Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Beyond_Birthday]

This is going to be a long post. I'm reading through the thread and pointing out things as I go:

@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

Why did you assume mykonian's vote was serious? To me it seemed obvious it was a joke (though I'll admit I was thrown off by his later explanations), and I'm curious why this didn't even cross your mind.

Nope, hence my reference to "the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting." But it is possible mykonian was serious, so I explored the possibility.

Right, I caught that reference. However, if you knew he wasn't serious, then why would you even bother to discuss other possibilities?

He wouldn't, of course, since the game began with Day. What Cop are you referring to? I didn't even imply anyone was a Cop. Rather, I said GIEFF's unlikely to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame. And where did the "3 players" part come from? Are you referencing GIEFF's "obvscum" comment in pregame, or did I miss something?

When you say "GIEFF is unlikely to be a Cop because a Cop wouldn't be likely to out himself in pregame" you are making the implicit statement that a cop could possibly out himself in pregame with information on 3 scum. My question was probing you to figure out how that would even be possible. In other words, why would you even consider cop a possibility, when a cop couldn't possibly have information on 3 players pregame?

I just don't get why you would even suggest the possibility of a cop, and then say why that reasoning doesn't work if:
1. A cop couldn't possibly fit the situation
2. You admit that you knew he was joking.
Why even discuss it in the first place?

He wouldn't... but he would have more information as to the setup of the game than a Townie would, which is what I said above. Also, here you reference the "3 mafia" again. Do you know something the rest of us don't? This isn't an open setup game to my knowledge, and the only weight I gave to the "knowledge pre-game" theory was because, via the roundabout thinking I detailed in my last post, mykonian's logic isn't complete crap. It's certainly not great, but it's not total garbage either.

Again, I'm talking strictly about your post. You talk about the possibility of GIEFF as a SK and then write it off as unlikely because a SK wouldn't out themselves so early. My question to you was along the lines of: "Why would a SK have information on 3 scum anyway?" Your reasoning for doubting the SK theory was because the SK wouldn't out themselves, instead of the more obvious answer of "the SK wouldn't have info on 3 scum". I was curious why that wasn't a part of your reasoning.

I'm certainly not clearing him... I'm voting for him, for cryin' out loud.

Ok. You had said "GIEFF can't possibly be mafia if he's trying to lynch mafia" but I mistakenly attributed that to your own point of view, rather than your interpretation of mykonian's.

FoS: Dourgrim

because this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.

Why only a FoS?

Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

Anyone have a theory discussion to point me to on this? Because my gut feeling is that this is VERY wrong. I'd much rather get rid of an entire killing faction in one lynch than whittle the mafia down one at a time, even given the chance of crosskill. BTW, we don't even know whether we have an SK or not, but if we do, Panzer's my top choice for him.

Unvote: Dour. Vote: Panzer

.

I'm not sure on the theory, but I figure it's not all that meaningful anyway. At this point in the game we have no knowledge of there being a SK, so we don't hunt for a SK, we hunt for mafia. If there is a SK, and if we get to a point in the game where we know someone is the SK and know someone else is mafia and we have to make a decision between which to lynch, we can return to this discussion.

So, Macavity, you say we don't know whether or not there even is a SK, but then you vote Panzer based on the notion that if there is a SK it's him? Why would you vote for the "SK" when you yourself point out that we don't even know if there is one? Fishy.

damn it, you got me. That thinking does however work when there are two scumgroups, but I made a mistake there

Why bother with this explanation if your post was a joke?

I do think being aggressive is important, but I guess it's a matter of opinion. To me, little things like that are way to little to be taken the wrong way. But that's just me.

You don't catch scum without pressuring them first. Early in the game little things are all you have to go off of, and pressuring those little things is what eventually leads to bigger and more meaningful things. I'll agree that Dour is jumping on things that I wouldn't even bat an eye at, but I haven't seen any underlying scum motivations for his actions, at least not yet.

random

vote GIEFF

because he had the last post.

Why apply a second random vote to the same target? And why place a second random vote in the midst of legit discussion?

That's not necessary. But my point remains; you focused on me because I didn't vote, but that's hardly enough to differentiate me from others who posted no content WITH a random-vote, is it? Especially considering the fact that so many others have still posted no meaningful content.

Random votes and interactions in the "random phase" are surprisingly meaningful. Not placing a random vote actually denies the town potentially useful information.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but how would we go about specifically finding the SK? Seems like the only way would be if they admitted to it.

There are other ways of telling. A SK has a specific win condition and will play in such a way to further that win con. SK's are interested in the death of everyone except for themselves. One potential telltale sign of a SK is not caring about who gets lynched as long as it isn't them.

One more question, just a clarification for a newer player. Are the terms 'scum' and 'mafia' entirely interchangeable, or does 'scum' also include SK or any other non-town aligned roles? The reason I ask is that GRIEFF's pre-game accusation referred to 'obvscum' which most people seem to interpret as meaning mafia, but could mean 2 mafia + 1 SK, or some other combination of non-town roles. On the first and second page, Mykonian and Goatrevolt both seemed to take it for granted that GRIEFF was referring to 3 mafia players. Is it possible that one or all of them inadvertently showed a more complete knowledge of the game set up than a townie would have?

Scum: An overarching term for anyone anti-town.
Mafia: A specific type of scum.

You are correct in that my assumption was that GIEFF's 3 players thing was referring to 3 mafia members. The standard setup for a 12 player normal mini is 9 townies against 3 mafia. When GIEFF calls 3 people scum, I immediately connected the idea that he's calling out the entire mafia team. It would have been unnatural for me to assume he's talking about 2 mafia + 1 SK or some other variation.

------

Unvote, Vote MacavityLock

Why are you voting for your SK suspect when you yourself admit we don't know there is a SK?

AT LAST! LOGIC!!

@Gieff, with the exception of the past few days, I post about once each day per game. I will have a low post count, but I will have large posts.

No That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I know his tried to be funny but he let loose a slip.

If you think it's a joke post, then why did you assume he didn't want to lynch mafia?

I agree that the first person to mention anything about a serial killer is more likely to actually be the serial killer, but only marginally so.

@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

This is another post by you that seems to indicate you took mykonian's vote seriously. If you thought it was a joke-post, you wouldn't think he was really calling me anti-town.

You didn't realize he was trying to be funny; you thought he was really calling me anti-town. This is abundantly clear based on your past posts.

And you just lied about it.

I agree.

To be blunt, I don't particularly like GIEFF's condescending tone in his posts

I wasn't trying to be condescending; sorry if it came off that way.

...nor am I fond of his "accidental" spin-doctoring

It was accidental. I was thinking you were scum while typing, and I mistyped twice. I will be extra careful from here on out. Let's drop this.

Let's not. Why must you be extra careful? Are you attempting to say that town cannot make errors or that you are mafia, and shouldn't make errors. I am seeing minor connection of you with grim, under the assumption that you are mafia. However, maybe this is how you react to criticism.

On this note: You shouldn't concern yourself with appearing protown. You need to scumhunt and assume that, live or die, your alignment will become known and your opinions and theories will actually have some merit because of your alignment (proven in death/by cop) or because they make sense. (I prefer the latter, actually.)

The above two quotes appear to me as if you are trying to make this emotional; let's keep it based on facts. When we start voting with emotion, the scum win. I am not trying to upset you.

However, you calling Panzer's early game "undoubtedly protown" is iffy at best. Why do you seem to be defending Panzer?

This is @mykonian, not me. I know you and I both know that, Dourgrim, just making sure everyone else does, too. I agree that it's an odd thing to say.

Combined with the deflection above, I'm going to FoS: mykonian and vote: Panzer. I'm sure this will end up being interpreted by GIEFF as me trying to deflect, or backpedal, or whatever, but remember this: if I were truly deflecting, why would I bring up all of this other garbage to make my point?

I'm glad you voted even though you thought I might find it scummy. I only think unvoting me is appeasement because you haven't convinced me that you really did think the reasons you presented for voting for me were valid.

You don't even have to convince me that they really are valid; just that you thought they were. Unvoting me before this is resolved looks like you are hoping I drop the subject. But I will not drop it, as the vote on me wasn't the issue; the logic behind it was.

My only problem with this is that you leave this here as a veiled threat. Looking into the future, should we expect you to randomly attack Dourgrim later, or does this post and claim lead somewhere later within the post...?

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

How? Unless he is part of the mafia, no one can know the whole scum right now.

How what? How are you lying?

You said you knew mykonian's post was a joke, yet your subsequent reactions to it prove beyond a doubt that you took it seriously.

FOS Panzerjager

Oh, I guess not. Just going to wait it to appear in the future later then.

We have 9/12 voting so far. Not voting: GIEFF, springlullaby, dejkha

Of those three, one has posted (twice) and didn't vote. Conveniently enough, that person also has two votes on him and so could be the Day One Bandwagon-ee. And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.

unvote: Panzerjager

vote: GIEFF

Sounds like you're overreacting way to much to what seemed like an obvious joke (calling you and two others obvscum is his confirm post).

Hmmm... so springlullaby suddenly appears on the scene after I note she hasn't posted, and then casts a meaningless vote (or at least it looks meaningless due to lack of explanation) after I criticize GIEFF for not voting while posting, despite there actually being a debate of sorts going on. Odd, somewhat suspicious, and definitely not helpful.

FoS: springlullaby

This also looks like you're overreacting. What it looked like to me, was Springlullaby casted a random vote and that's all. This is my first time posting since I confirmed and if I joke voted, would you be on my case because it was after you said I haven't voted? This is the first chance I had to post in the game since day one started. Ever think the same for her?

FoS: Dourgrim

because this early you seem awfully eager to write people off as possible scum for things with obvious explanations.

Vote djekha

The quote post above is a variation OMGUS: suspect someone by seemingly defending someone else for an action one has/is going to commit, the effect of which is to justify one's action.

This is further scummy because, if it is my prerogative to play as I wish, I certainly don't see anything remotely recommendable in my random vote. It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.

I have read the last pages or so. My comment on them is that I don't particularly like the dynamic of this town, there is plenty of talk and speculation but not enough true aggressiveness IMO. Note here that the SK talk may be interesting in the future but not now. Right now I would like to suggest more focused fire, starting now with a djekha wagon for example.

Why the Dejkha wagon? Do you not feel that the interactions between Gieff and Dour could rouse any usefulness? (Note, I like the reasons you vote for Dejkha, however.)

Myk's post 99 is going to be useful once we find out the alignment of Dour... (NOTE to SELF)
[quote="Goatrevolt"
@MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)[/quote]

Presenting bad mafia theory to support your vote is scummy because mafia would need a "real" reason to vote someone that is not, otherwise, scummy, or to justify joining a bandwagon without taking any real blame for the lynching of person X. (I know this wasn't at me, but I didn't see Lock respond and felt like responding.)

It is not always indicative of scum, but you must assume that town will always play in the interest of town to base scumhunting on, and in absence of attenuating circumstances, bad play is always scummy.

Yes, I agree. This is why I don't like Gieff's posts lately. It feels that he is trying to look town by attacking the same people (looks like scum hunting), presenting a lot of things for theory analysis, and by pointing out that someone else not scum hunting and thus must be scum.

A mislynch is not in the interest of the town, but that doesn't mean everyone on that lynch is scum for making a bad play.

Townies won't always play in the best interest of town. Townies will play in what they perceive to be the best interest of the town. There's a huge difference.

First point: A mislynch can actually lead to town victory, so while your statement is a generaltiy=true, it does not always hold still and seems to indicate that a nolynch is always better than a mislynch, which is almost never true.

Second point: You are also correct, but a townie should perceive, quite obviously, that they are to find scum, not preserve themselves. Hell, even power roles should act this way, to a point.

This is an interesting argument, I'm not sure if it is scummy or not, because here you seems to be saying that a mislynch is always bad play, which is not true. Sometimes someone is scummy despite being town, and there is little reproach one can make on people being on the lynch. It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.

Agree/disagree?

Oooh, I disagree. Your statement that someone can be scummy even if he's protown is bizarre. I thought "scum" meant "anti-Town", so how can someone be scum and be pro-Town at the same time.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

Point one: WHOA... really? You have never mislynched someone because they were particularly anti town or the led the way to a mislynch? REALLY?
Point 2: Should cop just come out and say (day 2 on) HOLY F***, I GOT A GUILTY!? Or should he try and find an argument or failings in the person post to logically get him lynched as to hide his identity?

A better example is this: Someone claims cop in their first post of the game. That is bad play. They've set themselves up to be night killed. However, it's not scummy, because scum claiming cop in their first post is a pretty stupid play. This person exhibits bad play, but that bad play is more of a townie bad play than a scummy one.

In other words, I disagree entirely about your assessment of dejkha. You're saying he's scummy because he's attacking early aggressive play (which is pro-town). I agree with you that doing so is wrong, but I don't see how it's scummy.

I claim, as scum, I'm cop. I am not night killed n1. I claim person A is town. Let's say he really is town. However, would you lynch the person for not dying night 1? What about n2? What if I really am cop and the scum know they can just discount the cop because claiming cop post 1 and living to the end game is scummy as hell. Also, I don't think your point is proven at all.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

If we were all infallible in our logic, then only the most illogical is always scum. This theory is true from being based off of the idea: only scum need to fabricate details to prove others are mafia. So, killing off the worst player is wrong, but VOTING for the worst player is right, as it tells you the most information from the reaction of other players and lets you know if the player in question is able to push you back and prove themselves more town then scum, during which, a scummier player will probably present him/herself.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

It's one level further removed from that. If people BELIEVE their logic is good, they are town. If they don't believe their logic is good, they are faking logic, as scum do.

Bah, I don't believe with this. If people believe their logic is strong, but their logic is completely faulty, I think they are probably scum.

At this point, Spring made a post that I am going to surmise with my own thoughts on the matter:

ANTI-TOWN=/=scummy.

Similarly,
Pro-town=/=Confirmed/cleared Town aligned.

These are just indicators we have as to the persons actually alignment, but we don't know anything for certain.

Dourgrim and mykonian seem to be much more interested in the meta-discussion about theory than the discussion about who is scum.

You are insinuating that there is solid discussion on who is/isn't scum. Care to present a case?

Panzer didn't think Mykonian was serious about you specifically being scum.

Rather, he felt that mykonian's statement that you were scummy specifically because you were hunting for mafia was a slip and a glimpse into mykonian's mindset that hunting mafia is bad. In other words, he knew mykonian wasn't serious about you being scum, but thought mykonian's reasons for even joking about you being scum was a slip and a revelation into how mykonian views things.

Make sense?

First of all, I don't like you defending him. Let him speak for himself. I assume you were talking about Post 91, but I have unanswered questions to Panzer about that post, and for you to step in and try to clear him before he has a chance to explain for himself is scummy to the extreme.

Not to defend, but we haven't heard from Panzer in a while on this.

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt? Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

He says, however, that we shouldn't kill the sk in the next few lines... sounds like we can't really guess from this post what Panzer was thinking, which is scummier than flat lying.

I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way.

Now this IS scummy. You knew it was meant to be a joke, but you blatantly ignored this to make a case with the assumption he did not mean it to be a joke...?

eh heh heh...NO.

Vote Panzerjager

This tips the scales out of your favor, panz.

Now would be a great time to "explain your playstyle" the way Dour would, as you claim. You officially make no sense.

[GIEFF]

And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell.

These seem to me to be contradictory statements. What if someone says something that he believes is true but is in fact untrue? How can you possibly differentiate between a lie and a mistake?

They are not contradictory. The main tool I look for to find scum is clues that would indicate a person doesn't really buy their own reasons for voting. Of course it isn't a "provable" theory. Nothing in this game is provable. If somebody says something he believes is true, it is not a lie even if it really is untrue. But that's not what Panzer did. Panzer lied.

I am not going to go into a list of clues that may indicate someone is voting for reasons other than the ones given, as that would just be telling the scum how to make themselves look townie to me. But here are two clues that I have used previously in this thread.

• Lying about reasoning. This is a huge scumtell, as it indicates the player is just faking reasoning. If you arrived at suspicion naturally, you should be able to explain why. If you STARTED at suspicion and then tried to fill in the blanks so another would believe that you arrive there due to actual logic and reasoning, you can slip up and get caught in mistakes. If Player X really finds Player Y scummy, there should be no reason for Player X to lie about the reasons behind that suspision.
• Applying reasoning inconsistently. If Player X votes Player Y for lurking, yet ignores the same behavior in Player Z, it begs the question "If lurking was the real reason for the vote, why didn't player X mention the same behavior in Player Z?" This is why I thought it was suspicious you focused on me (and on springlullaby) without mentioning or questioning any other number of players who exhibited similar behavior.

This is unnecessary, and as it appears to be a sentence designed to provoke another player, it seems to work against your earlier statement of playing without emotion.

I am not calling mykonian irrational, I am calling his defense irrational, for the points listed earlier in that post. I think Panzer is scummy, and when I see somebody go out of their way to defend Panzer in a manner I find illogical, I am going to point it out. I am not saying that because I am angry or any other emotion, and it's not meant to elicit that response in mykonian. If mykonian doesn't think his defense was irrational, I welcome him to respond to my points detailing why I do think it was irrational.

I just saw your long post, Birthday, and will respond in my next one.

[Goatrevolt]

I claim, as scum, I'm cop. I am not night killed n1. I claim person A is town. Let's say he really is town. However, would you lynch the person for not dying night 1? What about n2? What if I really am cop and the scum know they can just discount the cop because claiming cop post 1 and living to the end game is scummy as hell. Also, I don't think your point is proven at all.

This is going into theory discussion, so I'm not going to debate this with you, but I will say this: Try it and see if it works.

@MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)

Presenting bad mafia theory to support your vote is scummy because mafia would need a "real" reason to vote someone that is not, otherwise, scummy, or to justify joining a bandwagon without taking any real blame for the lynching of person X. (I know this wasn't at me, but I didn't see Lock respond and felt like responding.)

What if someone legitimately doesn't understand?

Also, I still want MacavityLock to answer those questions.

[Beyond_Birthday]

Ebwop: I posted too early in my last post:

Up till this post (below), I feel no reason to comment on the back and fourth as it does little for me. The oldie card didn't seem to come at a time that, as a play, it would be helpful to Dour. As a result, nulltell.

Can you think of a reason a townie would lie about his reason for voting somebody?

see my last post comment on the cop, who may use a lie or seem to misintepret. I mean, honestly, there might be some reason, even if it is terrible.

Why can't I express that the aggressiveness that panzer showed is not a scumtell?

and that scum don't need to lie with logic? The logic scum uses can be perfectly sound, but the outcome wrong. For example, I started with logic.

assumptions: GIEFF knows something about the setup.
GIEFF wants to lynch scum.

logic: The fact that GIEFF knows something about the setup makes him antitown. Town doesn't know a thing.
GIEFF can't be scum, as he wants to lynch scum.

antitown + not scum + standard = SK.


But the assumption that a SK knows something about the setup is clearly wrong. The logic part is good. Scum can use logic, but as long as the assumptions are not right, the conclusion doesn't need to be right. And because you don't know a thing in this game, assumptions can be based on guesses.

THAT ISN'T SOUND LOGIC! O, WOW! WHAT A REVELATION!!

Your "logic" was a joke-vote. Panzer's was not. And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it. As I said in post 113:

And, again, your logic is stupid. That is to say that I can be scum and never lynched just by holding true to my logic. That is tunnlevisioned townie/scum, NOT ALWAYS TOWNIE.

Well, apparently we're not quite ready to abandon discussion of game theory.

And it's not the validity of the logic that counts, it's whether the person USING the logic actually believes in it.

Also, it isn't the aggressiveness that is a scumtell; it is the lie that is a scumtell.

These seem to me to be contradictory statements. What if someone says something that he believes is true but is in fact untrue? How can you possibly differentiate between a lie and a mistake?

Therefore, what we seem to have here is an unprovable theory. There is no way whatsoever for someone to prove what another person believes or disbelieves, so how precisely can you decide who is lying and who is just not playing up to your standards? Example: Do you think I believed the logic I was originally using when I voted for you? How did you come to that conclusion? What factors might have changed your mind in this regard? And why exactly, when I conceded your points regarding the fallacy of my logic, did you insist that you believed I was trying to appease you rather than agree with you? What all this tells me is that your methods of finding "scumtells" via reading intent seem to be somewhat flawed.

Also, I believe inflammatory comments such as this should be avoided if you genuinely want us not to vote emotionally:

Your strong and irrational defense of Panzer is noted.

This is unnecessary, and as it appears to be a sentence designed to provoke another player, it seems to work against your earlier statement of playing without emotion.

Wow! Someone who actually uses their brain for the betterment of town and not to let town chase its tail. Amazing. *This is a long way of saying QFT.

I claim, as scum, I'm cop. I am not night killed n1. I claim person A is town. Let's say he really is town. However, would you lynch the person for not dying night 1? What about n2? What if I really am cop and the scum know they can just discount the cop because claiming cop post 1 and living to the end game is scummy as hell. Also, I don't think your point is proven at all.

This is going into theory discussion, so I'm not going to debate this with you, but I will say this: Try it and see if it works.

@MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)

Presenting bad mafia theory to support your vote is scummy because mafia would need a "real" reason to vote someone that is not, otherwise, scummy, or to justify joining a bandwagon without taking any real blame for the lynching of person X. (I know this wasn't at me, but I didn't see Lock respond and felt like responding.)

What if someone legitimately doesn't understand?

Also, I still want MacavityLock to answer those questions.

Then their reactions when disproven (Which should lead a truly town aligned player to find a new suspect with corrected theory) to look town by saying, "Oh, I see, I was wrong. In that case, then person Y is scummy, not person X."
OR!
"Disregarding that point, I still feel that my other points against person X still indicates that Person X is scum."

See my point? (And yes, the other is theory, just pointing out you were wrong in the other. And I still think it is terrible play, so I am not doing it.)

Side bar: This is one of the times where I am forced to post more than once in a day.

[Goatrevolt]

BB, I don't have the patience, desire, nor do I think it would be helpful for me to argue in circles with you. But I will say that I disagree with almost everything you said.

[Dourgrim]

(I condensed and organized the quotes below to make them make more sense... you can go back and check, I haven't changed any text or references.)

Oooh, I disagree. Your statement that someone can be scummy even if he's protown is bizarre. I thought "scum" meant "anti-Town", so how can someone be scum and be pro-Town at the same time.

Point one: WHOA... really? You have never mislynched someone because they were particularly anti town or the led the way to a mislynch? REALLY?

I never said that. I also didn't claim that the person who was mislynched was scum. I was disputing the use of the word "scummy" here to describe a pro-Town player, although I now understand where I made my mistake in context.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

Point 2: Should cop just come out and say (day 2 on) HOLY F***, I GOT A GUILTY!? Or should he try and find an argument or failings in the person post to logically get him lynched as to hide his identity?

I'm failing to see the relevance of this to my original point. I was saying that I believe perfect logic should not be the

only

guiding star to finding mafia. Logic is certainly a tool to be used, but it's not infallible because the

players

whose behavior you're trying to analyze aren't infallible.

[Dourgrim]

BB, I don't have the patience, desire, nor do I think it would be helpful for me to argue in circles with you. But I will say that I disagree with almost everything you said.

OK, since you used the word "almost" there, work backwards: what

do

you agree with in BB's uber-long post?

[GIEFF]

It was accidental. I was thinking you were scum while typing, and I mistyped twice. I will be extra careful from here on out. Let's drop this.

Let's not. Why must you be extra careful? Are you attempting to say that town cannot make errors or that you are mafia, and shouldn't make errors. I am seeing minor connection of you with grim, under the assumption that you are mafia. However, maybe this is how you react to criticism.

I want to drop it because it's a mistake that serves no purpose but to distract the town from scumhunting. I am not saying anything about town or mafia making errors, although I do agree that slips of the nature of the one I made can be a good way to catch scum if it's a slip about knowing somebody's role. I made a mistake, it upset Dourgrim and caused him to react emotionally, and so I will be careful not to make it again.

--------

You are insinuating that there is solid discussion on who is/isn't scum. Care to present a case?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but here are the cases I presented before I noted that Dourgrim and mykonian were much more eager to talk about meta-game than actual-game.

Post 54 and Post 61 detail my case on Dourgrim.

Post 82 details suspicsions against MacavityLock, Dourgrim, as well as all the lurkers (especially yourself, Macavity, and mykonian), although you have shaken the "active lurker" label with your latest post.

Post 89, Post 92, the bottom of Post 96, and Post 105 relate to my case on Panzer.


-------

Also, I believe Panzer is at L-2 now. I don't want anybody to hammer and be able to claim it was an accident.

I agree that Mac's vote for Panzer is suspicious, and he never responded when I asked him about it in part 1 of my Post 82 Wall-o-text.

ting's vote for Panzer is a bit odd, too. When I asked if this vote was serious, ting responded in Post 73,

@GIEFF
It's as serious as you'd expect a vote on the second page to be.

Which leads me to believe it was more of a joke-vote than for serious reasons. Is that correct, ting? Do you feel the same way about Panzer as you did in post 73 when you wrote the above quote?

------

And another question, this one for springlullaby. You voted dejkha for calling Dourgrim "too eager." Why didn't you mention ting's vote for Panzer, which also looks like ting calling Panzer "too eager" in the random-vote stage? It looks like inconsistent reasoning to me.

[PJ.]

GIEFF, I didn't lie. You asked me at two different times. I truly believe that had you asked me when I mad that post on Mykonian, I would have said I thought it was serious. You asked me a while later in which I had read other post and had time to assume it was a joke. I didn't lie, I didn't explain myself fully or correctly.
[wifom]If I wanted to go after someone, couldn't I have just piggybacked on you or dourgrim instead of getting myself kneedeep in mispoken thoughts?[/wifom]

Spring lullaby on the other hand, is deliberately picking her spots and choosing specifically who she wants to go after. I don't know if she isn't reading or truly picking on townies.

Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby

[Goatrevolt]

BB, I don't have the patience, desire, nor do I think it would be helpful for me to argue in circles with you. But I will say that I disagree with almost everything you said.

OK, since you used the word "almost" there, work backwards: what

do

you agree with in BB's uber-long post?

I'll start by saying that I disagree with his idea that logic is the end all for catching scum (good logic = town, bad = scum). Using good logic is not hard for scum to do, at all. Anywhere he seems to adhere to this principle I disagree. Logic is certainly a tool for catching scum, and sometimes bad logic is the intentional work of scum to fool the town, but it's not always the case.

Basically, anywhere he says that bad logic = scummy as a blanket statement I disagree with (likewise for good logic = townie).

As for the rest of his post, I'm not going to go through and pick out things I agree with. Rather, I'll bring up issues I have with other aspects of his post that aren't related to the above.

[GIEFF]

GIEFF, I didn't lie. You asked me at two different times. I truly believe that had you asked me when I mad that post on Mykonian, I would have said I thought it was serious. You asked me a while later in which I had read other post and had time to assume it was a joke. I didn't lie, I didn't explain myself fully or correctly.

If you had said this originally, it would be easier to believe. It just seems to me that if you weren't really lying, your first response to my accusation would have been "I didn't lie" instead of waiting to say this until much later. I am glad you have at least admitted that you took his vote seriously at the time you voted, though. At what point did you realize it was a joke?

Spring lullaby on the other hand, is deliberately picking her spots and choosing specifically who she wants to go after. I don't know if she isn't reading or truly picking on townies. Unvote: Vote:Springlullaby

Picking on townies

, eh? And how, may I ask, do you know she is picking on townies rather than scum? Which posters were you referring to?

[PJ.]

1) When I re-read it when you asked me. I just assumed that I would have felt the same way twice. Also, I didn't really think about it and I genuinely didn't realize it could possibly be miscontrued into this huge lie as my first response was "How is that a lie?"

2) I don't know if they are townies or not but its seems delibrate that she's going after Dejka and not Ting =).

[GIEFF]

2) I don't know if they are townies or not but its seems delibrate that she's going after Dejka and not Ting =)

Spring lullaby on the other hand, is deliberately picking her spots and choosing specifically who she wants to go after. I don't know if she isn't reading or truly picking on townies.

You slipped. If you meant dejkha, you would have said "picking on dejkha." You just revealed that you know dejkha is town.

Do other agree that this is a big slip, or am I just tunneling here?

[Dourgrim]

I'll start by saying that I disagree with his idea that logic is the end all for catching scum (good logic = town, bad = scum). Using good logic is not hard for scum to do, at all. Anywhere he seems to adhere to this principle I disagree. Logic is certainly a tool for catching scum, and sometimes bad logic is the intentional work of scum to fool the town, but it's not always the case.

Amen!

[Goatrevolt]

Do other agree that this is a big slip, or am I just tunneling here?

I think you're tunneling. I won't answer for Panzer, but I don't see that as conclusive.

Panzer: I do want to know, specifically, at what point you changed from thinking it was serious to a joke.

[Goatrevolt]

Eh, I guess you answered that already. Reading is fundamental.

Anyway:

At what point did you realize it was a joke?

Your response:

When I re-read it when you asked me. I just assumed that I would have felt the same way twice.

However in an earlier post when I asked you, you said:

Goatrevolt, I knew it was a joke but the way he said it and exactly what he said struck a wrong chord.

Which doesn't fit with your above statements.

[Beyond_Birthday]

BB, I don't have the patience, desire, nor do I think it would be helpful for me to argue in circles with you. But I will say that I disagree with almost everything you said.

OK, since you used the word "almost" there, work backwards: what

do

you agree with in BB's uber-long post?

I'll start by saying that I disagree with his idea that logic is the end all for catching scum (good logic = town, bad = scum). Using good logic is not hard for scum to do, at all. Anywhere he seems to adhere to this principle I disagree. Logic is certainly a tool for catching scum, and sometimes bad logic is the intentional work of scum to fool the town, but it's not always the case.

Basically, anywhere he says that bad logic = scummy as a blanket statement I disagree with (likewise for good logic = townie).

As for the rest of his post, I'm not going to go through and pick out things I agree with. Rather, I'll bring up issues I have with other aspects of his post that aren't related to the above.

I actually argued that bad logic =/=scummy. I think logic based on fabrications are scummy and that logic based on misreading is mildly scummy. Reactions are far more conclusive on scumminess than faulty or non objective logic.

Furthermore: Your last post, I agree with it.

[subgenius]

You slipped. If you meant dejkha, you would have said "picking on dejkha." You just revealed that you know dejkha is town.

Do other agree that this is a big slip, or am I just tunneling here?

I agree that this could be viewed as a slip. It's very odd that Panzer would simply assume Dejka is a townie. At the very least, Panzer has backpedalled and modified his reasons for voting for SL from a more general accusation of "picking on townies" and I guess what could be described as opportunistic voting, and he is now complaining of SL's attacking one player and not another. This switch-up alone I think shows that his main reason for voting on SL is to move attention away from himself rather than having a legitimate case. It looks like a vote of self-preservation more than anything else. Very scummy.

FoS: Panzer

I'm going to put off my vote for now, because by my count one more vote would put him at L-1, but I think this is the best lead we've got so far.

[dejkha]

Sorry if you guys don't "approve" of the "oldie card" in this game. I was trying to pay you all compliments... I guess that sort of sportsmanship isn't really wanted or required in-game, eh?

Doesn't matter to me. I see it as good sportsmanship, but you should know playing the "oldie card" can be misinterpreted for asking people to go easy of you, which I'm sure you know, no one plans on doing. I don't think you've been away long enough to think we would, so I let it pass.

can you think of a reason why scum would lie day one for his random vote? No. And the same for the towny. The lie you have found is not directly intentional, nor does it have great impact on the game, as panzer already stated that his vote on me is weak. So, you are making a problem where there is none, and then you call it a scumtell.

(Forgive me if I repeat something GIEFF already said. I'm trying not to, but he got here first and said most of it) I don't think his vote was random, so he probably lost track of his supposed reason for voting and threw in another without realizing it would get him caught in a lie. I can't think of any reason to lie about a vote if you believe that person can be scum. Lying about a vote is kind of a big deal because of that. You have nothing to gain by lying about why you think someone's scum.

I

must of

not thought all that threw and

probably

didn't truly realize it was a joke because I was too caught up on the fact he voted someone for trying to vote mafia.

I'm highly skeptical of the bolded words above. You're describing your own mentality, here, and regardless of whether or not you were wrong in what you did, you should be able to at least confidently describe your own thought processes.

I just need to say, that was a good catch. That went right by me when I first read it.

On this note: You shouldn't concern yourself with appearing protown. You need to scumhunt and assume that, live or die, your alignment will become known and your opinions and theories will actually have some merit because of your alignment (proven in death/by cop) or because they make sense. (I prefer the latter, actually.)

I believe you should be concerned with yourself appearing protown. Or at least, be concerned about not appearing scummy. If you end up in a situation where you have people questioning you as a prime suspect, defending yourself is fine, as long as you continue your scum hunting. IMO, it's best to avoid a mislynch, even though it can end up being helpful.

You slipped. If you meant dejkha, you would have said "picking on dejkha." You just revealed that you know dejkha is town.

Do other agree that this is a big slip, or am I just tunneling here?

Even I think that this is a slip. It's hard to make the mistake of calling someone a townie before it's proven. (In my experience, anyway)

As of right now, Panzer will more than likely get my vote due to his lying and contradictions (I don't even know if that's what I would call it, but I'm referring to when he said "I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way.") While I do think lying about your reasons for voting is a rather large offense, I'd prefer to wait until a little longer before casting my vote. If he can't give a flawless reason as to why he isn't scum (which, at this point, seems impossible), I'll just go ahead and vote.

Mod: Can we get a vote count, please

?

[kloud1516]

Vote Count III

Panzerjager

(4): ting=), Dourgrim, GIEFF, Beyond_Birthday

GIEFF

(1): mykonian

ting=)

(1): militant

militant

(1): subgenius

MacavityLock

(1): Goatrevolt

dejkha

(1): springlullaby

springlullaby

(1): Panzerjager

Not Voting:

dejkha, MacavityLock

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

Please notify me if there is a discrepancy in the list above

[subgenius]

I guess I missed Macavity's unvote.

unvote
vote: Panzerjager

[Beyond_Birthday]

On this note: You shouldn't concern yourself with appearing protown. You need to scumhunt and assume that, live or die, your alignment will become known and your opinions and theories will actually have some merit because of your alignment (proven in death/by cop) or because they make sense. (I prefer the latter, actually.)

I believe you should be concerned with yourself appearing protown. Or at least, be concerned about not appearing scummy. If you end up in a situation where you have people questioning you as a prime suspect, defending yourself is fine, as long as you continue your scum hunting. IMO, it's best to avoid a mislynch, even though it can end up being helpful.

Oh, but of course. I would never say: Just let yourself die. I don't think, however, if you are legitimately scum hunting that you will wind up being the prime suspect.

[militant]

Yesterday I was at a friend's graduation ceremony which took all day. I shall re read tonight and post my thoughts.

[PJ.]

@GoatRevolt: I was trying not to lie, and I never really thought about whether or not I had thought about it until earlier. I guess I got stuck in the "I wanna be cool like everyone and know when people are telling jokes" mentality.

[mykonian]

doesn't anybody here have the feeling that this is one big overreaction? This is going way too fast. I don't like fast wagons, esspecially not when they are early. Are you really in favor of a panzerlynch page 7? didn't think so...