Mini #704: Hunchback of Notre Dame, Game Over

[CarnCarn]

You're just going around in circles around my main point. You wanted to get someone lynched. What's the best way to do that? Vote for them...

OK, I wanted someone lynched so I voted them (that's the game, after all). But if I were scum and knew they were town (which is what you're suggesting), I have no reason to "pile on" (add more votes than the minimum necessary at deadline). That's just inviting suspicion without reason. Therefore, that's not scummy at all.

1) Missed the point again. I claimed you went to the wagon that had a good chance of going into fruitation (due to Caboose not contributing). When Caboose actually contributed (you like this term better than scumhunting?), you had to withdrawl your vote and go back to the largest wagon.

That's big reach. There chances of Caboose's "wagon", which only had 1 vote on it, having a better chance of being the lynching wagon at the time were not good (not when CR already had the necessary number of votes to be lynched at deadline). Therefore, that's not scummy at all. What did the "contribute"? He just posted to defend himself against lurking, then went back to lurking. And you are twisting/misrepping completely the reasons why I unvoted Caboose and went back to CR (which I gave already).

[ortolan]

ok, I'm gonna ask some questions first.

CarnCarn, do you think Mizzy is town/scum? Why?

destructor, do you think Mizzy is town/scum? Why?

I have my reasons for these (not just because I want to tunnel on Mizzy )

If you are breadcrumbing that you're a cop and actually have a guilty on me, then your sanity is in question. It's also a possible scum tactic that could be used to lynch someone they think is a real cop/doc, etc. (testing the cop).

I'm not really sure why you pre-emptively said this. I didn't think urza gave any substantial breadcrumbs that he was a cop. Notably also the rules specifically state that cops in the game may either be sane or insane. This seems like the sort of thing scum would look at at the beginning of the game and think "ok well if any cop claims a guilty on me I will just suggest they are insane". Why did you pre-emptively suggest he was a cop with a sanity issue?

Another question for CC: do you still find Urza town? Here's an excerpt from post 483 (you had a lot more to say about urza there but it's too long to quote):

I start off saying I don't understand the basis for the two votes against me, and end by saying why I don't find ortolan, who I was voting at the time, was no longer scummy to me, and that I still find you/Caboose most suspicious. Your vote today wasn't the reason for the vote.

By Post 536 you're take a conciliatory attitude to urza/TSQ:

Saying "LoL if you were town you would have done this because of this, and if you're scum you would of done it because of this lol." Is completely ::NotHelpful::

In my experience town players tend to shrug off unexplained and unfollowed up votes on them. I know if someone just posts "vote: shea" I'm more likely to ignore it than anything else. Scum players tend to get nervous though. They wonder if the player is a cop with a guilty on them or something.

Sort of that like, but without the "lol"s. I don't think it's completely not helpful, though; in fact, I thought it brought up useful points and gave us an idea of where we're both coming from.
Generally, your line of questioning and subsequent posts strike me as pretty protown, so I'm going to

Unvote: Urzassedatives

.

So, I understand now you find urza's recent play indicative of being townie even though you thought both he and his predecessor were scum previously (and you said Caboose had been very lurky/non-contributive). Is this not similar to the "anti-town does not equal scum" criticism that both I and I believe you have made (in relation to Mizzy)? You apparently think Caboose was anti-town, but not scum (indicated by your stance on his successor), but you still voted for him?

[CarnCarn]

CarnCarn, do you think Mizzy is town/scum? Why?

Town. Gut.

I'm not really sure why you pre-emptively said this. I didn't think urza gave any substantial breadcrumbs that he was a cop.

*facepalms*

4) Actually, that is a pretty generally accepted way to breadcrumb a cop investigation early in the game, when it's not worth claiming yet. That way if the cop turns up dead, the town can look back and say "hey look, he voted X with no explanation and didn;t move his vote...In fact, it's really the quintessential way to bread crumb a guilty in the early game...

He

brought up the scenario and accused me of:

Scum players tend to get nervous though. They wonder if the player is a cop with a guilty on them or something. In fact, that's exactly how your reaction reads to me, as a player who is hoping that a cop doesn't have a guilty on them.

Extending the discussion of the point he brought up is all I did.

Another question for CC: do you still find Urza town?

We haven't heard from him in a while. I found his thought process to be protown, and Caboose was scummy mostly for bouts of lurking while active in other games.

Is this not similar to the "anti-town does not equal scum" criticism that both I and I believe you have made (in relation to Mizzy)? You apparently think Caboose was anti-town, but not scum (indicated by your stance on his successor), but you still voted for him?

What? When did I think Caboose was anti-town but not scum? Yes, it's true that I thought Caboose's lurking was anti-town, likely to suggest he is scum, and that's why I voted him.

[ortolan]

What I meant is you seemingly changing your mind on Caboose when urza replaced him was analogous to the situation of Mizzy changing her mind on Ramus after Axelrod replaced him

and Caboose was scummy mostly for bouts of lurking while active in other games.

This goes to what I am saying- anything which you thought suggested Caboose is scummy should suggest urza is scummy also.

[CarnCarn]

This goes to what I am saying- anything which you thought suggested Caboose is scummy should suggest urza is scummy also.

It does. I don't just discard the actions of a replacement's predecessor. However, I've also noticed what I believe to be protown behavior on urza's part, which I never saw in Caboose.

What I meant is you seemingly changing your mind on Caboose when urza replaced him was analogous to the situation of Mizzy changing her mind on Ramus after Axelrod replaced him

Perhaps. What do you think this implies, if anything?

[ortolan]

Both moves are scummy if you voted for their predecessor and don't specifically feel the actions of the successor negate the behaviour of the predecessor. You agreed with the argument when I used it against Mizzy.

[ortolan]

btw, neither CR or MM have posted anything substantial in _ages_

I am really curious as to who you would each like lynched. CR you don't seem to have posted much at all of substance today.

I think I know who I'm voting for but I want some more responses first.

[ortolan]

also; I would specifically like to hear from you two who you think is scummier out of destructor/CarnCarn, even if you end up voting for someone else.

[ThAdmiral]

I know thAdmiral made a post about me with some horribly misguided vote attached to it also, but I haven't really looked it over yet. Maybe later. And he could still be scum too.

So you haven't read it but it's obviously "horribly misguided".

I don't need to read it to know it's horribly misguided. Either that, or actively misleading. One of those 2 things.

The only question is whether you are pursuing it from a genuine town mindset or not.

Still it's a poor way to respond; you may "know" you are town, but saying so doesn't help at all from any other players points of view.

[CarnCarn]

Both moves are scummy if you voted for their predecessor and don't specifically feel the actions of the successor negate the behaviour of the predecessor. You agreed with the argument when I used it against Mizzy.

What made you think I don't feel that way?

[Battousai]

You're just going around in circles around my main point. You wanted to get someone lynched. What's the best way to do that? Vote for them...

OK, I wanted someone lynched so I voted them (that's the game, after all). But if I were scum and knew they were town (which is what you're suggesting), I have no reason to "pile on" (add more votes than the minimum necessary at deadline). That's just inviting suspicion without reason. Therefore, that's not scummy at all.

You were the 4th vote on the wagon, therefore not "pileing on."

1) Missed the point again. I claimed you went to the wagon that had a good chance of going into fruitation (due to Caboose not contributing). When Caboose actually contributed (you like this term better than scumhunting?), you had to withdrawl your vote and go back to the largest wagon.

That's big reach. There chances of Caboose's "wagon", which only had 1 vote on it, having a better chance of being the lynching wagon at the time were not good (not when CR already had the necessary number of votes to be lynched at deadline). Therefore, that's not scummy at all. What did the "contribute"? He just posted to defend himself against lurking, then went back to lurking. And you are twisting/misrepping completely the reasons why I unvoted Caboose and went back to CR (which I gave already).

1) I don't know the exact reason, but I can guess from what you have already shown as to you going on wagons and this time I figure you're trying to get on early.

2) Again, the CR wagon plateaued... I've said this like 5 times, yet you continue to ignore this part to use the CR wagon in your defence.

3) Why did you unvote Caboose then? I'm pretty sure it was because he became more active. Also, you can't use the "went back to lurking" as you unvoted before Caboose could be considered lurking again.

4) These were your reasons for unvoting/voting:

Caboose is the worst offender since not only are his contributions just Mafia theory and minutiae, he has been much more active in other places than in this game. In his last 40 posts he has 1 post in this game, in his last 90 posts he has 2 posts in this game, etc. I consider lack of motivation to contribute to be very scummy.

Unvote ClockworkRuse, Vote: Caboose

Unvote: ClockworkRuse
Vote: Caboose

Unvote [Caboose]
Caboose, I see you're still keeping your early vote on Batt. Did you mean to do this?

I will be V/LA 12/2-12/4 (returning 12/5)

Right now, no one stands out at an obvious suspect. I feel that a CR lynch is the best, though. If he flips scum, then I can understand why his wagon stalled out earlier. If he is town, then we can investigate his wagoners tomorrow. It puts his earlier comments in some context.

I also find Axel mildly suspicious for his "townie" list, especially this early in the game.

Vote: ClockworkRuse
FoS: Axelrod

Reason to vote Caboose: Not Contributing
Reason to unvote Caboose: Contributed
Reason to vote CR: Information

5) If Caboose just posted to defend himself from lurking (in his post I saw no mention to the votes on him for lurking and instead saw questions directed at others), why did you unvote him when your case against him was MM's case that he wasn't contributing? The only logical answer is that he CONTRIBUTED...

6) I hate laptop computers. This is just about my 4th time writing this post due to hitting the wrong button, either making my computer go to the previous page or to erase an entire paragraph and replace it with the sentance I was currently writting elsewhere...

[CarnCarn]

You were the 4th vote on the wagon, therefore not "pileing on."

Hmm, OK yeah; I was going on memory and it's not working now. I was the 5th vote on the Caboose/urza wagon and I'm confusing that with the CR one.

1) I don't know the exact reason, but I can guess from what you have already shown as to you going on wagons and this time I figure you're trying to get on early.

What have I already shown about going on wagons?

2) Again, the CR wagon plateaued... I've said this like 5 times, yet you continue to ignore this part to use the CR wagon in your defence.

It plateaued because

I unvoted him to make him unlynchable at deadline

. Of course I'm using that as defense because your accusation makes it sound like the reason why I unvoted is because it plateaued whereas the real story is that it plateaued because I unvoted. Just look at what happened between VC's 8 and 9:

5 ClockworkRuse (urielzyx, CarnCarn, Machiavellian-Mafia, Battousai, ortolan)
3 Battousai (Caboose, Ramus, destructor)
1 ortolan (ClockworkRuse)

3 ClockworkRuse (urielzyx, Battousai, ortolan)
2 Battousai (Caboose, destructor)
2 Caboose (Machiavellian-Mafia, CarnCarn)
2 ortolan (ClockworkRuse, ThAdmiral)

MM unvotes CR and votes Caboose. CR is no longer at L-2.
CC unvotes CR and votes Caboose. CR is no longer lynchable.
ThAdmiral votes Ort
Ramus unvotes myself

Yes, the CR wagon peaked at 5 votes, but when I unvoted, CR was still lynchable. On the other hand, when

you

unvoted him (by VC 10), he wasn't lynchable any more.

3) Why did you unvote Caboose then? I'm pretty sure it was because he became more active. Also, you can't use the "went back to lurking" as you unvoted before Caboose could be considered lurking again.

Hmm, yeah, he made some good points in that post, now that I remember it. You're right that's indeed why I unvoted him. Now that I think about it, his response to my question about his random vote on you suggests he wasn't trying to intentionally lurk, but did actually just forget about this game as he said. What concerned me was that he is generally a very active poster and his lack of that suggested something seriously wrong. But now, this puts Caboose/Urza in an even better light, now that I think about it.

Anyway, all I can say is that you're over-analyzing this voting record because you're wrong about me. Sure, you can look at some instances and say it was something scum would do, but there are also instances where it's definately not something scum would do, and I think you're tunneling in on only the former.

[CarnCarn]

ortolan, if you think you know who you're going to vote for, just go ahead and do it. Is your vote really contingent upon hearing what M-M and CR think?

[Machiavellian-Mafia]

I still would most prefer a ThAdmiral lynch, but if I had to choose between destructor and CC at the deadline, it would be destructor since I do not see his continuous case on CC to be very strong.

[CarnCarn]

M-M, if you don't think destructor's case is strong, what do you think of Batt's case? And why exactly do you think destructor is likely to be scum?

[ortolan]

What made you think I don't feel that way?

Well, I haven't seen you explicitly state that urza's actions made you change your opinion of his predecessor.

You attacking Caboose Day 1 (although he retaliated, also), then when his successor replaced in you assuming he had a guilty on you, then you withdrawing your case/vote on him based on rather weak reasoning that his "line of questioning and subsequent posts strike me as pretty protown":

Sort of that like, but without the "lol"s. I don't think it's completely not helpful, though; in fact, I thought it brought up useful points and gave us an idea of where we're both coming from.
Generally, your line of questioning and subsequent posts strike me as pretty protown, so I'm going to

Unvote: Urzassedatives

.

Finally, you switch over to destructor based mainly on the fact he is attacking you, and also pander to someone you've now totally changed your tune on, urza, to try to help your case against destructor:

As for where I should put my vote next, I think destructor is most suspicious to me for pushing a case which is not at all a scum-tell or indicative of scumminess. Also, insisting "there must be scum on the CR wagon and it has less surviving members so lets lynch 'em" is pretty much derived from tunnel-vision on me, IMO, and reeks of setting up lynches on players (me, Urza) who are probably both town. So,

Vote: destructor

ortolan, if you think you know who you're going to vote for, just go ahead and do it. Is your vote really contingent upon hearing what M-M and CR think?

I didn't want to vote for you and make you lynchable without hearing as many people's opinions as possible. That said it's the 11th in Australian time now, so I will.

Vote: CarnCarn

Unless others on your wagon are likely to change over to destructor I think you should claim soon.

[CarnCarn]

when his successor replaced in you assuming he had a guilty on you

you switch over to destructor based mainly on the fact he is attacking you

Drink that Kool-Aid if you wish.

Unless others on your wagon are likely to change over to destructor I think you should claim soon.

I'll claim if/when I think it's useful.

[ortolan]

just making the point that I believe the deadline is around tomorrow morning my time, at which point I may or may not get the chance to read the thread before going to work, and assuming most of you are Americans or in similar timezones where the majority of discussion will take place while I'm asleep, I thus may not get the chance to revise my opinions/vote in response to new posts. That was the main reason for asking for a roleclaim now rather than *just before* the deadline.

What's your avatar btw, CC?

[destructor]

Skimming, I'm cannot see why there are still votes on me. Mizzy's case was completely vague and CC's... I'm not even sure I know what CC's case on me is. So why have Axelrod and MM said they're leaning towards voting me at deadline?

CC, do you think Mizzy's vote for me makes sense?

Same question to both Axelrod and MM - What is the case on me?


Will respond to the rest next.

[destructor]

I hate the anti-town =/= scum arguments. I really do. And they carry even less merit in this game when there is a townie working with the scum. The point is not that only Traitors can use town lists, but that both scum AND traitor can use them as a way for

cross

-communication.

Anti-town =/= scummy is true, though. I use "scummy" to describe something that is done with the

intention

of harming the town or benefiting scum. Lurking, for example, is almost always anti-town but not necessarily scummy. Repeatedly refusing to hammer a player in Vengeful Mafia, though, is huge on the scummy scale since it almost guarantees that the player refusing to hammer is a Goon and the player at L-1 is the Mafia Godfather.

This was certainly part of my thought process. I said very early that I don't like town lists because the people on them end up dead the next day. That's pretty much the condensed version of my explanation of town lists being possible method of cross-communication.

I don't buy this. Lots of people agree that listing who you think is pro-town is anti-town because it indicates to the scum who is least likely to be mislynched and so guides their kill, which is what I believed you were referring to when you said that those people tend to "end up dead." I still maintain that your cross-communication theory was

not

in your mind when you made the FOSes in the first place and created after the fact.

And really what is so scummy about FoSing Axel and rofl for this anyway? I never voted them, never pushed suspicion on them after the FoSes.

I called you out on it before you ever had a chance to follow it up. This would not a point in your favour anyway. At best, it would only indicate that you realised the argument was weak and decided to drop it.

Basically, the FoSes served their purpose of stopping town lists, which is what I wanted to see happen. You're pushing this absurd FoS theory so hard (and for so long, now), and with no one else agreeing, that I'm beginning to consider that you're just confused at this point, and not actually scum.

This is inconsistent. Now you're adding that the FOS's purpose was to stop town lists? Why didn't you say this earlier? Why FOS for this instead of explaining why they're anti-town?

Regarding the cop thing, I never believed he was a cop because I don't think a cop would have acted the way he did. Therefore he could not have a real guilty on me. He could be making one up, however. Thus, expecting him to say he was a cop with a guilty on me doesn't mean that I actually thought he was a cop.

What? So you thought he was going to fake-claim?

And I didn't answer your question, so political correctness, whatever it means in this context, doesn't come into the picture. I thought it was obvious that I ignored your question and called you scum instead. I saw were you were going and didn't want to go down that path, but you went there anyway.

Well, that

is

the politically-correct response (not answering the question because it's too much of a risk to commit one way or the other). I would expect a townie to be less afraid to say what they actually thought, instead of ignoring the question and calling the questioner scum for asking it. That's just based on standard mafia theory. Scum are more likely to be fencesitting than townies.

Sure on fence-sitting, but why should a pro-town player be expected to commit to something like that, especially if they think they already know who the scum is?

Axelrod's post coming next.

[destructor]

Quick reviews of CC and Destructor have me leaning more towards a Destructor vote at the moment. I really don't like the way he abandoned responsibility for the lynch between Nat. and CR. Basically - here I am going to vote this person which now ties the votes up and I'm going to let everyone else decide who to actually lynch.

I

never

abandoned responsibility for the Nat lynch. My vote was part of the difference that caused Nat to be lynched over CR and I never said otherwise. What makes you think I did?


So, that didn't take as long as I expected... so here's the rest of the thread.

destructor, do you think Mizzy is town/scum? Why?

I think there's a high chance that she is scum with CC for the reasons I outlined in 587. In isolation, I find her vagueness unhelpful and anti-town. Her case on me, for example, is inadequate, which I find unsettling even if she admits that it's not very solid.

I still would most prefer a ThAdmiral lynch, but if I had to choose between destructor and CC at the deadline, it would be destructor since I do not see his continuous case on CC to be very strong.

But you see the case on

me

to be strong? What

is

the case on me?


Finally, CC, if you are town, now is absolutely the time to claim given that you are now the deadline lynch. I fail to see what there is to be gained by pushing the town to a potential deadline vote change scramble.

[petroleumjelly]

Day Two Vote Count: #6

4 CarnCarn (destructor, Urzassedatives, Battousai, ortolan)
2 destructor (CarnCarn, Mizzy)
1 Axelrod (ThAdmiral)
1 ThAdmiral (Machiavellian-Mafia)

With

10

alive, it takes

6

to lynch, and

4

to lynch at deadline! Deadline is January 11, 9:59 pm CDT.

Not Voting – 2 – Axelrod, ClockworkRuse

[Mizzy]

There was nothing to be gained in keeping my vote on CC. I wasn't going to vote CR, and neither did I want him lynched. I was okay with a Nat lynch. So I voted Nat.

And yet you're bitching about my vote on you when I have basically the same reasons? I don't think there's any place my vote would be more helpful than on you. I'm okay with seeing you lynched, so that's where my vote is. What I didn't like is that you didn't explain this when you voted. You just tossed the vote out there with no reasoning worth a damn.

The Traitor comment was in response to MM's question to me.

That doesn't negate my point, really.

I said a number of things in this post. What did you find wishy-washy? What was the good point?

Bolded parts are wishy-washy:

Urza seemd townish mostly because he was contributing and active.

Or maybe

his activity made me think he was less likely to be scum,

or something

.

The only good point you had was about the FoS in relation to helping scum pick nightkills.

Is that good gut or bad gut? Leaning town/scum? On CC?

The gut feeling about CC is that CC is reeling, and seems unsure of how to play. There feels like a lot of floundering going on which makes me wonder if CC doesn't quite know how to play his role.

As for being unsure how to respond, just ask me things. Ask me for clarification, ask me for explanations.

[Mizzy]

Oh and Mod: My vote is on destructor

.

Mod Edit: My apologies -- my vote counts have been extremely poor this game. Fixed.

[Axelrod]

I

never

abandoned responsibility for the Nat lynch. My vote was part of the difference that caused Nat to be lynched over CR and I never said otherwise. What makes you think I did?

What you said was "

Unvote
Vote: Natirasha

Because I don't know what else to do with my vote.

CR or Batt can make the difference.

My recollection was that this vote put CR and Nat. into a tie.

You are saying, I don't know what to do, so I'm putting this vote here (which creates a tie) and I'm going to let other people make the final decision. That is very much a responsibility absolving post. I'm not saying you ever claimed you didn't vote for Nat. or didn't "want" Nat. lynched. The way you voted was really, really weak though.

@CC: you are about to get lynched by default and you are being reticent in the claiming. That is

never

a good thing to do (and frankly, that's true regardless of whether you are town or scum). I'm trying to figure why you would do this as town. Protecting a power? Can't protect it if you are dead.