Mini 692: Boost Mafia (Game Over!)

[Raging Rabbit]

I rarely see townies this concerned with showing how each and every action they make is done for logical, pro town motives - see my post summarizing his course of liking SL for attacking him and then slowly changing his mind and voting him for a stronger example. Anyways, how does this game-theory disagreement make me scummy?

I don't remember ever really liking springlullaby for attacking me. Reposting for convenience:

Some of your points seem like a bit of a stretch to me, which is a bit bothersome. I'll try and take it as a slight pro-town sign that you've called me of all people out on certain things when I've pretty much had absolutely nothing directed at me and have been finding myself trying to create my own content to get involved in. But yeah, there ya go.

I said I was bothered by her attack because I felt like her points were a bit of a stretch. I also said I'm gonna

try

and take it as a

slight

pro-town that she called me out.

In summary: Clearly I felt like she was misrepresenting some of my early actions, and instead of immediately jumping to conclusions that her intent was absolutely, positively malicious and therefore scummy, I decided to see how she would react to my response and then my response after that... etc. Her reactions to my response(s) furthered my belief that her attack might have malicious intent and so I came to the conclusion that was scummy for this. That shouldn't be so hard to understand.

The only thing she could've possibly done that would've convinced you she didn't have a "malicious intent" was apologize and unvote you. The "I'll try taking it as a slight pro town sign" sentence is totally contrived, and seems intended to give her an easy out of doing the "right thing" and not pushing your points about the nice guy everyone believes is pro town any further, and no harm will be done since he's been kind enough to consider it a pro town sign. The way you then slowly take yourslef of starting to suspect her for basically not doing the above and continuing to push her case is scummier still.

Gotta go now, more later in the weekend when I'll have some time.

[Jahudo]

Yeah, I do remember that. What specifically do you want to know about it?

You said she strawmanned you. Did you think she was more misguided or scummy at this point with her case?

[Incognito]

Oh. By that point I was already voting her and at the very bottom of that post 137 I pretty much confirmed my vote on her. So deffo scummy.

[iLord]

aasdfasdf

An opinion on alignment at that point in the game was dependent entirely on whether you believe scum could/would claim at that point. I hadn't seen anything like that before so I didn't know what to make of it.

Why didn't you say that you didn't know what to make of it?

What was your note on this?

Hmm. I don't really remember, even after looking.

Another question does call into mind right now, though.

Who do you think was exaggerating the suspicion?

[Elmo]

Day 1, Vote Count #19

eldarad (3) <- Guardian, iLord, Huntress
Huntress (2) <- sthar8, Electra
Incognito (2) <- Jahudo, Raging Rabbit
iLord <- eldarad
Green Crayons <- TDC
Guardian <- Incognito

Not voting: RandomGem, Green Crayons.

With 12 alive, it's 7 to lynch. The

deadline

is Thursday, 18 December 2008, 06:00 UTC, which is 5 days, 4 hours, and 57 minutes from this post. TDC and Electra have been prodded.

[Jahudo]

Elmo: You still have Mana_Ku listed in the vote count.

Why didn't you say that you didn't know what to make of it?

I should have, but spending time on Skillit's attack became a priority for the first few pages.

Who do you think was exaggerating the suspicion?

RR but looking back at it the questions don't look unreasonable.

I also took another look at the following quote and am less sure that this was a throwaway comment by Crazy.

"Tempted" does not equal "considering." I was teasing electra based on her most recent post, and announcing that I see some value in the Skillit wagon. For the record, I consider my vote to still be random, but I also like the results of it sitting where it is. I don't see anything that merits a true nonrandom vote yet, although there are a couple promising leads.

I'd find this very scummy if I didn't already think he was town... crap.

But afterwards even Crazy said that sthar's defense was good and he still looked town so it's probably nothing.

[TDC]

Okay, so only a few days to deadline, and we neet to get a full, 7 vote, lynch done.
Biggest wagon is eldarad with three, but I've already said I don't want to lynch him.
Of the two two vote wagons I prefer Huntress.

unvote vote Huntress

I would consider switching to back Green Crayons or changing to iLord, Jahudo or Guardian (in about that order) if they become viable lynches.

[TDC]

to back = back to

[Guardian]

guys really lets not lynch Huntress.

I responded to the case on crazy and I think its bad, and Huntress gives me a neutral vibe at worst. I will not support lynching Huntress today unless my opinion changes drastically.

[Electra]

guys really lets not lynch Huntress.

I responded to the case on crazy and I think its bad, and Huntress gives me a neutral vibe at worst. I will not support lynching Huntress today unless my opinion changes drastically.

Can you link me to your response? I can't find it.

[Raging Rabbit]

RR but looking back at it the questions don't look unreasonable.

What are you talking about?

I'm gonna be really busy this weak, so there probably won't be any time for me to reread people before deadline, regretfully. Incog is my preferred lynch, followed by Jahudo for being, as Incog put it, spectacor-y which is a comfortable stance for scum and consistenly giving me an odd vibe. Huntress I'm currently reading as neutral-slightly scummy, but I don't have a strong grasp on the things she said and need to reread both her and Crazy if I'll manage to find the time, but based on my current flimsy read I'll be willing to go along with her lynch if it comes to that. iLord and eldarad I don't want lynched today.

[eldarad]

Back up to speed. Apologies for falling behind.

~~~

@eldarad, do you think iLord’s organized suspect list in post 452 conflicts with the comparative levels of suspicion within the summaries on each player in that same post?
Do you think the tells he gives can be quantified as more severe than others?

None of the town reads correspond to the summary for the players concerned.
The randomgem neutral read does not correspond to the "scummy" text - although I guess that the neutral read comes from a lack of content to analyse.

For the scum reads, particuarly Jahudo, there is some use of language where iLord doesn't like something, and we can infer from the name being in red that iLord doesn't like it because it is scummy. But we don't know

why

...
There are a lot of places where I can see iLord is using points as a basis for the scumread that, if explained, could and would be challenged by a "why is that scummy?" query that I doubt iLord could adequately answer.

The only indication that iLord read me as scum was:

Very scummy comment in response to MK in Post 389.

The rest of the commentary was neutral.

So I guess the point I'm making is that without giving the reasons why a post is scummy, saying that you don't like a post doesn't really cut much ice. And saying, for example, "no reasoning for non-gut reads" does not tell us whether iLord thinks this is scummy or not.

~~~

I'm getting a little tired of reiterating the explanation for my summaries. They are just a summary - an organizer. My reasoning follows after questions or cases.

So you're saying that you voted for Jahudo without posting any reasons, and that your reasoning will be provided if people ask.
Are you planning to post reasons for your vote on me? Is it - like Guardian's vote - based on a single post or did your read from #452 contribute to your decision. How so?

~~~

Before I start, I just want to disown Skillit's weird "illogical" argument against Electra that occupied the first few pages of his posts. It was dumb (to be frank), flawed and pointless.

Huntress

, how does this affect your opinion that my pushing of Skillit was scummy, given that GC -

who shares the same role PM as Skillit

- believes that Skillit's point was flawed and pointless?
Do you disagree with GC on this?

Why on earth should it bother him so much that iLord wanted to boost the two he feels most certain about? That's what I found odd.

My point is that I didn't think iLord genuinely felt that Electra was the 2nd most townie person, but had put her there to justify his decision to boost her. Particuarly since boost-hammering Electra as part of a consensus boost due to the looming deadline would have been a perfectly legitimate reason for changing his boost away from Guardian and on to Electra.

Not as such, but it can be when combined with other factors.

So, in this specific case, (ie, sthar trying to divert attention from the eldarad wagon) what other factors exist to make you believe that sthar is not town?

I wouldn't have chosen either of them; not Electra as she is one of my top suspects, nor Sthar for the reason I gave in post 538.

So if you had a second boost vote (you don't because you replaced in late, and then avoided expressing any positive opinions on other players for a while) who would you boost?

See my reply to Jahudo re: the boost in post 565. As for the leap of faith, I don't entirely disagree with it but I don't give it as much credence as you seem to be doing.

What part of the 'leap of faith' logic do you disagree with?
On what basis do you believe that my opinion on the leap of faith is not sincerely held?
Given that the majority of players agree with my 'leap of faith' logic, how can that possibly be used as part of a case that I am scum?

Because it seemed too quick. He boosted her in his very first post for making an early move but in his next post he said, "But also note that I was trying to start a boostwagon too.", from which I infered that this was originally partly a gambit.

What do you mean by my boost vote being (partly) a "gambit"?

In the same post he gives what is apparently his only reason for supporting Electra, "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."

Correct. I had two reasons for boosting Electra - the leap of faith and the attempted boostwagon.
I think the leap of faith is a sufficient reason alone for boosting Electra and a majority of players agree with me. So you need to explain not why I am wrong (I may be wrong, but that doesn't show I'm scummy as 6 other players made the same mistake) but why I am scummy for putting that argument forward whereas the other 6 players who didn't put the argument forward but who did agree with the argument are not scummy.

His only other comment on Electra is in post 234 where he says, "You have a point that Electra has kept a low profile since her initial entrance. Her last post where she says "early game is as boring for scum as it gets" is a bit worrying, isn't it, given her apparent boredom with the game...". But despite it being "a bit worrying", he is still content to leave his boost on her.

*Shrugs*
It is a bit worrying, but not worrying enough to unboost Electra. Especially since a number of players appeared to be bored with the game at that time.
In any case, I think the Electra boostwagon will have analysis value in the future.

It will only harm the town if she is scum. I just don't think the reasons you gave for thinking she is town were strong enough to keep your boost on her; particularly in view of your comment in post 234.

Maybe I will come back to this point once you've explained why you partly disagree with the 'leap of faith' idea.

I don't think that the random votes are significant; I was just noting that this wasn't a first or second vote on Skillet. I don't know why Crazy pushed that wagon, nor do I agree with the point he made with his vote which, however, was not the same point you made when you voted Skillet.

Massive QFT to everything that eldarad has said so far.

QFT to eldarad's #32.

Post 32 was where I voted for Skillit.
Why is the fact that there were votes already on Skillit significant? You seem to be trying to suggest that I picked Skillit that there was already a half-formed wagon on Skillit and that was why I decided to push him.
Is that an accurate assessment? How does that hold up now that you have accepted that the presence of pre-existing votes for Skillit isn't significant?

How can you use pushing the Skillit wagon as a scumtell against me whilst at the same time claiming that it isn't a scumtell against you/Crazy?

Also note that in the same post, in a response to TDC on the subject, Crazy says, "and I'd like to see Electra's clarification on that", which shows he didn't have a closed mind on the subject.

And yet Electra had often said that she wasn't a cop, and expressed concern that people were assuming she was, and yet Crazy then made an assumption that she was a cop.

Your statement that Crazy agreed with EVERYTHING you said consistently up until post 166 is blatantly false.

OK, so he agreed with everything up to post 79, and then made a point of repeating his complete agreement with post 32.
Now answer the original questions:

Can you think of a pro-town reason why Crazy would do that? Do you think it is scummy for me to react to that behaviour in the way I did?
Why did you totally ignore this when you summarised my reasons for voting Crazy?

If you saw double standards from sl that might have been a basis for a vote on her but why on Crazy? If player X seems to be buddying up to or ignoring player Y, which would you call more scummy, the one doing the buddying etc.? Or the one on the receiving end?

If there is linkage between two players then both players are linked. Combined with the massive sheeping Crazy had been doing on me, I thought my vote would be better on Crazy.

It was iLord who showed an early suspicion of you.

iLord showed brief, early suspicion of me. Indeed, it is a key part of iLord's defence that he changed his mind about my 'leap of faith' theory with regard to Electra's early claim.
Apart from that, there was no suspicion on me at all until recently - there was none at all when you first mentioned that you got a scum vibe from me way back in second post.

~~~

He massively QFTs eldarad, which makes me think he isn't scum with eldarad (scum tend not to be so easily identified with each other).

So, assuming an eldarad lynch is impossible, you would be willing to support a Huntress lynch as this would generate additional information for the town, correct?

~~~

That's not a prod - that's an attack. And I find it very suspicious that you are tying to change that.

Yeah, it's an attack. But it's an attack to pin you down on something.
You sound like you're aggrieved that you didn't know what I was trying to achieve . I have no problem with that.

So what if they were in the same post? I'm sure other players without a need to construe attacks against me will see that I've already mentioned that I was going to boost Electra before - it was simply time to boost her.

Maybe. Yet there was ambiguity there that we have managed to remove. Yay for us.

You start off saying that I avoided confrontation with Incognito, and now you've mutated your point to the fact that our discussion wasn't meaningful, no doubt implying that we were distancing.

I was specifically responding to your hyperbole about how you and Incog had been arguing for ages and that I obviously hadn't been reading the thread.
To clarify: I don't think you have had a long or meaningful argument with Incog about his alignment or yours.
I also think that you specifically avoided confrontation with Incog earlier by allowing sl to do all the work.

~~~

unvote
vote Huntress

[Guardian]

So, assuming an eldarad lynch is impossible, you would be willing to support a Huntress lynch as this would generate additional information for the town, correct?

First, I am not willing to assume that at this juncture. Second, I almost never assume that a lynch is impossible at any juncture except right before deadline, and third, I never lynch "to generate additional information for the town," that is a ridiculous reason for lynching people. I lynch "to lynch scum." I would not support a Huntress lynch unless it was right next to deadline and it was not conceivable I could get a better lynch.

In the past I have not defended people because if they are scum it comes back to bite you, but I am going on a limb here, and saying I really do not buy the case on Huntress or think she is a good lynch. I think there are numerous better targets.

See my post 596 for my reponse to sth's case on crazy. What is the case on Huntress apart from the case on Crazy? Sure she "wasted" a bit of time talking about Electra, but really I think that was a healthy thing to do. What else is there??

[Guardian]

BTW, finished exams today, woooh!! I intend to get fully up to speed to my complete satisfaction within the next 3 irl days. Tonight I party .

[iLord]

asdfasdf

I should have, but spending time on Skillit's attack became a priority for the first few pages.

It takes one line to say that you have no clue what to believe. The above is an invalid excuse.

RR but looking back at it the questions don't look unreasonable.

Of course - your foresight prevented me from bagging you on this one, but the quoted is very obviously feigned so that your opinions can correlate with what you stated them to be.

So I guess the point I'm making is that without giving the reasons why a post is scummy, saying that you don't like a post doesn't really cut much ice. And saying, for example, "no reasoning for non-gut reads" does not tell us whether iLord thinks this is scummy or not.

You're right, it doesn't tell whether or not I think it's scummy. I didn't say whether or not individual points were scummy. I didn't put down all of my thoughts - most people don't have to time to do such. So, I stuck my opinions out there, and asked you to question, so that I wouldn't have to waste time puting everything, only stuff that people wanted to know, and would read.

So you're saying that you voted for Jahudo without posting any reasons, and that your reasoning will be provided if people ask.
Are you planning to post reasons for your vote on me? Is it - like Guardian's vote - based on a single post or did your read from #452 contribute to your decision. How so?

I was planning to post a case on Jahudo - my vote was meaningless if I didn't convince people. I neglected to mention that I was making a case in that post. The reasons for my vote on you are obvious enough, and are reasons that I have restated multiple times in thread. It is based heavily on our conversation after your attack on me.

Yeah, it's an attack. But it's an attack to pin you down on something.
You sound like you're aggrieved that you didn't know what I was trying to achieve . I have no problem with that.

That's not the type of attack I meant. I mean an attack to get someone lynched, as opposed to an attack to figure out whether or not a player is scum. My attack on Jahudo was to get him lynched - it wasn't to figure out his alignment. Your post was not a "prod" post. It was a post stating that you believed I was scum. It's quoted below:

I still find iLord scummy, and could see him as scum independently of my Guardian-Incog scumpair theory. Although I also think an iLord-Guardian-Incog scumteam is totally consistent with what I have seen so far.

#452 does nothing to alleviate my concerns, and I share the view of RR and Incog that his "reads" are objective summaries rather than his own opinions.
If I had to summarise the whole of #452 in one word, I would use "contrived"
The bit that, if anything, bothers me the most is how iLord unboosts someone he thinks is town in order to have the top two in his list as the ones he boosts.

The pieces of the iLord-Guardian-Incog scumpuzzle begin to come together when you see that iLord has - in his characteristic devoid-of-actual-opinion way - listed one of his scumbuddies as "town" and the other one as "scum".
Gosh, he's as cunning as a fox who has just won the Nobel prize for Cunning.

That is not even asking me to respond - it's just stating that you think I'm scum.

Maybe. Yet there was ambiguity there that we have managed to remove. Yay for us.

Attempting to pass this off as a prod is not working.

I was specifically responding to your hyperbole about how you and Incog had been arguing for ages and that I obviously hadn't been reading the thread.
To clarify: I don't think you have had a long or meaningful argument with Incog about his alignment or yours.
I also think that you specifically avoided confrontation with Incog earlier by allowing sl to do all the work.

I never said that we had argued for an extended period of time. We literally started arguing the second I named him as scum.

By what standards do you define meaningful? Incognito and I had a long dicussion about the others alignment.

Again, you have yet to point out where I avoided confrontation - was there a point in the thread were Incognito was attacking SL for her case and not me for the two points?

I maintain that you are purposely avoiding looking back for this point. Purposely because you seem to have enough time to look back at my summary post, and answer questions about it, but not enough to see the events occuring after my first summary post.

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

I will not lynch Huntress - mostly because I think there's better targets, since I haven't read the posts concerning her at all.

I fully support an Eldarad or Jahudo lynch. I would really much have one of those two than anyone else. They've been really glaringly scummy.

[Huntress]

Errr, Huntress, where do I even

suggest

that I'm going to attempt to push a lynch on you?

I saw your post as an attempt to push for my lynch without committing to it yourself; especially coming as it did after Green Crayons's post. But it could be that my read of your post was affected by my annoyance at your implication that I was giving up.

Of the two two vote wagons I prefer Huntress.

Why is that? Looking back through your posts I can't see any reason for this decision.

Before I start, I just want to disown Skillit's weird "illogical" argument against Electra that occupied the first few pages of his posts. It was dumb (to be frank), flawed and pointless.

Huntress

, how does this affect your opinion that my pushing of Skillit was scummy, given that GC -

who shares the same role PM as Skillit

- believes that Skillit's point was flawed and pointless?
Do you disagree with GC on this?

It doesn't affect my opinion at all. Why should it? It doesn't change what was said and done at the time, or throw any new light on it. I think GC may have been a bit harsh here but that's something to note when looking at Skillet/GC, which we're not doing here.

Not as such, but it can be when combined with other factors.

So, in this specific case, (ie, sthar trying to divert attention from the eldarad wagon) what other factors exist to make you believe that sthar is not town?

I haven't said I believe he is not town. In fact, I still have him down as probable town but, as I said earlier, I still have a lingering doubt from my first impression of him.

So if you had a second boost vote (you don't because you replaced in late, and then avoided expressing any positive opinions on other players for a while) who would you boost?

Probably iLord at the moment.

See my reply to Jahudo re: the boost in post 565. As for the leap of faith, I don't entirely disagree with it but I don't give it as much credence as you seem to be doing.

What part of the 'leap of faith' logic do you disagree with?

I just don't think it's as strong a town tell as you seem to.

On what basis do you believe that my opinion on the leap of faith is not sincerely held?

I never said I thought it wasn't.

Given that the majority of players agree with my 'leap of faith' logic, how can that possibly be used as part of a case that I am scum?

I didn't use it in my case against you.

Because it seemed too quick. He boosted her in his very first post for making an early move but in his next post he said, "But also note that I was trying to start a boostwagon too.", from which I infered that this was originally partly a gambit.

What do you mean by my boost vote being (partly) a "gambit"?

Your comment about starting a boostwagon gave me the impression at first that you may have been doing it to see who jumped on; but that initial impression changed to the feeling that the comment had just been an excuse to start the wagon.

I think the leap of faith is a sufficient reason alone for boosting Electra and a majority of players agree with me. So you need to explain not why I am wrong (I may be wrong, but that doesn't show I'm scummy as 6 other players made the same mistake) but why I am scummy for putting that argument forward whereas the other 6 players who didn't put the argument forward but who did agree with the argument are not scummy.

As I said above, I didn't use it in my case against you. I never said you were scummy for using that argument.

*Shrugs*
It is a bit worrying, but not worrying enough to unboost Electra. Especially since a number of players appeared to be bored with the game at that time.
In any case, I think the Electra boostwagon will have analysis value in the future.

I don't think 'bored players' or analysis value are sufficient reasons.

I don't think that the random votes are significant; I was just noting that this wasn't a first or second vote on Skillet. I don't know why Crazy pushed that wagon, nor do I agree with the point he made with his vote which, however, was not the same point you made when you voted Skillet.

Why is the fact that there were votes already on Skillit significant? You seem to be trying to suggest that I picked Skillit that there was already a half-formed wagon on Skillit and that was why I decided to push him.
Is that an accurate assessment? How does that hold up now that you have accepted that the presence of pre-existing votes for Skillit isn't significant?

Yes, I think that's an accurate assessment. The other votes weren't significant in themselves, as they were random, but the fact they existed

was

significant.

How can you use pushing the Skillit wagon as a scumtell against me whilst at the same time claiming that it isn't a scumtell against you/Crazy?

Where did I claim it wasn't a scum tell against Crazy?

[Huntress]

You missed the most important part - the fact that Crazy agreed with EVERYTHING I said consistently up until post 166 when I turned around and voted for the person who had been blatantly sheeping off of my opinions.
Can you think of a pro-town reason why Crazy would do that? Do you think it is scummy for me to react to that behaviour in the way I did?
Why did you totally ignore this when you summarised my reasons for voting Crazy?

Your statement that Crazy agreed with EVERYTHING you said consistently up until post 166 is blatantly false. The only things he seems to have agreed with you on are the points raised in your first three posts, mainly the comments in post 32 about the boostwagons. Why should you object to him agreeing with you on that?

OK, so he agreed with everything up to post 79, and then made a point of repeating his complete agreement with post 32.

Let's look at what you are calling sheeping.

Your first post was 14 in which you commented on the mass claim.
Crazy's first post was 28 which did not in any way sheep yours.
Your second post was 32 where you discussed boostwagons, mentioned the leap of faith, and voted Skillet saying his theory felt like reaching.
Your third post, 48, was a reply to iLord about the order of lynching and boosting.
Crazy's second post was just a promise to post later.
In Crazy's third post, 79, he votes for Skillet for an entirely different reason than you did, comments on four other people, and then makes the comment "Massive QFT to everything that eldarad has said so far." That single comment is the

only

thing you are basing this claim of "massive sheeping" on! And post 151 implies that he was just referring to posts 14 and 32.

Sheeping as I understand it means following another player's suspicions, reasons and votes. Crazy did none of this.

Now answer the original questions:

Can you think of a pro-town reason why Crazy would do that? Do you think it is scummy for me to react to that behaviour in the way I did?
Why did you totally ignore this when you summarised my reasons for voting Crazy?

My point is that he didn't do that.

If you saw double standards from sl that might have been a basis for a vote on her but why on Crazy? If player X seems to be buddying up to or ignoring player Y, which would you call more scummy, the one doing the buddying etc.? Or the one on the receiving end?

If there is linkage between two players then both players are linked. Combined with the massive sheeping Crazy had been doing on me, I thought my vote would be better on Crazy.

So if a scum buddies up to a townie then they are equally suspect? That seems to be what you are saying.

[Incognito]

Hmm. There's a portion of the iLord/eldarad argument that concerns me. iLord, I think the point eldarad is trying to make is that he never got the impression that

you

ever came after

me

early on, and I, too, never got that impression as well. You maintained that you were suspicious of me because of the two "good points" that you felt springlullaby had against me, but I never got the impression that you forcefully came after me to push for my lynch. I think there's a distinct difference between the way springlullaby attacked me, the way Raging Rabbit attacked me, and the way you... mentioned suspicion of me. While RR and springlullaby came at me directly, you seemed to be hanging along the coattails of the argument almost like an instigator who was trying to mold springlullaby's argument into perfection without ever really lending your own distinct support.

The argument that ensued between me and you only came about when I came at

you

as I directly mentioned to you that I felt your reads looked contrived, and I couldn't understand how you could think I was scummy but still used one of the ideas I came up with to clear another player (fuzzylightning) as town in your mind. That never made much sense to me and that was the only argument that I felt came between us at that time.

---

Anyway, by my count, it looks like a Guardian-wagon simply will not have enough support by a Thursday deadline, which still completely boggles my mind. I'll concede this for now and move to my second choice as, judging by my count, this looks like more of a viable option at this current time:

Unvote
Vote: Jahudo

[eldarad]

It doesn't affect my opinion at all. Why should it? It doesn't change what was said and done at the time, or throw any new light on it. I think GC may have been a bit harsh here but that's something to note when looking at Skillet/GC, which we're not doing here.

Because you are saying that my pushing of Skillit is scummy, yet someone who is guaranteed to share Skillit's alignment is saying the same thing.

I haven't said I believe he is not town. In fact, I still have him down as probable town but, as I said earlier, I still have a lingering doubt from my first impression of him.

But you actively avoided the sthar boostwagon. That doesn't sound like someone you think is probable town.

What part of the 'leap of faith' logic do you disagree with?

I just don't think it's as strong a town tell as you seem to.
<snip>
I never said I thought it wasn't

sincerely held

.

Just so everyone is clear:

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.

You are happy that my stated opinion as to why I boosted Electra is sincerely held?

I didn't use it in my case against you.

Lies.

A brief summary of my reasons for voting Elderad:

1) His too-quick boost of Electra.

Because it seemed too quick.

He boosted her in his very first post for making an early move but in his next post he said, "But also note that I was trying to start a boostwagon too.", from which I infered that this was originally partly a gambit.

In the same post he gives what is apparently his only reason for supporting Electra, "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."

His only other comment on Electra is in post 234 where he says, "You have a point that Electra has kept a low profile since her initial entrance. Her last post where she says "early game is as boring for scum as it gets" is a bit worrying, isn't it, given her apparent boredom with the game...". But despite it being "a bit worrying", he is still content to leave his boost on her.

This quote is your reasoning as to why (1) indicates that I am scum.

So my boost was too quick. I already explained my reasoning for the quick boost. That means that you do not think my reason (the leap of faith) is sufficient for a boostvote.
Yet you also accept that my opinion is sincerely held.
Explain how this is indicative of scum.

You also think I should have unboosted because of #234, so again I need to ask whether you believe whether I sincerely hold the opinion that Electra's claim is townie because of the leap of faith.
If you accept that I do hold that opinion sincerely then how can you make the judgement that the slight element of doubt that may have been introduced because of Electra's choice of words (about scum being bored when she herself was showing signs of boredom) outweighs the leap of faith?

I don't think 'bored players' or analysis value are sufficient reasons.

But you are also saying, as part of (1), that when I didn't unboost Electra because she appeared to be bored, that was scummy of me.
I'm explaining that Electra being bored is not an indicator that Electra is not town.
You appear to be disagreeing with me.

Where did I claim it wasn't a scum tell against Crazy?

Awesome.
Is Crazy a townie?

"Massive QFT to everything that eldarad has said so far" covers:
massclaim isn't a breaking strategy
boosting Electra
boostwagons can give info so let's use them right away
voting Skillit for reaching

Note that you are now using two of those things as reasons why I am scum. I don't get the impression from 151 that Crazy was

reducing

his agreement with me. I understand how you have a strong incentive to so do.

~~~
Incog's #642 is right. I did "check my facts" despite what iLord says, and at no point does iLord attack Incog or accuse him of being scum except in his list(s) where...there are no reasons.

~~~

First, I am not willing to assume that at this juncture. Second, I almost never assume that a lynch is impossible at any juncture except right before deadline, and third, I never lynch "to generate additional information for the town," that is a ridiculous reason for lynching people. I lynch "to lynch scum."

Sure. I think Huntress is scum.
You think that it is impossible for Huntress to be scum with me. Hence, if Huntress is lynched as scum then that sheds light on my alignment too. If Huntress is lynched as town then it doesn't say a lot, but I'm sure it will be of interest to you Tomorrow.

I would not support a Huntress lynch unless it was right next to deadline and it was not conceivable I could get a better lynch.

Good. If the time comes I will hold you to this.

[iLord]

Hmm. There's a portion of the iLord/eldarad argument that concerns me. iLord, I think the point eldarad is trying to make is that he never got the impression that you ever came after me early on, and I, too, never got that impression as well. You maintained that you were suspicious of me because of the two "good points" that you felt springlullaby had against me, but I never got the impression that you forcefully came after me to push for my lynch. I think there's a distinct difference between the way springlullaby attacked me, the way Raging Rabbit attacked me, and the way you... mentioned suspicion of me. While RR and springlullaby came at me directly, you seemed to be hanging along the coattails of the argument almost like an instigator who was trying to mold springlullaby's argument into perfection without ever really lending your own distinct support.

The argument that ensued between me and you only came about when I came at you as I directly mentioned to you that I felt your reads looked contrived, and I couldn't understand how you could think I was scummy but still used one of the ideas I came up with to clear another player (fuzzylightning) as town in your mind. That never made much sense to me and that was the only argument that I felt came between us at that time.

I never wanted you lynched to the extent that SL did. You have to keep in mind that you were still my second suspect, and that I wanted to focus more on RR. Still, even without forming my distinct argument, we still dicussed the points that I felt were valid against you:

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.

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?

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:

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.

And so on...

Incog's #642 is right. I did "check my facts" despite what iLord says, and at no point does iLord attack Incog or accuse him of being scum except in his list(s) where...there are no reasons.

Just one example:

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.

And you're reading like scum.

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

Unvote, Vote Jahudo

[iLord]

I just looked back:

Why is Jahudo only at two?

From the context of the posts, I thought everyone was satisfied with a Jahudo lynch.

Huntress, Electra, sthar8, and Eldarad: Do you support a Jahudo lynch?

[Huntress]

Huntress, Electra, sthar8, and Eldarad: Do you support a Jahudo lynch?

I'm coming round to the possibility but I'd still prefer an Eldarad lynch. I didn't get a scummy vibe on Jahudo from my initial or individual read but since then I've been feeling a bit more uncomfortable about him. I will have another look at him to see if I can work out exactly why.

I will reply to Eldarad later but my first impression of his last post is that he's being extremely selective about the bits he responds to.

[iLord]

I'm coming round to the possibility but I'd still prefer an Eldarad lynch. I didn't get a scummy vibe on Jahudo from my initial or individual read but since then I've been feeling a bit more uncomfortable about him. I will have another look at him to see if I can work out exactly why.

I'd prefer and Eldarad lynch, but with the deadline looming, we have to reach a majority, something an Eldarad lynch cannot seem to do.

[Guardian]

My friend made me play a trial subscription of WoW. It is fun. I will tear myself away and make time for this.

eldarad is my preference but people seem to be switching to Jahudo, and I prefer him over Huntress, strongly. Will switch back if hope of eldarad, or Incog.

unvote vote: Jahudo

[Green Crayons]

I'm writing this after I finished the below, only to say that I went through the thread looking specifically at Crazy/Huntress interactions, claims, discussions, etc. I wrote things as they came to me and found that, upon occasion, someone else would voice my thoughts a few posts after I scribbled them down. As this is the case, I attempted to trim the repeated criticisms down so duplicate lines of accusations don't exist. However, I did leave in notes that were similar to other players' criticisms but which I believed either came from a different direction or voiced a little more clearly.
----

Green Crayons: Are you leaning scum on Huntress based off of her own actions, the actions of her predecessor, or both combined?

I liked Crazy well enough. He had level-headed ideas and a some good notions as to good play/bad play and who was falling into what categories. My read on his play alone is "apathetic townie," where the biggest criticism I have against his play is that he was pretty passive in his activity. By this I don't so much mean a lack of posts (which there was), but instead he didn't really latch on to any firm beliefs. He had a "shotgun approach" hinting at what he thought about everyone - a light smattering of ideas that had a wide spread but didn't really tell us anything significant. There wasn't ever a use of a "rifle approach," where he focused intently on a few individuals who he thought was scummiest. Even if he ultimately ended up revoking his suspicions, this approach would have been much more beneficial for himself in determining who he thought was scum as well as the town to see the fruits of his labor. Granted, he started to hint at leaning towards this approach re: RR and Incog to some extent, but he didn't really follow through.

That said, in hindsight I could see Crazy's act as a (not too uncommon) scum tactic by contributing what amounts to helpful fluff. Or maybe not, as this is WIFOM, but what it does mean is that Crazy's actions were not solidly town and thus does not excuse the actions of his successor.

You've described the benefits of outing the roles here but you haven't answered my question or apparently considered the dangers of outing them. Are you assuming the boost will make them permanently NK-immune?

Her first back-and-forth with Electra didn't sit with me all that well, and I think I can sum it up from the above quotation. Here, we see Huntress following up with her criticism of Electra's proposal that boostie's tell them of their boost powers post-boost in order to determine if they're good for a second boost round. The idea can be legitimately criticized as Huntress does, but my problem comes when Electra explains her reasoning further. Huntress then (per the quote) makes the point that Electra is ignoring some of Huntress' points while

Huntress is ignoring Electra's points entirely

. She was being entirely hypocritical in her accusation. It looks like, to me, that Huntress latched onto the notion that outing powers is bad without taking context into consideration and became infatuated with the notion that she could chase a "legitimate" lead and attack the one player most people were leaning towards being town for her Day One/Page One self-outing. It amounted to Huntress wanting Electra to discuss the idea while not attacking, but Huntress was allowed to attack the idea/person while not discussing.

How do you know that the mafia would not know there could be such roles? They might have similar roles themselves. And how does the fact that you did this so quickly prove anything?

Here Huntress is attacking Electra for not knowing what the mafia might not know. A "you're scummy because you don't know what the mafia knows!" attack, if you will. Followed by another passive-aggressive accusation which ignores the already established discussion surrounding the context of Electra's self-outing. It stinks.

I think you missed this bit. You made a statement that the mafia "would not know" something. How do you know that? It could be infered from what you say that you know what roles the mafia do have.

Here's Huntress repositioning her argument against Electra's ignorance re: what the scum knows. I pulled this mainly to show it directly alongside this next quote (which, funnily enough, comes from the same Huntress' post):

So you called Crazy suspicious based on what

you

decided he meant, not on what he actually said.

Once again, hypocritical. She's doing the exactly same, judging her suspicions on what she thinks Electra means, not precisely what Electra is saying.

I started with Electra because she was the first to catch my attention. I was doing my read on her and getting my thoughts together before she was boosted. What would have been the point of not posting it? I still had questions I wanted answered. Please don't forget that I'm still catching up and didn't have the opportunity to raise these points at the time they originally came up. Remember, there's also the possibility I might not be alive tomorrow. Would you rather my thoughts on her remained hidden?

Here's Huntress responding to sthar's criticism of her heavy-handed focus on Electra. While there are some legitimate points made, the whole post makes it look like Huntress started with her suspicions of Electra and then moved on to the rest of the town where there was a viable lynch candidate (a non-boosted town member). That just simply isn't the case - outside of a few deviations, Huntress has harped incessently upon Electra's "suspicious" qualities from the moment until Huntress joined the game up to this post, just short of ignoring the pool of players who can be lynched for Day One. I'll also note that this was with a deadline looming.

And his current scramble to divert attention from Elderad back to me combined with his desire to supress discussion of my other top suspect obviously doesn't help.

I didn't really see where sthar was "[scrambling] to divert attention from Elderad." I would like that to be pointed out to me.

Contrary to what you are saying, I haven't been spending my time on Electra; I've barely looked at her since writing post 458.

This finished off a post that included the past three quotations I pulled and it's just short of hilarious. Why? Because up until this post, just about any quote that Huntress has pulled and responded to was either directly from Electra or from someone else talking about Electra. The icing on the cake is the fact that in this same large post Huntress spent a sizable portion of her time talking about Electra. Upon furhter reading of the thread I see this also caught sthar's attention, and Electra ended her retort with, "So what is your point here?" Was she willfully ignoring the point or truthfully failed to see that all she did was actual further show that all she had focused upon as Electra?

What is it exactly about my responses that make you think that?

For starters, you don't convince me that you actually believe what you're trying to sell. Be it Electra's scumminess, Eldarad's scumminess, sthar's scumminess, the scumminess of disagreeing with your notion that Electra's initial outing was actually more of a town tell than scum tell but 1. not acknowledging that a majority of the town think this way (she did get boosted, after all) and there already has been a discussion concerning it or 2. explaining why this action (and thinking this action is more town than scum) isn't a town tell, or the scumminess of just about any position that's opposite of your own. Secondly, you don't convince me on any of these arguments and this is mainly because, third, you repeatedly say that you were a replacement, that you weren't able to voice opinions in the moment, but you never really seem to attempt to join this pre-existing conversation. You attack, adding jabs here and there about who is obvscum, but at no point do you lean back and seem to consider the existing dialogue about these things. It's like you charge headfirst into the thread with blinders on, rehashing old points as if they're brand new and calling people scum because they were already able to determine their own notions as to the scumminess of whatever situation you're campaigning against. I think moreso than the specific objections I have highlighted in this post and others have done elsewhere, this is what is really making me lean towards voting you today. It just seems to me that you, in being a person that apparently possesses a sizable sum of intelligence, shouldn't be actively and consciously turning windmills into giants in manner that has been at times opportunistic, negligently anti-town and outright scummy - and that's exactly what you have been doing since you replaced into this game.

vote: Huntress

. I'll need to do a reread of Jahudo tonight/tomorrow if I can find time to do so, but I don't recall him being more scummy to me than Huntress. I do, however, feel comfortable enough with either being lynched today, so if I find that Jahudo is more lynch-worthy than Huntress I'll switch over.