Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[ClockworkRuse]

See the above post.

Are you trying to say that I took the path of least resistance?

[Caboose]

Of all the gambits that I know of, the one I HATE, no, LOATH the most is Fong's gambit. It's not catching anyone. It's just bad play. And it also gives a good excuse for scum who do something scummy early on.

Vote for me if you think I'm scummy. The one think I loathe is whiny players who don't do anything.

What was whiny about what I said?

For one, you call my play a bad one, yet you haven't made any real play yourself. Secondly, you call sum while you're at it. VOTE FOR ME IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALL ME SCUMMY.

There might be some people out there (ClockworkRuse for example) that might deserve my vote more than you. I'm still trying to determine that.

what about FoS and IGMEOY?

FoS's and IGMEOY's suck and I try to keep my use of them to a minimum.

IGMEOY: Caboose

Any particular reason?

[ThAdmiral]

WI-FOM (noun):

Well, if scum doesn't gain anything by focusing on somebody else , but does gain a lot by focusing on the same guy, then focusing on somebody else will make it so that no one thinks you are scum.
I know that up until here it looks stupid, but once you give an excuse as to why you are doing the non scummy thing(as you did) then people will start thinking you are scum...

True

what about FoS and IGMEOY?

FoS's and IGMEOY's suck and I try to keep my use of them to a minimum.

So true

Actually, it would be best for the person to try and defend themselves first, AND THEN point out the flaws in the attack. That way you can gain info from the person being attacked.

Maybe, but sometimes when you let just two people attack and counter-attack each other it is far less effective than if other people chime in with their opinions as well. Furthermore it makes it less likely that the town as a whole will start looking at the only two arguing people as viable lynches, narrowing the town's potential scope.

Alright Battousai, I'm alright with you voting me. But I'll tell everyone now, I don't really feel that much pressure from votes. If you are going to vote me, ask me questions.

I agree with this as well.
A vote coupled with "cause you've been acting scummy" (or something of the kind) is basically worthless and is impossible to respond to/defend against.

[CarnCarn]

Of all the gambits that I know of, the one I HATE, no, LOATH the most is Fong's gambit. It's not catching anyone. It's just bad play. And it also gives a good excuse for scum who do something scummy early on.

Vote for me if you think I'm scummy. The one think I loathe is whiny players who don't do anything.

What was whiny about what I said?

For one, you call my play a bad one, yet you haven't made any real play yourself. Secondly, you call sum while you're at it. VOTE FOR ME IF YOU'RE GOING TO CALL ME SCUMMY.

There might be some people out there (ClockworkRuse for example) that might deserve my vote more than you. I'm still trying to determine that.

what about FoS and IGMEOY?

FoS's and IGMEOY's suck and I try to keep my use of them to a minimum.

IGMEOY: Caboose

Any particular reason?

How do you propose to keep track of multiple players whom you find suspicious? Personally, I use FoS and IGMEOY as a way of in-thread notetaking, especially useful for later in the game, but also as a way to get more serious attention of someone I think is acting scummy.
The IGMEOY on you was partly jest and partly a concern that you may be focusing your efforts only on one person at a time.

[destructor]

Hi everyone. Just checking in. I fleetingly followed the game while I was a replacement but haven't given it a good read yet. Hoep to find some time tomorrow.

[ortolan]

Ortolan, the point is that the town was applying pressure to him, and his reactions are important. You defending him detracts from his reactions, in my opinion, as you give him a safeguard.

Are you telling me that it's okay to self-vote because it's a fashion now?

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

Self-voting is fundamentally a null-tell. I defended it as such. You had no basis for voting for Ramus for it, and you had no basis for then voting for me. Furthermore you rebuked ThAdmiral for defending me. Your first action had no merit and the two actions which stemmed from it also, consequently, had no merit. I see it as quite possible you are aiming for a devil's advocate-type playstyle (ironically much like Ramus also seems to be doing) but this doesn't excuse you from the onus of providing valid arguments for your votes and assertions.

[Mizzy]

I actually agree with a little of Clockwork and a little of ortolan. I feel that while self-voting is a null-tell, we should all still be held accountable for our actions and responses. However, I also feel that defending other players from things that they can defend against themselves should be avoided because it does allow them an easy out.

[Battousai]

Actually, it would be best for the person to try and defend themselves first, AND THEN point out the flaws in the attack. That way you can gain info from the person being attacked.

Maybe, but sometimes when you let just two people attack and counter-attack each other it is far less effective than if other people chime in with their opinions as well. Furthermore it makes it less likely that the town as a whole will start looking at the only two arguing people as viable lynches, narrowing the town's potential scope.

See Mizzy post 106. That was the jest of what I meant by it.

Alright Battousai, I'm alright with you voting me. But I'll tell everyone now, I don't really feel that much pressure from votes. If you are going to vote me, ask me questions.

I agree with this as well.
A vote coupled with "cause you've been acting scummy" (or something of the kind) is basically worthless and is impossible to respond to/defend against.

Don't know if you were directing it at me since my name was mentioned in CR's quote, but I did give a reason for my vote (the adequate pressure remark). See the end of post 82.

[petroleumjelly]

Day One: Vote Count #6

4 ClockworkRuse (urielzyx, CarnCarn, Machiavellian-Mafia, Battousai)
2 Battousai (Caboose, Ramus)
1 destructor (ThAdmiral)
1 Machiavellian-Mafia (MiteyMouse)
1 ortolan (ClockworkRuse)
1 Ramus (Mizzy)
1 ThAdmiral (ortolan)

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch, and

4

to lynch at deadline. Deadline hits on December 1 at 9:59 pm CDT.

Not Voting – 1 – destructor

Important Clarification

: The Traitor

does

know the identity of both Mafia members. This is meant to be public knowledge, but apparently the Rules Post was missing this information. My apologies if this has caused any inconvenience or confusion to any players. The Rules Post has been updated to reflect this information.

[CarnCarn]

Ortolan, the point is that the town was applying pressure to him, and his reactions are important. You defending him detracts from his reactions, in my opinion, as you give him a safeguard.

Are you telling me that it's okay to self-vote because it's a fashion now?

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

Self-voting is fundamentally a null-tell. I defended it as such. You had no basis for voting for Ramus for it, and you had no basis for then voting for me. Furthermore you rebuked ThAdmiral for defending me. Your first action had no merit and the two actions which stemmed from it also, consequently, had no merit. I see it as quite possible you are aiming for a devil's advocate-type playstyle (ironically much like Ramus also seems to be doing) but this doesn't excuse you from the onus of providing valid arguments for your votes and assertions.

Actually, he never voted Ramus, but he gave some (tenuous) reasons for not doing so, which is why he is the leading wagon ATM.
Basically, read the thread.

[ClockworkRuse]

Ortolan, the point is that the town was applying pressure to him, and his reactions are important. You defending him detracts from his reactions, in my opinion, as you give him a safeguard.

Are you telling me that it's okay to self-vote because it's a fashion now?

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

Self-voting is fundamentally a null-tell. I defended it as such. You had no basis for voting for Ramus for it, and you had no basis for then voting for me. Furthermore you rebuked ThAdmiral for defending me. Your first action had no merit and the two actions which stemmed from it also, consequently, had no merit. I see it as quite possible you are aiming for a devil's advocate-type playstyle (ironically much like Ramus also seems to be doing) but this doesn't excuse you from the onus of providing valid arguments for your votes and assertions.

Actually, he never voted Ramus, but he gave some (tenuous) reasons for not doing so, which is why he is the leading wagon ATM.
Basically, read the thread.

Then please, follow through with your wagon. If you want to put pressure on me, do it. Ask questions and actually do something about it. The worst thing that can happen from votes is that I can be lynched, confirmed, and you'll have a new list of suspects from who voted me.

So you find it scummy that I choose Ort over Ramus, because of the way I did it, correct? Is that the only reason you find me scummy right now?

Ortolan, the point is that the town was applying pressure to him, and his reactions are important. You defending him detracts from his reactions, in my opinion, as you give him a safeguard.

Are you telling me that it's okay to self-vote because it's a fashion now?

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

Self-voting is fundamentally a null-tell. I defended it as such. You had no basis for voting for Ramus for it, and you had no basis for then voting for me. Furthermore you rebuked ThAdmiral for defending me. Your first action had no merit and the two actions which stemmed from it also, consequently, had no merit. I see it as quite possible you are aiming for a devil's advocate-type playstyle (ironically much like Ramus also seems to be doing) but this doesn't excuse you from the onus of providing valid arguments for your votes and assertions.

This is pretty much dead wrong. If you haven't noticed, not everyone is voting Ramus because he self-voted. Look back and read over his answers, he has basically refused to explain himself. The fact that you defended him detracts from any reactions that we might get from him and at this point in the game, reactions are very important.

The same goes for TheAdmiral, defending someone else detracts from the answers we can get from your reactions. These aren't "unmerited", these are my beliefs about the game. Defending someone else makes it too easy for scum to get away from questions and pressure.

And second, the fact that you thought I voted Ramus tells me that you aren't reading the thread completely.

[Ramus]

I see it as quite possible you are aiming for a devil's advocate-type playstyle (ironically much like Ramus also seems to be doing)...

Looking back on it, I guess I was trying to do that. Didn't work well though.

Ortolan, the point is that the town was applying pressure to him, and his reactions are important. You defending him detracts from his reactions, in my opinion, as you give him a safeguard.

Are you telling me that it's okay to self-vote because it's a fashion now?

@TheAdmiral, Why are you defending Ortolan? He is perfectly capable of responding himself.

Self-voting is fundamentally a null-tell. I defended it as such. You had no basis for voting for Ramus for it, and you had no basis for then voting for me. Furthermore you rebuked ThAdmiral for defending me. Your first action had no merit and the two actions which stemmed from it also, consequently, had no merit. I see it as quite possible you are aiming for a devil's advocate-type playstyle (ironically much like Ramus also seems to be doing) but this doesn't excuse you from the onus of providing valid arguments for your votes and assertions.

This is pretty much dead wrong. If you haven't noticed, not everyone is voting Ramus because he self-voted. Look back and read over his answers, he has basically refused to explain himself. The fact that you defended him detracts from any reactions that we might get from him and at this point in the game, reactions are very important.

The same goes for TheAdmiral, defending someone else detracts from the answers we can get from your reactions. These aren't "unmerited", these are my beliefs about the game. Defending someone else makes it too easy for scum to get away from questions and pressure.

And second, the fact that you thought I voted Ramus tells me that you aren't reading the thread completely.

You guys are taking this game way too seriously. I was only experimenting with the Fong Gambit to see if it worked and we'll find out soon if it does. The fact of the matter is, I've already given all of the answers, you guys just decided to read over them.

[ThAdmiral]

Battouasi: can you explain in your own words why the adequate pressure remark is scummy?

[ortolan]

And second, the fact that you thought I voted Ramus tells me that you aren't reading the thread completely.

My apologies. Ironically I actually did re-read the entire thread before making my previous post, but I must have mixed you up with CarnCarn. In fact this if anything merely strengthens my point- I find it somewhat bizarre that you would not vote Ramus because there is "adequate pressure", yet you would vote for someone for defending him. This almost seems to amount to a "vote-by-proxy" and as MM said in 68, could well serve as a way of getting some of the benefits of an actual vote on Ramus without drawing attention to yourself.

This is pretty much dead wrong. If you haven't noticed, not everyone is voting Ramus because he self-voted.

According to the last votecount, he only has 1 vote. It's strange you seem to be at least partially appealing to argument from the majority here. I find this odd because not only is it a bad argument, but you have four votes to his 1 at the moment (I'm not one of them either). What reason do you think people have for voting for you? Is it because of who you've voted/not voted for, or the *way* you've justified your actions?

Look back and read over his answers, he has basically refused to explain himself.

The point is that he *doesn't* have a case to answer to based purely on his null-tell self-vote. If you want to pick out something that he's done *after* that, then by all means, go ahead. I'll give you one: Post 60. Here I feel he conceded his gambit too readily and then directed suspicion at four different people based on a fairly slim, one-line justification for each. If that's what you were referring to then we're at least partially in agreement, but I still don't see what about his initial self-vote he's obliged to defend.

[ClockworkRuse]

And second, the fact that you thought I voted Ramus tells me that you aren't reading the thread completely.

My apologies. Ironically I actually did re-read the entire thread before making my previous post, but I must have mixed you up with CarnCarn. In fact this if anything merely strengthens my point- I find it somewhat bizarre that you would not vote Ramus because there is "adequate pressure", yet you would vote for someone for defending him. This almost seems to amount to a "vote-by-proxy" and as MM said in 68, could well serve as a way of getting some of the benefits of an actual vote on Ramus without drawing attention to yourself.

This is pretty much dead wrong. If you haven't noticed, not everyone is voting Ramus because he self-voted.

According to the last votecount, he only has 1 vote. It's strange you seem to be at least partially appealing to argument from the majority here. I find this odd because not only is it a bad argument, but you have four votes to his 1 at the moment (I'm not one of them either). What reason do you think people have for voting for you? Is it because of who you've voted/not voted for, or the *way* you've justified your actions?

Look back and read over his answers, he has basically refused to explain himself.

The point is that he *doesn't* have a case to answer to based purely on his null-tell self-vote. If you want to pick out something that he's done *after* that, then by all means, go ahead. I'll give you one: Post 60. Here I feel he conceded his gambit too readily and then directed suspicion at four different people based on a fairly slim, one-line justification for each. If that's what you were referring to then we're at least partially in agreement, but I still don't see what about his initial self-vote he's obliged to defend.

How is your case strengthened by the fact that I felt there was adequate pressure on Ramus? Even if I felt like his pressure was lacking, I wasn't going to go after him over you. As I've already said, in my eyes defending someone before they can give a response is scummy.

At this point, there isn't much I can say without repeating myself.

As to my votes, I would account it to both. But you'll also notice something, no one jumped up to defend me. So the wagon is welcome, because it's based on my reactions.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

Would you rather I tunnel in on someone who already has two or three players firing questions away?

I'm more interested in why someone is defending him right now than his defense, what reason would ort have defending Ramus? Ramus is perfectly capable of responding to the questions and suspicions that are being thrown at him right now, so one would hope at least.

But you can still address your concerns with other players and possibly using FOSes, IGMEOYs, etc while voting for Ramus. You are depicting a possible Ramus-vote in the worst light by suggesting tunneling.

I also see a contradiction in your second statement. Earlier you said "As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him", which suggests that Ramus is your primary interest. Then in the post above you flip flop and say that the Ramus-defenders are your primary interests and Ramus is secondary.

Ramus wasn't my primary interest, that's just how you are reading into it. I agree that his responses to fairly simple questions have been scummy, but at the time I felt that the amount of people concentrating on him was adequate, I didn't need to jump on that wagon. And you're telling me that I'm scummy because I didn't bother to FoS him or tell him I was going to keep my eye one him?

Do you think I did need to jump on that wagon? Why? What benefit would it be for scum to concentrate on someone else when someone is under heavy scrutiny?

The fact that you recognize the scumminess and the potential jump on the wagon means you had significant interest in Ramus. So it seemed to me like you were trying to have it both ways by addressing Ramus while not creating a clear link with him.

Your last question is a classic WIFOM scenario. It seems Scum X will do action A in circumstance C, so X knows the town will think this and do action not-A in circumstance C, so X knows the town will think this and do action not-not-A (A) in circumstance C, etc.

[urielzyx]

ortolan, if someone(in this case Ramus) is accused of something, you should not answer for him, because then he doesn't need to think of a reason, if he is scum then accusing him might reveal him, but if he isn't scum, then he can explain the logic behind his play, the thing is, the moment you defend him then he can just repeat exactly what you said regardless of if he is scum or not, if you question the logic of a question, you may say you agree with him after he answers, but just giving him the answer is not the way to go...

[ortolan]

I see where you're coming from. My feeling is that people should not be made to defend non-scummy actions (such as a self-vote). It sets a dangerous precedent. If you're going to attack him I would prefer if it was done based on something more substantial.

[Battousai]

Battouasi: can you explain in your own words why the adequate pressure remark is scummy?

To me, I feel that he was just saying "Yah, Ramus is scummy, but I don't want to place a vote on Ramus because Ramus is feeling pressured." I believe he was coming up with a reason to NOT vote Ramus. The scum reasons I can see are that CR may not want to vote his partner OR CR didn't want to appear scummy by jumping on a bandwagon to just add pressure OR wants to stay away from a growing bandwagon in case it comes to fruitation and Ramus is revealed as town.

[ThAdmiral]

@ battousai: I'd say something in response to that, but that would be defending...

[Mizzy]

@ battousai: I'd say something in response to that, but that would be defending...

^Copout.

[CarnCarn]

@ battousai: I'd say something in response to that, but that would be defending...

^Copout.

I agree. ThAd, spill the beans; ClockworkRuse probably won't mind as long as you're defending

him

.

[destructor]

I don't like the CR-hate.
Machiavellian-Mafia:

I also see a contradiction in your second statement. Earlier you said "As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him", which suggests that Ramus is your primary interest. Then in the post above you flip flop and say that the Ramus-defenders are your primary interests and Ramus is secondary.

I don't see these implication. How did this comment of the wagon tell you that CR was more interested in Ramus than he was of ortolan, the player he

voted

for? Where is the contradiction?

The fact that you recognize the scumminess and the potential jump on the wagon means you had significant interest in Ramus. So it seemed to me like you were trying to have it both ways by addressing Ramus while not creating a clear link with him.

I'm confused by this quote. Why is it important to your vote that CR had significant interest in Ramus and what sort of a link are you saying he was trying to avoid?

I really didn't like Batt's "pressure" vote for CR either (Post 82). Pressure on Ramus made sense as he was being evasive, but CR was already talking. I saw no benefit in adding a vote for the sake of "pressure" at this point. Batt's explanation of why he found the "adequate pressure" remark scummy wasn't convincing either:

To me, I feel that he was just saying "Yah, Ramus is scummy, but I don't want to place a vote on Ramus because Ramus is feeling pressured." I believe he was coming up with a reason to NOT vote Ramus. The scum reasons I can see are that CR may not want to vote his partner OR CR didn't want to appear scummy by jumping on a bandwagon to just add pressure OR wants to stay away from a growing bandwagon in case it comes to fruitation and Ramus is revealed as town.

How do you think CW-town should have reacted to the Ramus wagon?


I think there is/are scum on the CR wagon. I think Batt may fit the description. I'd vote for Batt right now, but Caboose is on his wagon already.

There might be some people out there (ClockworkRuse for example) that might deserve my vote more than you. I'm still trying to determine that.

Have you made your mind up yet?

[CarnCarn]

I don't like the CR-hate...

I also see a contradiction in your second statement. Earlier you said "As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him", which suggests that Ramus is your primary interest. Then in the post above you flip flop and say that the Ramus-defenders are your primary interests and Ramus is secondary.

I don't see these implication. How did this comment of the wagon tell you that CR was more interested in Ramus than he was of ortolan, the player he

voted

for? Where is the contradiction?

This is what ClockworkRuse posted:

As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him,

but I would like a better explaination about why he self-voted rather than someone else explaining something about his last game.

Vote: ortolan

Why were you defending Ramus?

Emphasis added. Basically what he's saying is "I would prefer to vote Ramus, but there is enough pressure, so I'll vote someone else", which implies that Ramus was in fact a primary choice.

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

I don't like the CR-hate.
Machiavellian-Mafia:

I also see a contradiction in your second statement. Earlier you said "As I think there is adequate pressure on Ramus right now, I'm not going to vote him", which suggests that Ramus is your primary interest. Then in the post above you flip flop and say that the Ramus-defenders are your primary interests and Ramus is secondary.

I don't see these implication. How did this comment of the wagon tell you that CR was more interested in Ramus than he was of ortolan, the player he

voted

for? Where is the contradiction?

The fact that you recognize the scumminess and the potential jump on the wagon means you had significant interest in Ramus. So it seemed to me like you were trying to have it both ways by addressing Ramus while not creating a clear link with him.

I'm confused by this quote. Why is it important to your vote that CR had significant interest in Ramus and what sort of a link are you saying he was trying to avoid?

How I read CR's statement was that his primary interest was on Ramus because he mentioned Ramus first and considered voting Ramus, but because of the "adequate pressure", he wanted to instead pursue his secondary interest. I clearly spelled out the contradiction in that quote.

The main reason for my vote was that CR had significant interest in Ramus and considered Ramus to be scummy but did not want to pile on the wagon by voting, FOSing, etc. In other words, I saw him talk and talk but not walk the walk.