement to mean you think not voting would be more townish. I said townsperson rather than Tinsley because if you're justifying the tell itself it shouldn't matter who it is, unless you want to argue meta. (Which I don't see as being a factor for this particular instance.) So answer my question, would not voting have been the more correct action in that situation?

[charter]

The only reason I believe Camn's claim is because of BB. I still maintain he was brilliant, whether scum or town. She might not have done anything scummy (that you see) but she has done NOTHING pro town, or am I missing it?

She'd be more voteworthy if she didn't hide behind the eclipse of Walnut and LG. I don't think we need to lynch her right now, but I don't want everyone assuming she's town unless she actually starts acting pro town.

Fark, all suspicion will magically drop from you if you vote Walnut. (Joking. Or am I?)

[Farkshinsoup]

I wasn't arguing all situations either. But you can't look at the situation as "scum would do what he did, so he is scum." You have to look at it from both angles.

I never suggested that you should have.

You could have not voted at all.

Why, exactly, did you feel the need to put this useless vote on Walnut?

You're saying the way he voted for Walnut is scummy, so I took this bolded statement to mean you think not voting would be more townish. I said townsperson rather than Tinsley because if you're justifying the tell itself it shouldn't matter who it is, unless you want to argue meta. (Which I don't see as being a factor for this particular instance.) So answer my question, would not voting have been the more correct action in that situation?

CF, let's look at the whole quote that I was responding to:

You're right, I'm sorry, I should have voted for someone I didn't find scummy.

I never suggested that you should have. You could have not voted at all. Why, exactly, did you feel the need to put this useless vote on Walnut?

Tinsley was portraying this situation as if he had only two choices: voting for walnut, who he found scummy, or for Net who he did not. This is disingenuous. He also had a third option, which was not to vote at all.

In my response, which you have bolded above, I was pointing out this inconsistency, I was not trying to say that this was the only pro-town option in this situation.

So in answer to your question, no, in my opinion not voting would not have been the best course of action for a townie in that situation. Voting for Netlava would have been.

As you point out, I have to look at this situation from all angles. Can his behaviour be explained with town motivations? Sure. Do I think that his behaviour is better explained by scum motivations? Yes. You're welcome to disagree with me.

[Macavenger]

So in answer to your question, no, in my opinion not voting would not have been the best course of action for a townie in that situation. Voting for Netlava would have been.

So you're suggesting it's good for townies to vote for people they don't find scummy?

[Farkshinsoup]

So in answer to your question, no, in my opinion not voting would not have been the best course of action for a townie in that situation. Voting for Netlava would have been.

So you're suggesting it's good for townies to vote for people they don't find scummy?

Bad for townies, perfectly acceptable for scum.

[Macavenger]

So how is the explanation that Tinsley is a townie that found Netlava to be not scummy enough to lynch an impossible explanation for the situation? You don't seem to consider it at all.

[Farkshinsoup]

So how is the explanation that Tinsley is a townie that found Netlava to be not scummy enough to lynch an impossible explanation for the situation? You don't seem to consider it at all.

I considered it and rejected it. Please refer to my post 566 for my reasons.

I have a question for you: How is the explanation that Walnut is a townie that just has an irritating and unhelpful play style an impossible explanation for that situation? You don't seem to consider it at all.

[Macavenger]

I've read it. I found it to be very thin and rather WIFOMish.

That explanation about Walnut is impossible because Walnut is scum. Seriously though, the big thing with Walnut is the utter lack of scumhunting for most of the game. That's different than a lot of tells in that there is no motivation for a townie to not scumhunt, but there is motivation for scum to do that. The other stuff Walnut has done is really just icing on the cake to that central fact. Tinsley's behavior has a valid town explanation. You may reject it, but it exists. There is no valid town justification for the level of failure to scumhunt that Walnut has demonstrated this game.

[Walnut]

There is no valid town justification for the level of failure to scumhunt that Walnut has demonstrated this game.

If by scumhunting you mean baselessly claiming that people are scum, I am indeed guilty of what you say. Compare me to Thesp- he comes out and says something along the lines of "A, B and C are the scum- thanks for coming everyone" and everyone nods approvingly, while I am a pariah because I don't. It clearly wouldn't be in favour of the town to take a considered approach. This argument by Mac is rivalling Charter at his worst.

Well I don't think Mac was about to jump on a wagon that you and Walnut were on, so I don't think he was going to vote me.

Tinsley, I am not on your wagon, nor have I ever even voted for you. Are you so convinced that I am scum that you associate all possible evil behaviours with me? Don't believe the hype- I don't eat babies either

I'm pretty sharp.

A couple of people have given up on voting for you because they think you are playing too badly to be scum. I have not heard you disagree- are you swallowing that distasteful argument because it coincides with them unvoting you?

What actually happened is BB claimed "something" and you wanted him lynched, and I thought this a bad move. Then once Camn gave specifics, I believed her and as such saw your opinion to lynch as more severe.

Whether or not you thought my vote on BB a bad move, after BB was replaced I clearly said that my case on BB was closed:

Thank you Blackberry! And no, not for deciding that I am SCUM. I appreciate that you have done the right thing in baling out of the game if you are not interested enough.

For those who thought I was suspicious for pressing Blackberry on this, feel free to continue to do so, but for myself I think it has played out to a mutually acceptable conclusion. In the context (especially as supported by Farside's evidence in post 162) I won't be thinking of BB's replacement as at all suspicious by default, as BB's actions seem more personal than role based.

If you read that, why would you think that my suspicion on BB was worse when Camn posted something later? That doesn't make sense.

Whether I like it or not, I seem to have been pushed into a weird sort of scumhunting role simply by pointing out the dodgy arguments against me. Of course, you can always choose to believe that people are good, earnest townies who just aren't phrasing things very well, rather than scum looking for a lynch.

[Farkshinsoup]

Seriously though, the big thing with Walnut is the utter lack of scumhunting for most of the game. That's different than a lot of tells in that there is no motivation for a townie to not scumhunt, but there is motivation for scum to do that. The other stuff Walnut has done is really just icing on the cake to that central fact. Tinsley's behavior has a valid town explanation. You may reject it, but it exists. There is no valid town justification for the level of failure to scumhunt that Walnut has demonstrated this game.

Yeah, you make a good point.

Walnut, do you have anything else to contribute that doesn't have to do with responding to accusations? How about my fight with Tinsley?