Mykonian wrote: 3. logic in this game is always based on assumptions. You can choose them right, you can choose them wrong. There will be many reasonable assumptions. The logic that follows can be right, and nobody will find something there. A logic scum player can post his wrong assumption so that everyone will think it natural. That's why a player who's play is mainly based on logic close to unreadable.
I think I have read two games of vollkan. In both he was town, but if he plays just like that as scum, he can be antitown without us noticing it.
I have also read two games of Ecto, in both he was scum. If he plays always like that we will catch him soon enough. In both he hammered a uncounterclaimed powerrole... But more dangerous, in both he got away with it.
That's pretty much correct. What I would add, and I know that my saying this is loaded with WIFOM, is that I think the Achille's heel of logic-scum is in the assumptions as to reasonableness. As you say, all logic in this game depends on assumptions (see the last point I make to Orto below as a great example - my assumptions as to what is reasonable to expect are completely at odds with his). I guess this is the reason in part why I insist so much on reasons for suspicion - because I know firsthand that reducing things to the base assumption of "What makes the most reasonable hypothesis that this is a scummy action?" is probably a good way of breaking skilled scum. (Another reason I detest gut play - because it shirks explaining the basis for the assumptions)
But, see, what flows from this is that calm, logical posting is by no means a towntell at all - it's simply a particular sort of playstyle.
Orto wrote: As has already been pointed by others and himself; it is very difficult to determine his alignment using meta and/or analysis of his posts in and of themselves. And as he himself has just said that even as scum he will maintain a logical demeanour.
Unless you are trying to set a precedent for auto-lynches of me, there needs to be more than just this to justify any lynch of me.
Orto wrote:
That and I do think the discussion stemming from his self-vote (which he strongly contributed to perpetuating) has effectively "muddied the waters" for the town, and accomplished little. Had I not been a mason, it probably would have led to me being lynched. Obviously I am partly to blame for this, but I don't think wholly. He suggested (as did others) that I was scummy for deferring my reasoning to others. I think an equally valid hypothesis is that such extensive and unreadable discussion will lead to someone tiring of the dead-end stalemate, and seeking a lynch to break it. After all, all it achieved up to that point was votes for vollkan and Ecto, and then votes for SpyreX for "buddying up". I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent player as vollkan wouldn't recognise that a discussion like that, verbose as it was, was ultimately leading nowhere.
You miss the point completely.
Deferring of reasons is scummy - and I don't see how you can conflate that with an attack on me. You might disagree, but I don't see what the relevance of this is outside of an OMGUS.
I really hate it when people say that a particular discussion didn't "lead" anywhere. Most things in this game won't result in any specific outcome. What my self-vote did was set in train a discussion which has really laid the groundwork for what we have now. I didn't expect it to lead to a lynch or anything of the sort. Discussion is an end in itself, and that's what I achieved.
Orto wrote: By saying you would keep your vote on me "until somebody else really screws up" you were trying to hedge your argument in exactly the same way you criticised me for doing. You were implying you were only voting for me "because I had screwed up the most", rather than that I was actually scum.
Uh, no. I voted you because you refused to justify yourself. That's scummy. You are cherry-picking the choice of the word "screws up". It's clear from my posts that I thought your actions were scummy and, in that context, "screws up" can only reasonably take the meaning of "does something really scummy"
Orto wrote: Also, assuming we are telling the truth about our mason claim, you were, in fact, asking for an explanation where one in the form you wanted didn't exist. I didn't have a good enough argument for voting Ectomancer, according to you, so this request was impossible to satisfy.
Yes. You were scummy if you didn't provide a reason, and you were scummy if you didn't have a good one. That's not a Catch-22 or anything. It's common sense. If your vote was for no reason - then it's scummy inherently. The request is only "impossible to satisfy" if you had no reasons, which is precisely what I was trying to determine.
Orto wrote:
This doesn't, however, entail that I am scum. There are many other possible explanations e.g. that a townie felt your convoluted discussion was not helping in the lynching of scum and decided to take a different approach to break the stalemate.
There are
always
possible explanations for things. ANYTHING can be justified on the basis of "town acting oddly". A scumtell is an action where the most reasonable explanation is one of scumminess. Without taking a post hoc analysis, at the time I saw a vote which had no apparent justification. The most reasonable conclusion is not "Ortolan is town who has come to a (wrong) decision about my self-vote and has decided to stir the pot". The most reasnoable conclusion is that "Orto is scum who got caught out". Now, the varying probabilities mean that it isn't lynchworthy in and of itself, but it is still a scumtell.
