Newbie 764 - Game Over

[Chaos40]

Evenin' all. Nice to meet you all. First off, random numbers tell me to

vote Ojanen

[Chaos40]

@Chaos: Why use random numbers to determine your vote? Using a RNG (assuming you did) takes the responsibility for the vote off of yourself, and therefore renders it useless in advancing the game.

Well, seeing as it's so early in the game. I really have nothing else to base my vote on. Once the game progresses and discussion develops I will have more solid arguments and evidence to use as a basis.

[Chaos40]

@Chaos: Quote:
Once the game progresses and discussion develops I will have more solid arguments and evidence to use as a basis.



Any reason you can't try to get the discussion going yourself? Why is it that you need to wait for other people to start the discussion.

I admit that I did little to initate discussion, but as the posts above mine were little more than abitrary votes themselves, I didn't have much to build upon, and whilst I was unsure as to how to begin discussion, it certainly seems to have begun as a reaction to my random vote. But as I don't have any reason (even an abitrary one) to let my vote linger on someone who has yet to post, I'll

Unvote

[Chaos40]

Sorry about that, completely missed that. Well my reason still stands. No one's done anything to warrant my vote so I'll leave it off anyone for now.

[Chaos40]

Vote: Japles

After the discussion we've been having concerning the disadvantages of votes with no reasoning, you offer no explanation for your initial vote. Mind explaining?

[Chaos40]

In my mind, placing a vote with an abitrary reason attached doesn't mean that the vote is not-random. Actually, all it's saying that you are going to place a vote on a specific person for a reason which has next to no impact on the current game which is efectively bias.

With that said, I believe that a random vote is better than an arbitrary one. I would rather a vote be placed on someone for a logical and rational suspicion, but as that's impossible in the earliest stages of a game, the random vote to me seems the lesser of two evils. Hence, my vote on Japles. I have a logical suspicion against him and so I dispense with random voting and abitrary voting both.

[Chaos40]

Re: Kairyuu's accusation of Chaos
I can see Kairyuu's point regarding Chaos40, when pressed to promote discussion, merely unvoted, which would seem to kill discussion rather than promote it.

Personally, it seems to me that quite a lot of discussion has begun in response to my unvote, hardly killing the discussion. Granted, I've become a main target in the eyes of one of our ICs, a dangerous position to be in, but it seems an acceptable trade to get discussion going in earnest.

I voted Ojanen based on random numbers. It was explained to me why voting on random numbers was essentially a bad idea and so, taking the advice at face value (which may have been a mistake) I retracted the vote.

@kairyuu, I actually read your last IC game, and the game you referenced it from, the gambit was pretty interesting. I did love how you caught out the D1 Goon. When i saw you were IC in this game, I was tossing around in my head trying to work out how to respond to it if you did it here.

Do you mean that last sentence as, you were wondering how to go along with it as town, or how to avoid getting stuck in it as scum?

[Chaos40]

Chaos, it is important that any vote that is designed to make discussion out of nothing be arbitrary and not random. Make up something. Have a reason, any reason. Just make sure it isn't random, because random votes have nothing that can spark discussion.

In response to people asking why I unvoted after Kairyuu's second question as opposed to his first is actually because of this post.

As I've said before, I took Korts' advice at face value (again, possibly a bad move) and, upon being informed that my random vote was actually doing the very opposite of what I intended, purely because it was random as opposed to arbitrary I unvoted then. And, as I believed Kairyuu's questioning to be merely expanding upon the points Korts had raised I saw little reason to refrain from unvoting.

Had I known the fallout that would result I probably still would have unvoted. I made a random vote, had it pointed out to me why such a tactic was a bad idea by both of our ICs and then unvoted. If only Kairyuu had expressed disapproval over the random vote, the vote would probably have stayed, especially since I have read a few games to make me believe that RVing was an acceptable strategy (and Kairyuu's opinion whilst valid is just one man's opinion.) But having both ICs question my judgement in making such a move gave me cause to reconsider. Hence the Unvote at that time as opposed to earlier.

[Chaos40]

To be honest, it wasn't a claim of credit, merely an observation in hindsight.

[Chaos40]

Unvote. Vote: Sando

Looking back on the posts you've made since Kairyuu's attack on me began. You were the only main supporter of the case, Ojanen being another but only stating that she could see the point and not making much of it.

I checked back to see exactly what you were bringing to the table against me and, other than responding to my question regarding Kairyuu's previous game the only main point you brought up was a lengthy post doing nothing but reiterating Kairyuu's points, interspersed with quotes from the two of us. Yet despite all of this you never voted me. I was on the brink of voting for you earlier when I called you out on your previous statement but now my suspicions are more solidified.

[Chaos40]

Also, I do see the Chaos40 case now that you guys have pointed out that the unvoting wasn't the initial reaction.

That is the only thing that Ojanen said in response to the case on me. You made a sub-section of one of your posts, but following that you proceeded to make a long post which, as I've already stated did nothing but reiterate Kariyuu's points.

Why would I have to work out how to respond to it? If you had done it in this game I would not have believed that you were a vanilla townie, simple as that. I would have worked off my belief that you were either the doc or scum. As a townie, I don't really want to be in the position of thinking some is either the doc or scum.

Precisely, why would you have had to respond to it? And since you seem so sure of what you'd think and believe if the gambit was pulled, why were you in this frame of mind earlier?

I was tossing around in my head trying to work out how to respond to it if you did it here.

And, as minor point, but a point nevertheless.

You asked me to clarify my position, so i did, and that get's me accused of parroting Kairyuu.

Mind pointing out in which of my posts I asked for that? I looked over everything I've written so far and I can't find it. You seemed to "parrot" if I can use the phrase with no provocation whatsoever, so kindly don't put words in my mouth.

Sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself is not something to be proud of. In fact, if this is done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you'e drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

Again. I never set out to make myself suspicious on purpose. I agree that such a tactic is detrimental to myself in particular and the town as a whole. As such, as I stated before that comment was nothing more than an observation in hindsight which looking back on it could be taken the wrong way but that's my own fault for my poor choice of words there.

(As an aside, does anyone know the procedure for making the quotes read "so-and-so wrote" as opposed to just "quote"? I can't seem to figure it out.

[Chaos40]

Sorry if you misread my formatting, the "Minor point" was you providing a breakdown of the argument without being asked. The whole gambit thing was a pretty major point and I don't pretend to consider it otherwise.

After looking back through the topic and reading your posts in depth, especially between Kairyuu making his observation and the revelation of his plan I will concede that you never voted or FoS'd me during that period.

Also, you mentioned Kairyuu's gambit as a "failed scumhunt." Do you believe that Kairyuu would abandon an attack on me and attempt to turn it into a gambit when he had no-one directly defending me (excpet for myself obviously)? I could see him backing down if I had other people convinced by my defence, but whilst you were the only one arguing against me alongside him, the entire group still remained on the fence, hardly reason for him to abandon an alleged "scumhunt".

You've jumped on the Sando bandwagon very quickly, for some ridiculous reasons (one of which being that i didn't vote for you, yet was the main supporter against you).

I was suspicious of you, ever since the post that I called you on. I admit you've constructed a defense against it but excuse me if I don't quite believe you. I may have misunderstood you, but the way you constructed the argument and wrote it down was very confusing, which does little to assuage my suspicions. Kairyuu's argument was very convincing and, once hearing his take on the gambit he played I felt confident enough to vote you.

You have, however, found one part of my case against you where i was wrong, well done, should we just ignore the rest?

And you attack me for apparently stating the gambit argument as a minor point and then want to drop the rest of the argument? I hope you're joking here.

[Chaos40]

Agreed. The only point which I disproved was my asking for a explanation.

However, once you've agreed that I made a good point, you ask for me to just ignore the rest of the entire argument. Again, this seems too obvious of an attempt at placation to be serious but I'd like to get your own reaction/explanation of it.

[Chaos40]

As the latest post by Sando was made while I was writing my previous post. I'll ask here what part of the argument I don't believe/require clarification on.

Particularly, it is post 43 where you outline your theory of Kairyuu being scum for using the gambit twice. Your wording greatly confuses me and, while I believe I have the gist of it, I'd like you to clarify a brief point for me.

Do you believe Kairyuu's voting/unvoting of me to actually be a gambit on his part or to be him trying to make an actual case, backing off for some reason and then trying to twist it to his favour? I've read posts by you that seem to indicate both schools of thinking and I'd like to know where your mind currently stands.

You've set me up as the 'main supporter' of a failed scumhunt against you by Kairyuu, when i had the lowest level of support for it, and you knew it.

Kairyuu also didn't let it play out, he saw an oportunity with the doc game comment and went for it. I hadn't even voted for Chaos40 and i've 'fallen into his trap'. That's a pretty pathetic trap, if to fall into it you don't even need to vote for the bait (or even FOS for that matter)

here it's a failed scum-hunt

These 2 together were why it would have failed even if he was a townie, which he isn't. It was doomed to failure since he's scum and his bait was scum, but for arguments sake we'll assume otherwise, and just talk about why it was bad.

- He put you out as bait without telling anyone, which is good, and said 'hey guys, this is a serious vote, tell me what you think'
- He got someone to agree with his apparently bad reasons for thinking you were scum, good so far from him, but it fails from here on out.
- He failed to get anyone to either vote for you, or FOS you. If you set a trap for someone, you don't spring it as soon as they put 1 foot in the trap, you wait till they're well into the trap that they can't get out. If he was truly just waiting for someone to say "you have a point but not good enough to warrant my vote" before lynching them, then that's either the most pathetic scumhunt ever, or he's scum.
- So either he just got over-excited, or he saw an oportunity with my apparent scumtell regarding the doc gambit. He saw that he no longer needed the trap to get a townie lynched, and just claimed that I had 'fallen into his trap' to add a little weight to his argument.

How do i know it was a failed trap? Because I'm townie, but only 2 people know it's a failed trap, me and Kairyuu, cause he's scum.

and here it's a gambit. I'd just clarification on which you surrently believe it to be.

[Chaos40]

Yet despite all of this you never voted me. I was on the brink of voting for you earlier when I called you out on your previous statement but now my suspicions are more solidified.

So because he didn't vote on you, you are suspicious of him? What? Si he was a bit suspicious of you, but not enough for a vote... and you think you were wronged because he did not put a vote on you?

*headdesk*

You seem to have a thing with quoting the parts of posts that only fit your argument. I was suspicious of Sando, not because he never voted me. But because of what has now been dubbed "The Slip." and then I saw the results of Kairyuu's gambit. which seemed very plausible to me at the time. (They still do but I concede that they hold less weight than they did when I first read the post and changed my vote.) He's defended himself against it, but I find the logic behind it confusing especially as he kept bringing up Kairyuu's previous games in an attempt to discredit him. Granted, he hasn't done it for a while and his arguments have gotten more consistant but I still find him scummy.

In fact, going over your posts, I can find only two sentences where you attack Sando directly. One where you dispute his referring of an OMGUS vote and this...

Kairyuu and Chaos, scum.

Why the vote for Kairyuu, other than that he's scum? Well I'm convinced of Kairyuu, but I'm still not convinced that Japles isn't scum. The other reason that Kairyuu could be coming after me is that i refuse(d) to remove my vote from Japles. I think the most likely explanation is Kairyuu/Chaos as scum, but i don't discount the possibility of Kairyuu/Japles.

Wow! You go from being sure Kairyuu and Chaos are scum and give all these reasons and then 'well Japles could be scum too'...

for being so sure Chaos and Kariyuu are scum, you sure faltered on it, Sando...

As his discussion with me has continued for a while after this post. I really don't think he's "faltering" that much. He's just added you into the mix and you attack him for it. You don't make any mention of Kairyuu's gambit/stratagem but you make a dig over his bringing you up as suspicious in a very minor point in an otherwise lengthy post otherwise dedicated to attacking Kairyuu and myself. Overly defensive much?

[Chaos40]

Well, looking over the thread, whilst "The Slip, TM" is still a big factor in my suspicion of Sando, I've started to look at the case on Japles more seriously and I can certainly see merit behind it.

The remark about a possible combination of Kairyuu/Japles was mentioned in a few short sentences in a post several paragraphs long. Now, forgive me if my theories concerning discussion differ from yours, but I don't think it's possible to falter against a belief that one has argued for adamantly for several paragraphs in three sentences. And I can't help but wonder if the attack on Sando would not have begun if it had been another name mentioned. So I'll direct this as a question towards Japles

@Japles: This stament by you concerns me.

Well, I have read all your arguments against Kariyuu and I don't agree with them.

And now, you have given me, in that last post, what was needed to push me over the line...

Vote: Sando

Mind elaborating exactly what was given that pushed you over the edge? you don't make it very clear in any of your follow up posts

[Chaos40]

Really sorry guys for my absence, real life has gotten away from me and I'm only on now for five minutes to post this. I will be V/LA until Monday afternoon. I'll re-read and catch up then. Again, really sorry.

[Chaos40]

Ok, I'm back. I'll give the thread a re-read and post content in an hour or two

[Chaos40]

Ok, my re-read's over and I've got a few new points to make. The first and most relevant to the game being

Unvote, Vote: Japles

Even though he's apparently had a few days free, he has neglected to even post, much less acknowledge my outstanding questions from several days ago. Maybe once he does, my opinion of him may alter, but for now he's been too happy to withdraw from notice once again once suspicion started to be cast onto others and this does not help his case.

With regards to the discussion involving probability and random numbers, I don't really see the point in bringing up factors which cannot be manipulated or viewed in any other matter than which they are. As Infinis points out in a later post, he lists several other factors which we can take to be absolute fact. We cannot change them or exploit them, so why bring them up? People seem to be disputin them, but all this achieves is clarification and I don't see it as particulerly useful to scumhunting, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though. The fact that it occured does not strike me as particularly scummy but I do question the motives behind it.

[Chaos40]

Curses! Go Town! *dies*

[Chaos40]

Nice Play by everyone, a great game to get started with. I'd like to know though Ojanen, why was I the kill N1?

[Chaos40]

Yeah please. I'm not going to be online to read it for a while, but I'd like to read it when I get back.