Newbie 694 (over)

[GIEFF]

When he was talking after I said discuss, I felt that was some minor appeasement too.

And I think you need to explain your question a little more, I'm not exactly following.

Do you mean the question about post 96? (here is Post 95, in which you FoS'd hambargaz. Are you still suspicious that hambargaz focused on militant instead of other lurkers?

I really don't think that what militant did in post was appeasement. You, an IC, asked for discussion on a point of theory, and he provided some. That is not appeasement; that is simply responding to your request for some discussion.

Also, why was no suspicion thrown on uri for his post 83? What is different about his response and militant's response in 85?

[CarnCarn]

I'm here, reading, etc. Will post thoughts when I'm done.
Please post any questions you had for RealityFan and I'll try to answer them.

[ClockworkRuse]

When he was talking after I said discuss, I felt that was some minor appeasement too.

And I think you need to explain your question a little more, I'm not exactly following.

Do you mean the question about post 96? (here is Post 95, in which you FoS'd hambargaz. Are you still suspicious that hambargaz focused on militant instead of other lurkers?

I really don't think that what militant did in post was appeasement. You, an IC, asked for discussion on a point of theory, and he provided some. That is not appeasement; that is simply responding to your request for some discussion.

Also, why was no suspicion thrown on uri for his post 83? What is different about his response and militant's response in 85?

It was more in the way he did it. I said discuss and he tried to make it seem like he had something to add without really giving an opinion. So, he tried to appease me with his answer while being wishy-washy.

I'll have to re-read Uri's post 83, I seemed to miss it. I'll admit, I have another game that is taking a bit of my focus.

[urielzyx]

When he was talking after I said discuss, I felt that was some minor appeasement too.

And I think you need to explain your question a little more, I'm not exactly following.

Do you mean the question about post 96? (here is Post 95, in which you FoS'd hambargaz. Are you still suspicious that hambargaz focused on militant instead of other lurkers?

I really don't think that what militant did in post was appeasement. You, an IC, asked for discussion on a point of theory, and he provided some. That is not appeasement; that is simply responding to your request for some discussion.

Also, why was no suspicion thrown on uri for his post 83? What is different about his response and militant's response in 85?

post 83 wasn't a discussion about the self voting, since I thought(and apparently so did others, because they did vote for militant) that there was nothing to discuss, everyone thought that this self voting was to create conversation, everyone thought it to be "pro town" and I don't think anyone could find a reason except for creating discussion.

My post on the other hand was about an on going discussion that I wished to express an opinion on, when people disagree(as we did) they express there own opinion about a subject in response to the other persons opinion.

Also, when and if I have time I will try and make an analysis of infamousace2's posts, since I still think he is scum...

[CarnCarn]

First,

Unvote

My thoughts as I read though (pardon the stream of consciousness style):

Random Vote: Xtoxm

for his cool avatar.

r we allowed to speak before the game starts? if so where r u guys from?

<==Look left

I agree that the disussion about RV is unlikely to be very productive, but I felt the need to get my point across.

I think the RV discussion was useful, it's an important concept to learn about as a new player. Personally, I think it is just a way to break the ice and get discussion going, and usually doesn't lead to any terribly useful information later in the game or anything.

At anyone who isn't an IC; Is self-voting pro-town? Or is it the opposite?

It is always anti-town. Always. Either you are scum trying to confuse the town with your voting, scum self-hammering to stop discussion in an inevitable lynch, or town who has given up on the game. All of these are terrible for town. I would vote you, normally, but the context of your self-vote is different, since it seems like you were trying to make a point about Mafia in general.

Exactly. If they're town, they're not being helpful anyway. So if you have no really good reason to lynch a non-lurker, you'd best lynch lurkers.

It is usually difficult to tell who is actively lurking and who is just inactive for real life reasons, etc. For example, RealityFan was quite inactive, but you didn't lynch him, for which I'm thankful (since I got to replace in).

About policy lynching, I think it depends what that policy is, lynch all liars is a bad policy, lynch all lurkers may be a good policy

I have to disagree with you and ClockworkRuse. I think lynch all liars is a generally good policy. The idea to discourage anti-town behavior early in the game by avoid the chaos caused by mass lying. However, in later stages, when mass-claiming, etc., the policy should be relaxed or discarded.

And anyway, the only town power role who should really try to remain hidden is the doctor, and he could play active townie just as well, it should be really easy for him, because he has no knowledge the town does not have

This is really a strange thing to say. What do you mean by "hidden"? Your suggesting this is in itself suspicious since it sounds like you are trying to influence the doctor's playstyle.

FoS: Elennaro

Lets say there i'm a watcher, ok?
Now, I know u targeted the guy that died last night, ok?
So I claim cop and say that I have a guilty on u, and ask u to claim.
if u claim miller, then I'll know your scum because miller doesn't target, if u say I can't be cop because ur not scum(ur vig or cop or something), then I'll know u may be telling the truth.

now, after that happens, if u claim miller, and I claim watcher and tell everyone that I just wanted to check if u r scum or vig.

after that happens, a guy with a Lync all Liars policy would lynch me next day(this day lynch the scum) just because I lied...

get it?

This really doesn't seem like the best way to go about it. You are essentially asking for a claim from someone and you are fake-claiming yourself. If the person you

tracked

(not watched, since watchers only know if someone was targeted, not who they targeted) is town, you are outing a PR. If they are scum and lie about their role, and you backtrack with your own role claim, we get into a back and forth about who is lying, and end up nowhere.

Power's only want to give up their role if absolutley necesary to prevent their lynch, with the expection of a cop with a guilty, who would claim it right away.

Why should the cop with a guilty claim it right away? Obviously, if there is only one scum left, I can see it as the way to go. Also, how do we know if it is not a scum-gambiting to get the real cop to step up? Or to get a mislynch?

Yea...we can discuss all day...people will claim whatever...and we still won't lynch anyone...but just for the sake of speeding up the game...I'll unvote...lol

Unvote: Xtoxm

I understand you are used to faster paced games, but, trust me, we will eventually lynch someone today. No lynch is not a good idea D1 (it rarely is a good idea), mostly because lynch is our only method to take out mafia, and if we don't use it, we'll never catch mafia. Discussion for D1 is enough to come to a decent lynch target, and, even if we mislynch, we gain information based on who voted for the mislynch and others' voting patterns. We can use this info for the next day, even at the cost of 1 townie (in the worst case scenario).

I still have my random vote "on" because I have not yet wanted to chancge my vote to anyone else. As soon as we start discussing things relevant to the game to you just expect me to vote somebody else. It is not going to happen.

Do you plan on contributing at all? We need everyone's thoughts if we're going to come to a good decision. It's not useful to town if you're just going to sit on the sideline and watch for something to develop on someone else. In fact, that is a very scummy move.

FoS: militant

Yes, thanks[, militant, for unvoting me]!

You're happy with that? What happened to wanting to know why he was so reluctant to unvote? You just seem relieved to have 1 less vote on you, and don't care so much about why the person voted/unvoted you. That's a bit suspicious. Not as suspicious as the above, but:

IGMEOY: GIEFF

Actually, I do not think it is scummy enough to be a reason for putting a guy at L-2

I think putting someone at L-2 here is not so dangerous, since it is a relatively small game, and 2 quick votes to lynch from scum would be quite suspicious anyway.

I'm very much liking GIEFF's scumhunting in post 196, many brownie points are his/her's.

unIGMEOY: GIEFF

Please let me know if I have mis-characterized your reasoning. As this wagon is close to lynching, I would like to get EVERYONE's thoughts on the above 4 reasons. I will start:

1 - Active lurking. I disagree with this; could hambargaz or Xtoxm please explain further? Militant was just responding to Clockwork's request for discussion, as far as I can tell.
2 - Random vote left on too long. I agree with this.
3 - Appeasement. I agree. At first I thought the "opinion" referenced was militant's opinion about why he voted for me, but I now see that it refers to militant's opinion about not removing random votes until a better target presents itself. However, I feel that appeasement with regards to policy (i.e. metagame) is less scummy than appeasement with regards to the reasons behind a lynch (which is what I thought was initially meant by the appeasement charge). Do you agree with this, Clockwork and uri?
4 - Withholding scummy evidence. I disagree. I believe militant is referring to his accusation that hambargaz was himself lurking when he accused militant of active-lurking. Your quote of militant in post 193 was referring to hambargaz' accusations that militant was reading his posts with bias.

I agree mostly with 1. He was laying low for a while before being voted and then he only came out to defend himself. He never tells us who he finds suspicious, except to say that hambargarz is scummy for voting him because hambaragarz is also lurking.
I would like more thoughts from militant and infamousace2 on who they find suspicious now.

CarnCarn replaces RealityFan. Thanks CarnCarn!

You're welcome! It's been a pretty interesting read through.

Also, @Xtoxm: what are your current thoughts on militant (for whom you are voting)? Any others that you find suspicious?

Unvote: Xtoxm

(removing my random vote from above)

As for a vote, I'm going to

Vote: Elennaro

because I want an answer from him about what he mean by the doctor staying hidden. I really don't want anyone to be trying, or thinking they can try, to manipulate how a PR plays and contributes to the game.

Sorry to everyone for the ridiculously long post, but I had to make up for everything RealityFan didn't post

[hambargarz]

Oh the irony... Votes me because I am lurking. You had not posted in 5 days when you posted the above message. You was the one that was lurking. I was trying to keep up at least, you was just not posting.

I don't know about not posting in 5 days, maybe 4 at the max, could you point out the post numbers? In either case, I'm not accusing you of lurking, I'm accusing you of active lurking. The post I replied to did not progress anything and was fence sitting on the only issue brought up. This is scummy as it looks like you are trying to please everyone. Scum do not want progress yet feel pressured to post so as not to look suspicious. This is what it looks like here to me.

If you are referring to me in your second sentence then I don't recall ever defending GIEFF, I could be mistaken though, I have no time to re read and my memory is not that great. I don't like the bolded question. It is a "leading question" (I think that is the right expression). My supposed scummy behaviour is subjective, just because yourself and Xtoxm think I am scummy that does not mean everybody else shares your views.

Ok typo on my part, Swap the names GIEFF and militant. I'm referring to GIEFF. GIEFF appeared to be defending you. In the face of the evidence he appears to have an unusual bias to innocence regarding you. I know everyone has their own opinion, If GIEFF provided rock solid reasons that would have been acceptable otherwise, it looks like he's defending you.

Again examples of the leading questions you use. Regarding the first sentence, I had found something I did not like, you of course did not know this at the time of your post, you presumed I had not found anything, you subsequently went on to presume that I was re reading with a "preset bias" towards you and my motivations were OMGUS. Something about it all just doesn't sit right with me...

I don't see any "leading" here that goes beyond you're post.

I am going to re read tomorrow, I am particularly interested in hambargarz.

What else can one conclude from those words? You admit you are re-reading with a bias to finding stuff on me.

[militant]

Post 3: Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: 26

Post 4: Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: 95

October has 31 days if I remember correctly thus making it a five day gap in which you did not post.

I still have my random vote "on" because I have not yet wanted to chancge my vote to anyone else. As soon as we start discussing things relevant to the game to you just expect me to vote somebody else. It is not going to happen.

Do you plan on contributing at all? We need everyone's thoughts if we're going to come to a good decision. It's not useful to town if you're just going to sit on the sideline and watch for something to develop on someone else. In fact, that is a very scummy move.

FoS: militant

Because I did not chancge my vote or unvote immediatley that means I am not contributing. I am not sure I follow your logic. Just because I was going to leave my random vote where it was for the time being that renders me unable to contribute? Please elaborate on your point.

Oh the irony... Votes me because I am lurking. You had not posted in 5 days when you posted the above message. You was the one that was lurking. I was trying to keep up at least, you was just not posting.

I don't know about not posting in 5 days, maybe 4 at the max, could you point out the post numbers? In either case, I'm not accusing you of lurking, I'm accusing you of active lurking. The post I replied to did not progress anything and was fence sitting on the only issue brought up. This is scummy as it looks like you are trying to please everyone. Scum do not want progress yet feel pressured to post so as not to look suspicious. This is what it looks like here to me.

As I have previously stated I discussed Clockwork's actions because he said discuss. It was breif and seemed forced because I could not think of much to say about clockwork's actions.

[urielzyx]

First of all, welcome CarnCarn.
I read the hole post, it gave me a lot of insight(is that correct spelling?), and I will try to answer the questions that were adressed to me:

About policy lynching, I think it depends what that policy is, lynch all liars is a bad policy, lynch all lurkers may be a good policy

I have to disagree with you and ClockworkRuse. I think lynch all liars is a generally good policy. The idea to discourage anti-town behavior early in the game by avoid the chaos caused by mass lying. However, in later stages, when mass-claiming, etc., the policy should be relaxed or discarded.

That was my point(see quote under this), at least as I understood it. policy lynch means that you have a criteria and everybody who fits is lynched, so lynch all liars would be bad, because at some cases you shouldn't lynch a liar, on the other hand I agree that in most cases lynching liars is good.

Lets say there i'm a watcher, ok?
Now, I know u targeted the guy that died last night, ok?
So I claim cop and say that I have a guilty on u, and ask u to claim.
if u claim miller, then I'll know your scum because miller doesn't target, if u say I can't be cop because ur not scum(ur vig or cop or something), then I'll know u may be telling the truth.

now, after that happens, if u claim miller, and I claim watcher and tell everyone that I just wanted to check if u r scum or vig.

after that happens, a guy with a Lynch all Liars policy would lynch me next day(this day lynch the scum) just because I lied...

get it?

This really doesn't seem like the best way to go about it. You are essentially asking for a claim from someone and you are fake-claiming yourself. If the person you

tracked

(not watched, since watchers only know if someone was targeted, not who they targeted) is town, you are outing a PR. If they are scum and lie about their role, and you backtrack with your own role claim, we get into a back and forth about who is lying, and end up nowhere.

I'm sorry for the watch/track thing, I got mixed up.
about the flaw that you say there is:

if the guy is town and not scum then I am not outing a power role because initially I said I had a guilty, if I'm wrong I could always claim sanity issues and keep to myself that I know who the vig is.
if he does claim miller or something of the sort, I claim tracker and since he admits that a cop would get a guilty on him then as far as others are concerned there are two options, either he is scum or I am lying about being tracker, now why would I lie? If I'm a cop then I have the town in my best interest and not try lynching a miller, if I am not a cop and not a tracker then it is to great of a risk to just call someone guilty

and

false claim all together...

[hambargarz]

Sorry for the excessive quoting, but I feel this is the best way to highlight some things in it within context.

But because militant is now at L-2 with 2 FoS's on him, I feel a summary of the case against militant is in order.

Xtoxm was the first to vote militant

Post 88

Asking someone else to create discussion strikes me as silly. I'm not sure if it's scummy.

I will Vote Militant.

I think that last post sounds kind of like he's forcing himself to say something.

The "last post" being referenced is Post 85:

Vote: ClockworkRuse

Discuss.

Well, you are voting yourself. At any rate you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour. What your possible motives for you to vote yourself still escape me though.

I don't see the forcing here, Xtoxm; as far as I can tell, ClockworkRuse asked for discussion, and militant obliged.

Could you elaborate on what makes you think militant's reply was "forced," Xtoxm?

hambargaz voted for militant

soon

after:

Post 95

I agree, active lurking is scummy behaviour (as I learned in my last game)

Unvote
Vote: militant

The reason given was "active lurking," which is based off Xtoxm's suggestion in post 88 that militant's reply was forced, and not adding anything of benefit to the town.

ClockworkRuse

immediately

voted hambargaz for this post, questioning why hambargaz focused on militant when there were other lurkers, and hambargaz

OMGUS

-FOS'd Clockwork Ruse in Post 110.

I've bold and underlined the parts that don't sit right to me, The wordings of these appear to have a bias account of what happened with militant. I can see that GIEFF has chosen to disagree with arguments against militant but that wouldn't make him use the language he has in his above recap.

What are you trying to say in those posts? are you implying that I am suspicious in attacks on militant? It appears that way with the language you have used. If you think you are suspicious of me, go right out and say it.

Clockwork, do you still feel suspicious of hambargaz for focusing on militant? Or were you convinced by his answer in Post 102?

If Clockwork was not convinced of my answer, why would this make me be suspicous? You are kind of leading the question here, implying there's only 2 ways to look at it. ie. Either my answer is right, or i'm scum rather. When this is not the case. It also appears like you are inciting suspicions against me without stating you have them yourself.

--------------

I FoS'd militant in Post 146

RealityFan and militant are the only two people who still have their random votes active (both on me, incidentally). I'm going to FoS militant, as RealityFan appears to be inactive.

Here you've stated you have FOS'd militant. This doesn't stop me from feeling you are buddying with militant, it feels more like distancing, mainly because the reason you gave was wishy-washy. It is as if you are excusing you're FOS.

I believe I already have an FOS on you. I haven't voted for you because you're summaries smell townie to me making militant the more likely scum, but I can't ignore things like this, coupled with you're defending of militant. militant should answer for himself, only scum have a reason to defend someone.

------------

I would like to get EVERYONE's thoughts on the above 4 reasons.

1 - Active lurking.

Obviously I Agree.

2 - Random vote left on too long.

Neutral. I see this as a very minor point

3 - Appeasement.

I Agree.

4 - Withholding scummy evidence.

I Agree, I think you may have misunderstood Elennaro's post. militant made the excuse that something I said was scummy which motivated him to re-read with a particular "interest" in me. The question is.. Why didn't militant just outright say what it was that was scummy? I'm quite certain it's because he DIDN'T have a case and had to go back and make one up on me.

[hambargarz]

Post 3: Posted: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:11 am Post subject: 26

Post 4: Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: 95

October has 31 days if I remember correctly thus making it a five day gap in which you did not post.

You are skipping post 51 and 55. That was on Thursday. So it's more like 3 days apart. Not to mention there's a weekend in there where players slow down anyway. You are distorting things here.

+1 FOS: militant

[GIEFF]

None of that discussion is relevant to this game, uri, and is becoming distracting. I think we have all agreed that there is pretty much no reason for town to lie in this setup, and the fact that infamousace2 has lied TWICE now about his reasons for unvoting Xtoxm is a large part of why I find him so suspicious.

Thanks for the in-depth post, CarnCarn! Regarding your IGMEOY for me; I said thanks because I was not comfortable being at L-2 (really L-3, though) from 100% random votes.

Ok typo on my part, Swap the names GIEFF and militant. I'm referring to GIEFF. GIEFF appeared to be defending you. In the face of the evidence he appears to have an unusual bias to innocence regarding you. I know everyone has their own opinion, If GIEFF provided rock solid reasons that would have been acceptable otherwise, it looks like he's defending you.

hambargaz, I have already addressed this, in post 178.

Post 178:

hambargaz - it looks scummy to me because the logic behind it is faulty. The case against militant was based on him changing his opinion, but as I said, there was no opinion to change - it was a random vote.

I never said militant is innocent, or even looks innocent, I simply said that the unvote does not seem scummy.

Do you disagree?

Again, I have never said I think militant is innocent. All I am doing is questioning logic that I do not understand, which is not at all the same as defending militant or claiming he is innocent. Calling people scummy for questioning logic without "rock-solid reasons" is BAD for the town; we should welcome frank discussions about the reasoning behind votes. Do you agree with this, hambargaz?

In the next few paragraphs, I am going to deconstruct what I feel is a faulty argument on Clockwork's part. It may appear as if I am defending militant, but that is simply because the logic I perceive as faulty is attempting to do the opposite. I hope the difference is clear, as this may come up again later. As I've said again and again, my strategy to find scum is to look for faulty logic behind votes, which is what I was doing in post 196, and what I am doing now.

It was more in the way he did it. I said discuss and he tried to make it seem like he had something to add without really giving an opinion. So, he tried to appease me with his answer while being wishy-washy.

Here is his answer:

Well, you are voting yourself. At any rate you are trying to create discussion which I understand as a protown behaviour. What your possible motives for you to vote yourself still escape me though.

There is content there, his answer was "I feel it's pro-town." I don't see the wishy-washiness; he gave his opinion, but said that he still doesn't understand what your motives were for doing so (which you still have not answered, incidentally). Also, I don't really see how this is appeasement, as the question was not directed at militant.

And even if this WERE a wishy-washy answer, it is hardly a central issue here. As I said in post 196, appeasement about an actual vote in the game is MUCH more suspicious than "appeasement" about theory or other metagame considerations. Scum has no incentive to lie about discussions of theory; their incentive to lie only becomes apparent when trying to explain the reasons for their votes, as there are other factors at play (i.e. actually KNOWING who is town and who isn't, instead of needing to try to puzzle it out, like the rest of us). Does this distinction make sense to you, Clockwork, or am I missing something?

IGMEOY Clockwork

. I do not agree with the logic you have so far presented to support your vote for militant.

[urielzyx]

None of that discussion is relevant to this game, uri, and is becoming distracting. I think we have all agreed that there is pretty much no reason for town to lie in this setup, and the fact that infamousace2 has lied TWICE now about his reasons for unvoting Xtoxm is a large part of why I find him so suspicious.

First off, I'd like to remind you I have a vote on Infamousace2 already, so convincing me is not supposed to be at the top of your concerns.

Secondly, I have stated several times(if I'm not mistaken) that I wasn't speaking about a specific setup but about the policy in general, and that in this case I would agree you should lynch the liar.

Last but not least, about the fact it is becoming distracting, I had not brought it up this time but only responded to a question that looked like a suspicion.

Btw, not that I terribly mind, but my name is Uriel and not Uri...

[GIEFF]

I've bold and underlined the parts that don't sit right to me, The wordings of these appear to have a bias account of what happened with militant. I can see that GIEFF has chosen to disagree with arguments against militant but that wouldn't make him use the language he has in his above recap.

What are you trying to say in those posts? are you implying that I am suspicious in attacks on militant? It appears that way with the language you have used. If you think you are suspicious of me, go right out and say it.

No, I am not trying to imply anything about you. I will go through each of the underlined parts:

I don't see the forcing...

" I still don't see the forcing. This is not bias, I just do not agree with the charge.

soon

: 10 posts later is soon after, and that word works in that it shows that your vote was based on similar reasoning used by Xtoxm.

active lurking

: I am just trying to reconstruct the narrative of what happened. Xtoxm's reason was "active lurking," and you agreed.

immediately

: This means "the very next post." I used words like soon and immediately because I'm trying to review the militant wagon without forcing people to go back and read the whole thread. Without words like soon and immediately, the context can become lost.

OMGUS-FOS

: I did find your post 110 a little suspicious, hambargaz. Why did you choose to wait until Post 110 to FoS Clockwork, instead of doing so immediately after his self-vote? I labelled it an OMGUS-FOS for this reason; you didn't not FoS Clockwork until he FoS'd you. I didn't think this was all that suspicious, though, and I didn't want to add to an already-too-long post by going off on another tangent. Do you disagree with my characterization of the FoS as OMGUS?

Clockwork, do you still feel suspicious of hambargaz for focusing on militant? Or were you convinced by his answer in Post 102?

If Clockwork was not convinced of my answer, why would this make me be suspicious? You are kind of leading the question here, implying there's only 2 ways to look at it. ie. Either my answer is right, or i'm scum rather. When this is not the case. It also appears like you are inciting suspicions against me without stating you have them yourself.

Where did I say it would make you suspicious? I'm not trying to lead a question at all; I am just wondering why Clockwork removed his vote for you, because in post 103 (right after your post 102 explanation), he seemed to still be suspicious, and did not unvote until much later, and without further discussion. I am still interested in the answer to this, Clockwork, especially considering I find the reasoning behind your new vote (to militant) suspect.

Somewhat ironically, hambargaz, I DO find suspicious your defensiveness in thinking I was saying you were suspicious. Was there anything else besides my use of context words (i.e. soon and immediately) or the OMGUS-FOS thing that made you think I was trying to attack you?

I FoS'd militant in Post 146

RealityFan and militant are the only two people who still have their random votes active (both on me, incidentally). I'm going to FoS militant, as RealityFan appears to be inactive.

Here you've stated you have FOS'd militant. This doesn't stop me from feeling you are buddying with militant, it feels more like distancing, mainly because the reason you gave was wishy-washy. It is as if you are excusing you're FOS.

I am not excusing anything; again, I am just summarizing the wagon on militant, of which I am a part. Also, militant was the ONLY active player in the game who still had his random vote "on," even after I questioned infamous and militant for it; in what way is using that reasoning for a vote wishy-washy, hambargaz? Does anybody else find it wishy-washy?

I believe I already have an FOS on you. I haven't voted for you because you're summaries smell townie to me making militant the more likely scum, but I can't ignore things like this, coupled with you're defending of militant. militant should answer for himself, only scum have a reason to defend someone.

I addressed your "defending" accusations in more depth in post 210, and would like to hear whether my point makes sense to you.

1 - Active lurking.

Obviously I Agree.

2 - Random vote left on too long.

Neutral. I see this as a very minor point

3 - Appeasement.

I Agree.

4 - Withholding scummy evidence.

I Agree, I think you may have misunderstood Elennaro's post. militant made the excuse that something I said was scummy which motivated him to re-read with a particular "interest" in me. The question is.. Why didn't militant just outright say what it was that was scummy? I'm quite certain it's because he DIDN'T have a case and had to go back and make one up on me.

Thanks. Your point on #4 makes Elenarro's accusation more clear to me. It does seem suspicious that the only evidence militant later presented was the fact that you, too, were lurking, which is hardly enough to warrant a re-read with particular focus on you.


My apologies about your name, uriel. I understand why you brought it up again, and I wasn't trying to scold you or anything; I just wanted to establish that we've achieved consensus on that point, and get back to the flurry of activity that CarnCarn has helped to start.

[hambargarz]

hambargaz, I have already addressed this, in post 178.

Post 178:

hambargaz - it looks scummy to me because the logic behind it is faulty. The case against militant was based on him changing his opinion, but as I said, there was no opinion to change - it was a random vote.

I never said militant is innocent, or even looks innocent, I simply said that the unvote does not seem scummy.

Do you disagree?

Again, I have never said I think militant is innocent. All I am doing is questioning logic that I do not understand, which is not at all the same as defending militant or claiming he is innocent.

I may have given the impression that I got the impression you were saying militant was innocent. I know this isn't what you said. Given that the evidence in my eyes, points fingers at militant, I may have misinterpreted your post. But I also didn't mean that you were saying he's certain innocent, I couldn't think of a better word at the time. What I meant was more like "innocent in relation to his accusers". Obviously you would not say he's innocent (how would you know right?).

Calling people scummy for questioning logic without "rock-solid reasons" is BAD for the town;

I'm not asking for 100% concrete evidence, that's impossible. But I don't find the counter argument in post 178 satisfying. It's based on a misinterpretation of the "change of opinion". The original backpedalling was in regards to leaving the RV on rather than WHO was RV'd, post 178 did not address this.

we should welcome frank discussions about the reasoning behind votes. Do you agree with this, hambargaz?

Yes I agree. You need to give good reasons though, otherwise it just looks like defending someone.

There is content there, his answer was "I feel it's pro-town." I don't see the wishy-washiness; he gave his opinion, but said that he still doesn't understand what your motives were for doing so (which you still have not answered, incidentally). Also, I don't really see how this is appeasement, as the question was not directed at militant.

The wishy-washy part for me is his position on clockwork's motives. The part about "I feel it's pro-town" was directed at starting discussion in general, which is the forced part. Of course promoting discussion is pro-town, militant is stating the obvious. You put these together and it's a strong case of active-lurking

And even if this WERE a wishy-washy answer, it is hardly a central issue here. As I said in post 196, appeasement about an actual vote in the game is MUCH more suspicious than "appeasement" about theory or other metagame considerations. Scum has no incentive to lie about discussions of theory; their incentive to lie only becomes apparent when trying to explain the reasons for their votes, as there are other factors at play (i.e. actually KNOWING who is town and who isn't, instead of needing to try to puzzle it out, like the rest of us). Does this distinction make sense to you, Clockwork, or am I missing something?

The actual action or issue on theory is not significant, but what is significant is the motives behind the posts. "appeasement" wether it be about theory, voting or lynching is still "appeasement". ie. The scum is still trying to look good for everyone. Evidence of this can be seen in the smallest things and is significant, even though the actual context seems mundane and insignificant

[ClockworkRuse]

I'd like to say this tonight, and I'll respond to everything tomorrow.

GIEFF has some excellent posts up there. I will give you a response as to why I think militant is wishy-washy and answer any other questions for you tomrrow.

@CarnCarn, I've seen StrangeCoug use it as a pro-town move, but otherwise I mostly agree with you.

[CarnCarn]

I've seen StrangeCoug use it as a pro-town move, but otherwise I mostly agree with you.

I went back and took a quick look at that game (Meerkat Manor, right?), and his argument, as well that of as a few others, is that it is a null-tell in the RV stage, only intended to generate discussion (much like your self-vote), but generally not a good move. Others argued that it is a outright scum-tell. I don't think it is a scum-tell but but do think it's generally not very useful, and sometimes downright distracting (which is why I think it is anti-town play, intentional or not).

[hasdgfas]

militant has requested replacement. Looking for one now.

[GIEFF]

militant has requested replacement. Looking for one now.

I assume the request is due to this:

I am doing a quick re read rather than a slow one. I have a unexpected visit to a unwell relative this evening which I was not anticipating.

Best wishes, militant; I hope everything is all right.

[militant]

Yep. I am awful sorry I had to be replaced. Enjoy the rest of the game everybody. Thanks again hasdgfas.

[ClockworkRuse]

I've seen StrangeCoug use it as a pro-town move, but otherwise I mostly agree with you.

I went back and took a quick look at that game (Meerkat Manor, right?), and his argument, as well that of as a few others, is that it is a null-tell in the RV stage, only intended to generate discussion (much like your self-vote), but generally not a good move. Others argued that it is a outright scum-tell. I don't think it is a scum-tell but but do think it's generally not very useful, and sometimes downright distracting (which is why I think it is anti-town play, intentional or not).

Indeed it was Meerkat Manor. Also not how freaking unlucky my daykill was. D=

[Xtoxm]

Mmk skimmed through most stuff, not that long, was worried it would be!

Random Vote: Xtoxm for his cool avatar.

<3

On the cop with guilty - I was refering to this game only. Sometimes in larger games he might want to hold onto it.

We do not know, however if a cop has a guilty he certainly wants to get it out there right away. Then other peoples decide...

About Militant - Yes, I did find it a bit forced, although it was for the most part just trying to start things off. I have been unimpressed with Inf since I brought him up, hence shall change.

Unvote Vote Inf

[infamousace2]

I honestly don't see how much info can be discussed before the first lynch....this is amazing...

[ClockworkRuse]

I honestly don't see how much info can be discussed before the first lynch....this is amazing...

The first day is basically gauging reactions and determining who is scum from that. It's about building pressure on someone and seeing how they react.

For example;We've put a bit of pressure on Militant lately and I'm still gauging his reactions. There is one post that stuck out to me that I'll have to go back and fetch once I've got a better read on him, but that's how you hunt the first day.

Pressure, and pressure, and pressure. Looking for anything that seems out of place/anti-town/or scummy.

Can anyone tell me if anti-town = scummy. [Besides ICs?]

[GIEFF]

I don't think anti-town = scummy; the player could just be confused, or could be a victim of unintended consequences.

But if someone continues to exhibit anti-town behavior, even after repeated warnings, then I think the behavior becomes scummy.

I'd still like to hear your thoughts on some of the questions I've asked you, Clockwork, especially your reasons for voting militant and unvoting hambargaz, although this isn't all. Although militant is back down to L-3 now I think, and infamous is now at L-2, I'd still like to hear people's thoughts on the 4 reasons to suspect militant that I outlined earlier.

[hambargarz]

Can anyone tell me if anti-town = scummy. [Besides ICs?]

* puts hand up *
Anti town does not equal scum. My last game is a perfect example of this. We had 1 extremely anti town townie. He hammered a townie before discussion, when pressured with votes the next day he self lynched, making the day last only 36 hours. it was day 2 and the town had no information at all and the scum had a free ride to day 2. He was not the only one who self voted that game too. Anti-town play all around, not surprisingly the mafia won it.