Um, no.Eld wrote:Having said that, Electra gets bonus points for making such an early move.
Boost Electra
"Scum can't gambit on the first page" is exactly what makes such gambits effective.Electra wrote:@ iLord - I don't think scum making a gamble page 1 day 1 is a common thing, but I could be wrong. :p Anyway, I'm including the example role PM vanilla under my second category. I assume that even those vanillas would get a boost in some way, although I don't know what it would be. In my case, it tells me I get information, and I love information. :p
I disagree about playing normally. I think this boost thing can be used to help the town, and it is to the town's advantage to figure out what's the best way to use it. Ignoring what boosts might do and just blindly voting for whomever we think is least suspicious seems like a waste. For one, these people might not get useful boosts. The second thing is that scum can also appear innocent, especially on day 1. They also have their scum buddies to support boosting them. Finally, we're going to want to know what the boost did to the best of the boostee's knowledge, so we can continue to use it effectively, so if we do boost a protown power role, then we would potentially have to out that role the next day.
This is a good point.Jahudo wrote:If someone thinks they should or should not be boosted they can say that before the lynch, but no specifics. It should be a combination of the candidate thinking they have a useful power and the group thinking they're pro-town.
We will - just later, after we have evidence for which to base our boast targets on. The discussions are very connected. Unless someone has a possible day power, there's no reason to boast before we have information.Raging Rabbit wrote:I think we should definitely discuss boosting as well vote, no reason whatsoever to both make the days a whole lot longer and make the discussions unconnected. I think people's opinion on who to boost can help a lot with scumhunting, especially after we'll have a confirmed scum.
Vote iLord for trying to prevent this.
Testable?RR wrote:Also, boost Electra. Could be a scumgambit, but I think this is testable enough to make it worth our while. We're basically as unsure about her as we are about anyone at this point, and considering her claim boosting her will gain as more info.
We still get boostwagons - just after we have information to base it on. Like I said, unless you suspect you will get a day ability, there's no pro-town reason to boost before information.eldarad wrote:I disagree - I think by doing this we are failing to use a additional information that this boost-voting mechanism provides us.
(meh, turns out RR has stole my thunder. I'll go ahead and say it anyway)
The boosting gives us another 2 wagons per Day to analyse. These boostwagons, if you will, are just as good at creating links between players as regular wagons are. Trying to shut this part of the game down right off the bat doesn't sit well with me.
Having said that, my gut reaction is that this was an oversight rather than scumminess on iLord's part.
We test this how? By lynching the target she gets? You want the scum to get our boost AND our lynch?RR wrote:What's more testable than information? It'll be very easy to find out if what she supplies us with is true or false as the game progresses. Definitely easier to test than the unknown effects of boosting anyone else,
I suppose there's no reason we can't start boostvoting people, but we should save the actually boosting until after the lynch target is decided. That way, we have the most information for accurate boost targets.RR wrote:They're connected, but there's no reason whatsoever they can't exist in parallel. In fact, they'll feed off each other. The reasons for boost voting before we have information are the exact same reasons for normal d1 voting.
About the town?TDC wrote:I'm not sure why ILord and RR are talking about guilties and innocents, when Electra's claim clearly said she'll get "information about the town", which I'd guess would be things like "There's X scum in the town" or "there are Y vanillas". Nothing she said suggested it's a cop investigation.
Vanilla getting powers is just like goon getting powers, if it weren't for the sample vanilla PM.Eldarad wrote:And, as Electra said, for a scum to make that leap of faith about the existence or otherwise of boostable vanilla townies, or whatever, is pause for thought.
We'll just have more information from the wagon. Just like as the day goes on, we get a better idea of who's scum, we'll get a better idea of who's town as the day goes on.Eldarad wrote:I don't see how lynching before boosting gives us any more information - we won't learn the victim's alignment if we get a lynch majority before we've done the boosting thing. And we can't lynch Today without choosing two people to boost.
So I don't understand where you are going with this.
Did this part say anything relevant? What is your opinion on skillit's "attack?" (which was more than just the pun). What bearing do you think it has on skillit or Electra's alignment?fl wrote:Regarding skillit's "attack" on Electra's argument, I think it has been misconstrued, the pun was there, and while cheeky and funny, it made it seem like you were making way too big a deal of it as you went on. I feel that if you have to explain your joke than it wasn't all that great to begin with, although I did like it.
Our hesitancy will offset the eagerness of others.Jahudo wrote:You skipped me
Actually I didn't directly say you were town or scum for your claim, but you could be right about scum not being able to make a convincing lie that early. You're still a ways a way from a boost majority so I don't really see the hesitancy in some people to use their boost.
Boost Electra
You didn't explain how you found that panicky - it didn't sound like a "OHMYGODI'MCAUGHT" post.RR wrote:Going out of your way to answer questions directed at others isn't a sign of not paying attention. I figure by turning it into a mistake and apologizing you where hoping to make it not appear as a scumtell anymore.
No, I understand your attack and the such.Skillit wrote:@ilord -You mentioned confusion. Here is the issue as i see it. i made a joke about her just wanting to get a boost right after electra made her boost post. Incog took this joke as my immediately accepting her claim. in refuting this i made some more fun about how electra was a traitor in our last game. This is being construed as a feeble attack on her. to me the basic issue is "were the remarks some feeble attempt to attack Electra or were they more likely something else?" I feel like its come down to a "this was an attack!" versus "no, it really wasnt" but there is nothing i can really say because nobody seems to even be entertaining the possibility that they are wrong.
Yeah, really sorry about this - it's on another computer so I can't work on it all the time. It's coming (Likely tommorrow)Incog wrote:I'm glad to see that someone finally at least commented on this. I was a bit surprised to see a bunch of people post within the same time frame of our exchange but seem to completely ignore the massive blocks of text that made up the previous page. I know iLord and Crazy in particular at least mentioned that they are currently working on some sort of summary post up until now, so I can at least excuse them for not commenting on it but others like Jahudo in particular continued right on posting seemingly oblivious to the current happenings. Electra didn't seem to comment on it either. I'd actually be very interested in learning people's opinions about springlullaby's case against me and my responses to it.
! Incognito, you can change your opinion. You can state your initial opinions in thread, and then change them as you gather more information. The benefit is that we know what your stated opinions are at a certain point of time and information. This information would be valuable to analyze when you claim, for example.Incognito wrote:Probably no harm at all but to you I ask an opposite question. What harm would it do to the town to not speculate in thread when I still eventually shared my thoughts anyway? Is it wrong to store Electra's first post in your own mind as a null tell and to wait to see more coming from her to come to a final decision about her page 1 claim especially when practically everyone else was talking about her anyway? What's wrong with trying to expand the conversation away onto other things that are not Electra when the Electra stuff was already being covered by others?
That particular action was protown and makes sense. The scummy vibes I'm getting from your argument with springlullaby is much stronger. Just because I think your scum doesn't mean I can't acknowledge good points that you make. Scum and make good, protown points to blend in as town.Incognito wrote:You've used a question and point that I raised with respect to fuzzylightning to arrive at the conclusion that he's likely town but yet you've still got me second from the bottom on your towniest to scummiest list? How exactly does that work?
The excessive amount of doubt you put up behind the springlullaby vote and how you sort of built up to it read really scummy. The doubtful reasoning about how you are attacking him because you can't see his reasoning is a weak scummy OMGUS. Townies are very often mistaken in their cases. Here's the posts in question:Incognito wrote:Also please explain why my vote on springlullaby "binged" your scumdar. I also don't understand the portion about politeness either and why you think practically all of the points springlullaby has raised against me are weak but yet you still read her as town and me as scum who's defended himself well.
Incognito wrote:And I'm trying to take it as a positive sign because I know that my immediate impression from your attack on me is that it's slightly scummy for stretching the truth the way you have. Instead of immediately jumping to conclusions about your alignment, I'll continue trying to engage in conversation with you to see if you genuinely believe the points you're raising against me or if they're merely contrived and created to paint me in a bad light. Usually when someone makes a case against me, I can sometimes see where the person is coming from and why the person might think something I mentioned gave them a bad vibe.But with you, I really can't see that, and I'm becoming more and more curious about what your alignment really could be.
----------------------------------------------------------------Incognito wrote:While I'd like to keep the pressure on sthar8 a bit longer as I still feel like he could be contributing a bit more (yes, yes I know he's mentioned that he's sick), I really do find myself most troubled with springlullaby's attack against me and am having a hard time believing it could be coming from town. I've been attacked before in past games, and I feel like I can usually understand what the person who's attacking me for has a problem with and can usually tell when an attack against me is a bit misguided. I've reread the thread a number of times and did a focused read on myself to see if I can genuinely find myself agreeing with the points springlullaby raised against me, and I just can't. I felt like a lot of the points she raised against me were very strongly exaggerated. Examples include the following:
Not commenting on Electra and dressing up your vote.Incognito wrote:You also seem to imply that there are some strong points out there against me that springlullaby could use against me to suggest that I'm scum but in your paragraph about me you say that you're leaning scum on me "due to gut". What exactly do you think are the strong points then?
Then why comment on it at all?Jahudo wrote:I'm trying not to get in the way too much because they need to answer the parts that are directed to them. I feel that some people are not looking at this exchange enough, or at least we don't know if they are or not. But we are getting a good look at both of them and I think they could both be town.
Because we want to have your opinion on record - we don't need you to force the conversation away - that'll happen on its own.Incognito wrote:What's wrong with trying to expand the conversation away onto other things that are not Electra when the Electra stuff was already being covered by others?
It makes sense to me, so I don't see why I shouldn't use it. On the flipside, are you saying that if you make a good point, you're automatically town?Incognito wrote:That wasn't an action though. You're basing an entire read of a person off of the point that someone who you think might be scum brought up. That doesn't make any sense to me.
In fact, these points actually fortify each other. You didn't comment on Electra, so we have no idea how scummy or townie your reactions could've been. But now that you do state town how you think about stuff as it happens, we can actually read you.Incognito wrote:I don't think this makes much sense either. One of your major points against me is how I didn't immediately share my thoughts about Electra's page 1 stuff. Your other major point essentially boils down to me sharing my thoughts about another player's attack against me in temporal order. So if I don't share my thoughts about someone immediately it's scummy and if I do share my thoughts about someone as those thoughts progress it's scummy too? You can't have it both ways.
Weird, your last post had a lot of newb tells. Don't know what to make of it now.Electra wrote:A lot, but I had a three or so year hiatus and only just came back to the site. Things have certainly changed. :p
I consider any points carefully, it makes little difference whether they were made by suspicious players or confirmed players. And I do believe that what you are saying makes sense.Incognito wrote:Nope, not saying that at all. Town and scum can both make good points like you said. My point is that if you were genuinely suspicious of me like you say you are, you'd take things that I say especially player read-related more with a grain of salt or you would scrutinize them a bit closer to make sure they hold some weight. You seemed to just accept my point about him fairly easily to base your town-read of him on, which really strikes me as counter-intuitive.
Cases don't work like that - any points that Incognito defends well against count as null, not as benefits. They can't outweigh the good points in the case against him.Crazy wrote:Excellent point, though I believe the rest of Incog's defense more than makes up for it.
Ah, I thought it was from SL.Crazy wrote:Well, there is a difference here. That point was from sthar, not from SL, who was the one attacking Incog. So I don't think it's quite the same thing.
And besides, voting someone based on that one point about whatever sthar said (I forgot, something about buddying up to SL or similar) isn't warranted.
I see.Crazy wrote:It's crap and it's scummy. I guess I didn't make that clear enough.
Ah okay. Keep us informed on your opinion after you have finished the case.Crazy wrote:I haven't even read all of it. After the first post by SL and the first post by Incog, I just skimmed it.
Scum could also be afraid of agreeing with the wrong or scummy opinion.Crazy wrote:Even scum could have just agreed with an option by then. The fact that she's hesitant shows nothing.
If it was already on your computer, I would actually like to see it. Can you post it sometime?FL wrote:To answer your question, the first time I read through it, I was just trying to see how the game was going and to get something written in the form of a post. The fact that I was confused by what was going on made me take a second, much closer look at everything that was said. When I read it a second time, I analyzed each post, point by point, and thats how I came up with my analysis of it. I still have the analysis saved on the computer, if you really want to see my thought process, but IMO it would take up way too much space in an already wordy game.
Thats all I have for now, look for more soon
Why are you unvoting?Eldarad wrote:Skillit - I didn't like, and still don't like, Skillit's attack on Electra early, based on such a flimsy base. Jokey or not. However, I do agree that one of the people on his wagon is probably scum.
Meh. unvote
Could you explain how this is indictive of scum alignment?Eldarad wrote:Crazy - as much as I like people agreeing with me, I am surprised that springlullaby pulled Incog up for referring to my opinion, but completely ignored Crazy doing the same in a much more blatant way.
I also don't like the continued assumption that Electra's "information" will be a cop investigation.
vote Crazy
So I take it that you agree with the other points?eldarad wrote:springlullaby - there is a lot in her case against Incog that I don't like:
- The implication that passive-aggressiveness is somehow scummy and/or less townie than the outright aggression that colour her own posts.
- The idea that asking questions where the purpose is not immediately clear is scummy.
- Ignoring the invented statistic, the idea that reaching a quick, gut read is better than keeping an open mind and not forming any judgement for a while.
- The whole issue of whether Incog's questioning style is intrinsically scummy, as opposed to it just being the way he scumhunts/plays mafia.
- Consistently accusing Incog of trying to 'turn the point around' or whatever (when I can't see that happening) and a substitute for
- The "why are you asking scum questions since they're going to lie" thing is stupid, and sl's refusal to accept that once it was pointed out to her.
- Using "proactive" as if it is the same thing as "aggressive"
There's not enough there to support a vote on sl, particuarly as I can't tell whether the artificial aggression is all a show to hide her alignment, or just someone who uses a different persona to play mafia from her regular personality.
You did point out the points you didn't agree with.eldarad wrote:Well I didn't say I agreed with the other points. So that would be a strong assumption to make.
It's not passive - I wholeheartedly support the Icognito attack. The problem is that I don't agree with a lot of SL's points, and it seems as if the rest of the town does not agree either.RR wrote:iLord - why are you guiding SL on how to make a case? Is this some sort of passive support of his attack?
If you're talking about his reaction, then I ask you: Why would a scum player react differently than a town player to an action that is not indictive of alignment.RR wrote:What in my posts made you think I voted sthar for answering questions directed at others rather than the manner in which he responded to this accustation? I restated my reasoning because I was asked to/argued with. Why is this scummy and what would you expect a pro town player to do?
First of all, like I have said, weak points don't weaken the good points. You're scummy because of those good points.SL wrote:Yes, actually. I should note that I don't normally do lists so don't expect one from me in this particular game either, but I've been questioning iLord about some of the points he's raised in his 138 because I can't shake the feeling that some of his reads look contrived. In particular, I can't see how he could freely admit that a lot of the points raised in springlullaby's case against me were weak and mention that I defended myself well against her case (which, keep in mind, consisted of what he freely admitted to being weak points) but how I could still come out looking scummier than her in our exchange. From my experience, scum have a tendency to try and push weak cases against people in an effort to get them lynched but yet for some reason, iLord sees this as something particularly pro-town coming from springlullaby.
Mafia is not a game judged by absolutes and too many players are drawn astray by supposed "set or universal scumtells." I look at each situation and determine it based on the details specific to each.Incognito wrote:In direct contrast, in his read of you, he mentions something about you "still pushing.. and pushing.. and pushing", which I'm assuming is referring to what he feels to be a weak point being pushed by you repeatedly, but somehow comes to the conclusion that you're the scummiest player in the game at this moment because of that? I don't understand the double standard that he's applying here; i.e. why is it scummy for one player (RagingRabbit) to push what iLord considers to be a weak point against a particular player but not scummy for another player (springlullaby) to push multiple weak points against another player? Why is that "tell" that he's using not being used consistently in his own analysis?
6 is almost right in the middle, by the way...Incognito wrote:The other thing that bothers me about his 138 is how clearly defined his ordering is from towniest to scummiest. I can state right now that there's at least 4 players in this game (RagingRabbit, TDC, Jahudo, and Crazy) who I still feel like I have absolutely no preliminary reads on. In fact, in his analysis of Crazy he mentions nothing positive about him at all (just a short one-liner) but somehow he's placed as number 6 on his list (and this was even before Crazy provided his large player by player analysis). I also don't really like how he seems to almost be coaching springlullaby on how to attack me.
You haven't as much goaded him as showing no apparent signs of pacifiying him. You're obviously a lot less emotionally involved, and so you must walk the higher ground.Incognito wrote:Where have I goaded springlullaby?
Why have two cases against Incognito at the same time with the same points, albeit one with a little less than the other?RR wrote:If you wholeheartedly support it, why not attack Incogito yourself rather than sit in the sidelines and goad SL on? I mean, according to you he's obviously not doing it right...
Guilt? Are you attacking him for guilt? What's wrong with feeling guilty if you do something antitown?RR wrote:Incogito called it a scumtell and voted him based on it, sthar's exaggarated response is imo an implication of guilt. I've said this before more than once, dunno why you voted for me without even trying to figure out what I was actually saying.
"a"? Which one?RR wrote:Incogito makes a fair point.
Maybe, it depends on how stupid the Mafia are.TDC wrote:And.. would it be a good idea if you're right?
Please explain the difference between neutral and no read.Jahudo wrote:My current feelings: Electra, iLord look town; eldarad, incog and spring I feel gut town; skillet, TDC and sthar are neutral; RR and crazy getting slight scum. I don't have a read on fuzzy.
No, it has nothing to do with sthar8's alignment. Yes, it has to do with what sthar8 said in thread.Jahudo wrote:Was your latest post contrived from thinking about sthar’s alignment and is there anything from the game that you can point to and then point to the claim?
Mostly on the common newb "I'm not getting a lot of reads from these arguments" if I recall correclty, I'll take another look at the post later.Electra wrote:@ iLord- really? What noob tells, praytell? :p Also I'd like to hear more about this reasoning for a mass claim. At your discretion, of course.
Okay. After you look at FL, I'd like to hear your read on him.Jahudo wrote:In the cases of the neutral reads, I've seen a mostly defensive skillet that hasn't been scum hunting enough, a TDC that isn't being very open with his opinions or train of thought, and a sthar that might have exaggerated suspicion on him so he's gone defensive too.
The difference with fuzzy is I keep forgetting how he's been involved in topics and I have to look at his posts separately. Several times I think he's just come after the topic has been discussed and he adds the same info, like in the case of Electra's claim, skillit's attack. So it will probably take more time to see how he's playing.
Sorry, I keep on forgetting. It's not your job to pacify her, but doing os will result in a more enjoyable game.Incognito wrote:It's really not my job to pacify her though (again, springlullaby is a girl so please stop calling her a "him" lol). All I can do is respond to the points that she's raised against me to the best of my ability and determine if her suspicion of me is really genuine in order to get a better read of her. And how could you say I'm less emotionally involved when springlullaby herself ended up unvoting me for taking offense to her flaming? What do you think of her unvote, btw?
It's actually really simple - someone brought up the point (I think it was Eldarad) that scumElectra would have to make quite the leap of faith in terms of set-up speculation. What benefit could the scum recieve when boosted to justify what would be a very gutsy and risky scum gambit.iLord wrote:Also, I'd really like for you to explain your whole thought process as thoroughly as you possibly can that caused you to go from "Electra's page 1 claim is way too easy of a scum gambit for you to trust" to you reading her as practically confirmed town.
My theory's different?iLord wrote:However, since others might like to know the answer to this question:
At this point, I wouldn't advocate massclaiming solely to test my setup theory. Part of the reason it might have worked was that scum would not have had an opportunity to gain any information from townie posts yet. There have been too many hints dropped in the meantime. Also, the initial reaction to the proposal gives me significant reason to doubt my guesses. The fact that no one had come up with the same theory as me suggests that I was either wrong, or that no one else was giving the setup as much thought as I was. I'm not going to gamble on the assumption that I was right where everyone else disagrees.
Ah okay. My theory could be altered to allow for Electra, but that would result in quite the inelegant set-up.sthar8 wrote:In fact, her claim only really supports my theory if she is town.
That's weak logic - if one of them had a stronger sense of guilt, it would be town because they would feel guilty for harming to town - their faction.RR wrote:Yup, scum make an active effort to appear pro town while town are more concerned with looking for scum, so obviously scum have a much stronger sense of guilt when they are called on an anti-town play. For them, it means their town-act failed, while town are more inclined to think it's the other guy's fault for not reading them correctly.
However, both in hindsight and considering his latest comment, I think sthar's massclaim speculation is a pretty strong sign that he's town. Unvote.
Hmm, something to ponder, no doubt. I'll have to reread Incognito's posts myself once I find some time.SL wrote:This post is peculiar because what it does is asking for people to justify their vote on skillit, while he himself has made no commitment as to his thought on skillit's alignment - note here that this imo is in itself is a display of scumminess from Incognito, I will also further speculate that what happened there is that Incognito was been sly and he was defending skillit without seeming to, I acknowledge however that the last is a judgement call.
And to conclude, I'd like to point to skillit's boosting Incognito for absolutely lame reason. It does feel like a piece of a puzzle just failing into place, doesn't it?
I've already pointed out which points I feel were good against Incognito. Incognito and I have discussed them. Why should I make a formal "case" instead of helping SL refine hers?RR wrote:It would also be you refining his case and getting actively involved in the attack of the player you claim to think is scum, rather than sitting in the sidelines and coaching SL while letting her take all the heat.
I don't really get what your saying here. So you think guilt was a nulltell?RR wrote:In addition to what I already answered, turning it into a moral issue which sthar as a good townie felt he was compelled to apologize for takes the matter of him being scum out of the equation.
Admit that your point was weak once you realized it.RR wrote:I'll ask again since you didn't quite answer this one - much of your reason for suspecting me seems to be that I "pushed" my point against sthar repeatedly. However, I did that because I was repeatedly questioned about it by other players. What is the pro town course of action in this case that would'nt have made me look scummy to you?
Someone attackedRR wrote:You're saying I wasn't attacked for it before? That's interesting, see below.
What does it matter who played the main role?TDC wrote:You definitely let her play the main role in the attack, while your own role was to coach her and calm her down. you addresed your posts to SL and avoided direct conflict.
I'm still confused. In addition to what you said before, you think that it's a null tell?RR wrote:What's not to get about in addition?
Although I have no way of proving it, I'm fairly sure that you realized that your point was weak after a few prods about the validity of your point.RR wrote:But I didn't think my point was weak, which is why I argued back.
This is not only untrue, it's being used as a defense mechanism, something that votes should not be used for. This is completely scum blowing up under pressure, throwing a vote at your attacker.RR wrote:You're completely contradicting yourself, above in bold you attacked me for submitting to pressure and taking my case back as soon as I was pressed on it, and here all the sudden I'm to blame for being pressed on it and not taking my case back. I think your main concern is to make me look bad, and you're content to use two opposite views to help yourself achieve that goal. That's not the way a town player acts. Vote iLord.
Eldarad, think about it - how can poor points decrease the value of the good points!eldarad wrote:Ah, I see what you're trying to get at now. I don't think I agree though - I don't think you can keep a running scorecard that just count the good points and then discard the poor points. Surely the poor points can indicate a lack of sincerity in the person making the case?
You really don't think it's genuine? I get no such sentiment.Eldarad wrote:I don't think it was genuine 'mad.' (Although, reading #221, maybe I completely misread this...maybe I'm reading uncharacteristic anger, rather than fake anger.) I also don't accept that point that only townies get annoyed.
My opinion changed at Post 55 after TDC pointed out yor point. I did not acknowledge it simply because I skimmed over it and didn't read it (Such action was the cause behind me falling hopelessly behind).Eldarad wrote:You also voted for me in that post. When I came up with my 'leap of faith' thing to suggest that Electa probably isn't scum you completely ignored it. If you had changed your mind following my post 32, I would have expected you to mention it. Instead, posts 36 (in which you responded to other parts of my post 32), 39 and 41 fail to even acknowledge that I had discussed why I thought Electra was townie, and certainly don't indicate your agreement with what I said.
That makes me think that you didn't agree with it at the time and it is only now, when the majority of players have agreed with my logic, that you have chosen to voice agreement.
I am intervening - I pointed out my points and I'm helping SL shape her case. My points are within SL's points - there's a reason why I asked if you agree with any of SL's points.Eldarad wrote:But if you think Incog is scum, and that SL is missing points that indicate that Incog is scum, or else is presenting those points badly, it would make sense for you to intervene, wouldn't it?
As it is, you've been commentating from the sidelines, rather than pushing a case against Incog. In the first of the quotes in this post, you are asking me whether there are some of springlullaby's points that I agree with...there's no mention at all of any of your points...
unvote
vote iLord
I think Occam's razor serves us best here - maybe Sthar8 says he's sorry,RR wrote:In addition to what I said before, by apologizing and turning the attack to a moral issue, sthar takes the scuminess of his actions out of the equation and displays himself as a repenting townie. Therefore the apology is also a non-direct defense, which serve stharscum's interests.
I thought I had explained it, but I in fact had not.RR wrote:I like how you bring up me "blowing up under pressure" and all that jazz here to avoid explaining what makes it untrue, since you evidently haven't figured out a way to try and explain your contradiction away yet.
In the same post, first you say I'm to blame for taking back my case as soon as I was attacked, then all the sudden I actually was attacked earlier and am to blame for not taking my case back. Explain how that's untrue.
He said "In hindsight along with his latest comment" or something like that. "hindsight" is a key excuse for scum to back off.Jahudo wrote:He didn’t unvote after any particular pressure but after something that sthar did which had occured after amounting pressure but might not be related. I’m still not sure the unvote was as serious as the initial vote.
First of all, it can't be applied to all scumtells - scumtells are by definition actions that are indictive of scum.RR wrote:That logic can be applied to each and every scumtell possible. "Maybe he said X because he genuinely thinks X?" Yes, it's obviously possible, but X is also a comfortable tactic for scum imo and therefore worthy of suspicion.
You're not looking at my points.RR wrote:So I realized I was seen as scummy but didn't take it back, which according to you is scummy, but then all the sudden you OMG vote me and I become panicked scum and unvote?
If I was already aware I was under negative attention and chose to stick with my opinion, why would one vote make me go all panicked? This is just really contrived.
I don't remember you saying this.RR wrote:Another misrep, I never said that I no longer consider it a scum tell. I said that integrating another factor into the picture makes sthar look a lot less likely to be scum now.
Your continued attempts to twist my attacks are noted - scum scrambling for methods of defense no doubt.RR wrote:What's the "orignial point" I'm trying to avoid, pray tell? All I see is two seperate points that completely contradict each other and a contrived explanation trying to link them.
1. Scum are not the only ones that look at things in hindsight – townies do it all the time. But scum are the ones that most commonly use hindsight as an excuse to back off a point. Townies do not say: “I was wrong before and I should’ve changed before.” Townies say: “I am wrong now and I should change now.” Your filling the scum mold that I’ve predicted for you perfectly.RR wrote:Yup, obviously only scum look at things in hindsight... But wait, if I were to take back my point after being first questioned like a townie would've done according to you, wouldn't that be "hindsight" as well? Good thing you're not contradicting yourself.
2. To get on the extreme side, say a player claims scum. Occam’s Razor would justify that the simplest solution is that said player is scum, rather than gambiting townie, and such use of Occam’s Razor here is practical.RR wrote:Give me one tell that the "but maybe he's simply town and blah blah blah..." explanation can't be applied to.
6. Nice job attacking my case without bearing in the first sentence there. Easy scum move to try and weaken my case by attacking my motive. Please note that motive has very little matter in the making of a case, except for the other players to look more carefully at the points – lack of apparent pro-town motive does not weaken the points at all, as long as the points ring true.RR wrote:That's because you're more concerned with making everything I say look bad than with actually reading it. (Your initial attack suggested I was voting sthar8 only for answering for others, which I never even said and yet you blamed me for pushing it multiple times).
The other factor is his massclaim specualtion.
9. You asked for my original point, and I answered.RR wrote:1. I never did.
2. So your case revolves around not liking my original point, with no relation to what happened afterwards?
Ah, okay. Somehow that didn’t click until now.RR wrote:If it still isn't clear, I maintain that sthar's apology post reads scummy. I unvoted him because I believe his massclaim sepcualtion reads town.
See above.RR wrote:I never even said I was wrong, no idea what you're trying to say here.
Indicative of scum =/= what you believe to be antitown actions.Already answered.
It may be less convincing, but it wouldn’t weaken the magnitude of my points at all.RR wrote:Motive has a bearing on you being scummy, cases presented by scum are somewhat less convincing.
I don’t get what this has to do with what you quoted.RR wrote:Actually you were the one who blamed me for trying to divert attention from your original point. Do you think the "I don't like your case" point is in any way convincing and worthy diverting from? Why ask me a million different questions instead of concentrating on your original point if you don't want it distracted from?
You know what I mean – what would a townie have done if they realized that they were wrong?RR wrote:That's like the most loaded question ever. How would you ask that if you weren't scum, huh?!
Explain. According to the definition of a contradiction, I’d have to have to be stating conflicting ideas. My ideas are not conflicting. It matters not if you say that you can jump into my mind and say that I’m actually thinking that they are – by my definition and classification of the backing offs, they are different.RR wrote:Completely and utterly false. If this was true there'd be no such thing as a contradiction.
Really?Incognito wrote:I think genuine frustration can certainly be a town-tell depending on the circumstances. To me, springlullaby didn't seem frustrated though. I mean, I can't even think of a reason why she'd be frustrated when she had no real pressure placed on her, and I don't think anyone was really provoking her to such a degree where she'd become frustrated. Instead, she began resorting to personal insults and flaming, which I actually think is more likely to come from scum than town.
Also, aside from that, I'd really like for you to read this comment from another game made by Battle Mage who was referencing his meta-experience with springlullaby: BM in Nice Shot! Mafia and here is the game he was referencing: Mini 561 - R-1000 Mafia. In Nice Shot! Mafia, BM specifically mentions that she came off as extremely aggressive towards him in Mini 561 where she was the Mafia GF pushing for his lynch (you can read through the game on your own if you'd like. BM was correct). BM ended up switching his vote to springlullaby in Nice Shot! and was 100% correct about her being scum in that game. So no, I think springlullaby's overly aggressive, pissed off behavior can certainly come from a scum her, and I still think she's scum in this game.
Um, that's not a scumtell.Jahudo wrote:A few of iLord's questions and comments on RR look to me like he is drawing conclusions without looking carefully enough at the information. For now, just a
FoS: iLord
My original point was that your push was scummy because the action wasn't scummy.RR wrote:If you really thought I was trying to back away from your original point, you'd be pushing that more and the stuff I brought up to "distract from it" less. However, your original point isn't convincing at all and your case is dependant on moving discussion to other matters, which proves your above quote contrived as well.
And what would scum do once they realized that they were pushing a weak point?RR wrote:This question is still loaded, as well as irrelevant. There's more than one possible reaction for "a townie", the best one being to say so and unvote.
Normally, of course, you can't just take my word for it. However, the crux of your contradiction point is based on my definition of each of the backing-offs. Therefore, you have to judge not whether or not you agree with my definitons, but whether or not I genuinely feel that way, which is not what you have been.RR wrote:Contradiction in this game is a subjective term. I have strong doubts about your alignment, so taking everything you say at face value would be a severe mistake. Saying that everyone should the accept the "it's not a contradiction because I say so" statement is completely false.
EXACTLY! First of all, motivation does not decrease the value of the points. Second of all, if a confirmed scum gave us good suggestions, and we found those suggestions valid, then why wouldn't we follow them?Eldarad wrote:Precisely because the poor points can give insight into the motivation behind making the case - is it to scumhunt, or to get an easy mislynch?
The consequence of your suggestion is that if a player who has claimed to be scum made some "good points" we should take them seriously as the bad points (ie, they are confirmed scum) do not cancel out the good points...
Anyone is in a position to say anything and not have the magnitude of the point affected in the slightest.Eldarad wrote:I really don't think it is genuine.
I also really don't think you are in a position to make such definite, sweeping statements about all townies and all scum.
I am not convinced by iLord's idea that RR's "backing off" was due to iLords pressure AND is indicative of scum.
Not to sound condescending, but good job! You said basically what I was trying to say.Eldarad wrote:OK, so I guess a better question is this:
Regardless of whether you agree with iLord's opinion, due you believe he sincerely holds that opinion (even if he is wrong)?
Cooperating is something any alignment can do.sthar8 wrote:1. He continually pushed RR to back off from his attack on me (Do I need defending? How are you so sure of my alignment?), but once RR admitted that his read has changed, iLord started pushing him for changing his mind. While it would be reasonable to continue pushing based on your original points, attacking someone for cooperating seems really odd.
They were vague, and I can't really explain it, but a lot of Electra's overview posts give me huge newb reads.sthar8 wrote:2. I really didn't like how he attempted to discredit Electra's opinions with an ad hominem attack aimed at her experience. I especially didn't like how vague he was in describing these tells, combined with his remarks to RR, Electra and Incog about how tells cannot be blindly and uniformly applied.
Ah, so you don't believe me.RR wrote:If he's town yes, if he's scum most probably no. I believe his points contradicting each other combined with his contrived explanation for it makes him more likely to be dishonest (and therefore scum) than anyone else at this point.
Contracting my previous belief about boosting, the comparison between Voting and Boosting majority is good - in normal games, we aren't afraid of voting.Guardian wrote:About boosting -- I don't really see why everyone has been so cautious to boost. To me it makes sense to boost those who you find most likely to be town, the only important thing is to not get to a boosting majority too early. It is just like voting -- there is no reason to be cautious with voting unless someone is near a majority, I see no reason to be cautious with boosting unless someone is near a majority. Is there a reason you disagree with that?
To get to the preview screen, where I type most of my posts.Guardian wrote:ilord, why do half or more than half of your posts start with "asdfasdf"?
You misunderstand what my point was – my point was that cooperation does not make a player more town. I was reading him as more scum because of his sudden cooperation in response to my vote – I’m still pushing for him to elaborate on his reasoning there. Which reminds me:Sthar8 wrote: Exactly. So why attack him for it?
I don’t believe I’ve discredited her opinions. I just haven’t found them noteworthy.Sthar8 wrote: But why bring that up, if not to discredit her opinions? It's not like how new she is to the game will affect how likely we are to lynch her.
Based on my read of SL.Electra wrote:@ iLord - Why do you think Guardian is #2 or #3 most likely to be town?
I'm not backing off said point. I'm saying that somewhere along the line that line of questioning was dropped - I'm still working on the guilt topic, which is what the main point has delved into.RR wrote:Well, attacking me for backing off a point while backing off said point yourself to sound more convincing doesn't sit well with me.
What do you mean by "losing the argument"? Did your read on me change in any way or are you just "losing" because of lack of popular support?
Let's rephrase - what would most scum do or what would you predict scum would do once they were called on a point they knew was weak. The scum does not know the effectiveness of his point, only that its weak basis is being attacked.RR wrote:I wish things were this simple. There isn't one scum course of action, it depends on a multidute of factors that are very hard to define and evaluate. The main difference is that from a scum viewpoint, it doesn't matter whether you believe your point is strong or not , but rather if that point succeeds in making you good and townies look bad.
Don't act as if I'm twisting your argument - I've merely established that the crux of our argument is not based on disagreement or misunderstanding, but reads. You don't believe that the way I presented my case and explanation is convincing, and I have done my best to explain them. If you could point out where you specifically find my definitons fail, then by all means point them out and I'll do my best to explain them.RR wrote:Turning this into a matter of not believing you is a nice twist, but every contradiction in this game can be explained by "from my point of view, the two don't contradict" which creates the same "trust" dillema. The only way I have to determine whether I believe you is according to how convincing your explanation for why your points don't contradict each other is, and since that explanation (two - now possibly three - very similar backing offs being "inherently different" and giving you completely opposite reads in a way that just happens to correlate with your case for me being scum) is imo completely unconvincing, your case appears contrived to me and I "don't believe you". Therefore this totally is a matter of how convincing your definitions are, since that is the only way I have really to determine if I believe you hold them.
I've repeated a) over and over again. It's part of the incorrect ongoing "motive weakens points" dogma that seems to be floating around in this game.Incognito wrote:1) I still feel like iLord's reads in his 21st post look really contrived. Reasoning:
a) I can't see how he can list me as his second scummiest read but then use a point I brought up with respect to fuzzylightning to determine he's third towniest. He's tried to explain this a number of times, but I really don't buy the explanation.
b) Despite what me mentioned about his towniest to scummiest list not being as etched in stone as it looks, he still created one, and I still have a hard time determining how he was able to place people like fuzzylightning, Crazy, TDC, and Jahudo who had not really contributed much at the time in such a rigid order.
c) His points are inconsistent. He didn't like Raging Rabbit because he mentioned that RR kept pushing the same weak point over and over again (Raging Rabbit responded to this well mentioning that he was repeatedly asked to clarify this point and that's why he kept mentioning it), but he listed springlullaby as one of his towniest despite the fact that iLord conceded that SL's points against me were mostly weak. There's a discrepancy there.
What about wanting the coached player's case to succeed?Incognito wrote:2) I didn't like iLord's coaching of springlullaby, and his goading of our argument from the sidelines. I can think of no pro-town reason for a player who supposedly doesn't know another player's alignment to coach another player on how to attack someone. I look at coaching as a major scum tell because I think the only way you can coach someone in a game of Mafia is if you have inside knowledge about the coached player's alignment (whether it be town or scum).
Motive doesn't weaken points, and Eldarad's correct logic both eliminated my suspicions and changed my view on Electra.Incognito wrote:3) His initial opinion about Electra's claim (in which he even went so far as to vote eldarad for siding with Electra) dramatically changed from his current opinion (in which he mentions that he basically agreed with the points the person he previously voted for for accepting her claim so readily brought up).
Haven't read them yet.Incognito wrote:Damn, that must have been a quick read. What did you think of those links?
But you said that I was drawing poor conclusions.Jahudo wrote:Um, I think scum and town could draw conclusions without looking into the info but scum know who's not scum and have to make them look scum somehow.
Rawr.Guardian wrote:Someone remind me to comment on this after rr/iLord does.
I was defending sthar8 because his action wasn't scummy, and I was under the impression that RR was pushing an attack against him for that point. sthar8's post was not a scum freaking out to a baseless attack - it was a player (I believe to be town) apoligizing for doing something antitown.Guardian wrote:Reading back over the game, one thing that disturbs me is that he could be buddying with sth. I am reevaluating whether their connection is really two-ways or is rather one way. Particularly post 78 I did not understand why he was defending sth. iLord?
I do believe that I was defending as part of my attack against RR. I think he said something about how sthar8's post was panicking and that justified his attack, and then I said that it wasn't panicking.Guardian wrote:Regardless of what you thought -- why not let him defend himself?
I can't remember where it was dropped - or even who dropped it. Now that I've realized it, I've resumed pursuing it.RR wrote:But if I was trying to make you drop that line (how?), and you "caught on to that", why allow it to get dropped and not pursue it?
I'm trying to get your specific opinion on how scum would react to such a situation. You don't have to be scum to answer that question - to make it that you can answer how would you react if you were scum.RR wrote:See above. If you want reactions I'd perceive as scummy, some obvious ones are to jump drop the case point blank without explanation and start attacking someone else, or to continue pursuing the same subject but with completely changed reasoning you. Again though, this is not something I "predict scum would do". I can't predict what scum would do.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.RR wrote:Again, the part that doesn't make sense to me the most is:
Backing off after being questioned = town
Backing off after being "seriously" voted for = scum
Backing off after a vote that hasn't yet been proven serious = also town, or at least way town-er than the former case
I severely doubt your to have such an extreme distinction between very similar actions, that just happens to correlate with your case on me. I think you came up with those distinctions as a defense for my original attack on your contradiction.
I'd like you to commnet more on what makes such minor differences comepletely change your "read".
I will later - really busy right now.Incognito wrote:iLord, I think you mentioned you played Mafia previously on MTG. Can you link to some games where you were scum and those where you were town?
Didn't see this - later as well, after I read up on the Guardian/Incognito stuffs.Guardian wrote:All: I asked for people's thoughts about three specific things about Incognito. I would appreciate hearing them.
I was mentioning my view - I didn't read her as scummy or town, but as a new player.sthar8 wrote:But why bring that up, if not to discredit her opinions?
)