Newbie 764 - Game Over

[Ojanen]

Umm, Japles, you kind of answered beside the question.
Meanigfulness of random vs. arbitrary was the thing.

Reread and wanted to comment to this:

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.

It is true that conversation was generated from it, but I don't think that you can imply credit for it this way, I don't think it's something you could have predicted at the time.

[Chaos40]

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

[Kairyuu]

@Sando:

@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.

It was quite a fun play to make. I was disappointed that people didn't like it much.

The interesting thing, is that this quote paints you as rather scummy in my eyes. You claim to have read the game in question, where there were several townies played it correctly, and you saw my and Albert's comments on that matter. Why then, would you need to work out how to respond if you were town? Ironically, that is almost exactly the description that Adel, from the time MoS came up with it, gave when linking to the game in MD.

I'd be seriously considering that he was using the last game as an example of how good it is for a townie to do while secretly being scum and trying it from the other side.

Heh. I don't even need to make the gambit to catch scum with it. Why would I do it as scum when I made the specific claim that I would not take a risk like that in a Newbie game? When I am scum I try to keep the scumteam intact (as Korts can attest to) as long as physically possible, and throwing myself into a majorly risky situation on page 1 when my partner is probably a new player is very much against my playstyle.

I think you've slipped up friend.

He was also sort of testing it in that game as far as i recall, so i figure he might want to test doing it as scum at some point.

He also said it was something to be used in moderation, so if he did it 2 in 2 newbie games, I'd have to think he was trying something different the second time, which would mean he was doing it as either a scum or as the doctor.

My above point remains valid.

@all: Time to reveal my plan, as it has served its purpose as well as it can right now.

My case on Chaos is utter crap in my eyes.

unvote

I had a twofold goal in mind when making my posts at/about Korts and Chaos:

1. Korts was a decoy. I specifically mentioned that I had a plan involving getting people to comment on our debate so that the scum would "see through" that issue, and react in the way I would expect of a townie; that is, they would agree with me. Based on that, I determined that Sando was quite possibly scum buddying up to me. However, this was the weak part of my gambit, because I can easily see townies buddying up to an IC.

What actually forms the divide between myself and Korts in this case is the fact that I was deliberately acting mildly scummy to get Korts to criticize me (of course, the 'random vote' issue was unintentional, but it served as a good starting point). Someone paying attention to that, and to what Korts was saying, would, as a townie (not 100%, but my estimate is that it's better than 60%) side with Korts and find me scummy, possibly even enough for a vote. A scum, on the other hand, would probably be more focused on the fact that I had a decent case on an easy townie target, and would side with me in order to have that route available to them in the event that the wagon gained steam.

2. My second, and main, part of the gambit was my case on Chaos. His unvote was a null tell in my mind (it could be scummy for the reasons I mentioned, but when he defended himself I got the impression of him being town, so I ran with it). He has defended himself rather well, and looks decently pro-town in my eyes. Sando however, fell right into my trap, establishing himself as backing me against Korts as well as Chaos, the exact behavior I was looking for.

vote: Sando

Given further developments, Japles looks like a townie to me, so does Chaos, Ojanen, and Korts. Sando is likely scum based on the above.

[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.

[Korts]

If his vote is arbitrary, whether or not that is a bad thing, wouldn't you want to preface it with that fact? Assuming he were town, and a BW did start on the target of his arbitrary vote, if he then decided to simply remove his arbitrary vote, wouldn't it seem like a huge scum tell by someone merely removing an arbitrary vote? By saying it was arbitrary, no real meaning will be read into him removing it.

Note that all first votes are arbitrary due to there not being anything to base them on. It is not to be assumed otherwise. Therefore the act of explicitly prefacing the bolded vote with the word "random" seems like a conscious maneuver, and one that has purpose. There are no good pro-town motives other than fishing for reactions (which should only be done if you're not achieving it by doing something scummy) for this.

Note that these are what I mean by random and arbitrary: random is based on nothing at all, and decided only by luck/chance/call it whatever; arbitrary is based on something, anything, and is decided by cognitive functions of the player. I don't care if you vote for a player having a stupid avatar or because their name sounds silly, just make note of the fact that

randomly

voting is counterproductive.

He initially just said he was waiting on discussion to get going, but did not pull the vote. It was not until I pressed him further that he unvoted. He did not unvote when the theory was explained. He unvoted when I kept questioning him. Quite possibly an attempt to placate me, which shows he is hesitant to enter a debate. This, in turn, implies that he does not want to be put in the spotlight, which is a scummy mentality.

I didn't notice the delay in unvoting. Noted, thank you.

Kai's Lesson 1 of being a good scumhunter: The town does not need to know everything about everything at any given time. If they did, then this would only tell the scum exactly what to do. Yes, it is pro-town to share your reasoning, but it is also pro-town to catch scum, and the two things do not always coincide. Use your best judgment as to whether information you have would be best revealed or kept to yourself.

Korts' addendum to Kai's Lesson 1: There are multiple schools of thought; full transparency of motives is a valid stance as well, since if you state all your thoughts and the processes leading up to your decisions it will be easier for town to read you, any flaws in logic will be remedied faster, and your thoughts may evoke others to find important clues as well.

Kairyuu, you seem to not understand the term WIFOM. It is correctly applied only in a situation where there are two scenarios of scum and town and neither is more likely than the other.

And yes, I endorse Tarhalindur's tells in general. Note that, like Kai said, it is important to consider scum and town motives while contemplating a tell's validity.

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.

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.

Japles is commenting only on things that directly reference him--he might be unresponsive scum. Then again he's pleading technical difficulties, so we'll see.

It was quite a fun play to make. I was disappointed that people didn't like it much.

The interesting thing, is that this quote paints you as rather scummy in my eyes. You claim to have read the game in question, where there were several townies played it correctly, and you saw my and Albert's comments on that matter. Why then, would you need to work out how to respond if you were town? Ironically, that is almost exactly the description that Adel, from the time MoS came up with it, gave when linking to the game in MD.

This is a very good point. And I can attest to Kai having played it safe in the past as scum in at least one game; but this is not a significant sample size, Kai, and I don't particularly like the implication that it is.

To be honest, I don't particularly trust the result of your gambit, Kai, since it comes down to whether a particular player felt your arguments were stronger than mine, which opinion may be entirely independent of alignment. At best it is a minor implication toward Sando being scum. His slip is a far stronger point.

I have town reads of Ojanen, and Kairyuu. Japles and Chaos are scummyish. Sando seems like a very good place for my vote.

unvote, vote: Sando

[Sando]

I'll post twice, once regarding the doc gambit, and my rather offhand remark regarding it, secondly regarding the Kairyuu vs Korts.

First, the Doc gambit. For those that don't know, Kairyuu used a gambit that he'd seen used before (i believe you said it was in your own newbie game, or by your IC from your newbie game or something along those lines). He claimed Doc first day, with no provocation (ie he wasn't in danger of being lynched and needed to claim to stay alive). It's important to note that he was a vanilla townie in that game.

He got all sorts of responses, most of them negative, however he caught the scum because they expressed their lack of understanding of the gambit way too hard. They appealed to emotion rather than logic, scummy. (When i say 'they' I mean the first day scum, I don't remember the catch on the second day one, but it was a 'perfect' game).

Now, my 'tell'. Kairyuu said quite a lot of things that game, i would

REALLY

recommend that if you wish to vote me over this that you read the thread, if nothing else it's interesting. I've linked it above, just read D1 and the end.

Kairyuu, after being hounded for the gambit all game (more for using it in a newbie game than for it being a bad gambit), agreed not to use it again in a newbie game. Now we're deviating into hypotheticals, because i'm now talking about if he'd claimed doc this game.

If he'd claimed doc this game, he'd have been lying when he said that he wouldn't use it again in a newbie game, not a good start i would say. Thinking meta, i'd have to wonder if he wasn't in fact trying the same gambit and was trying something new, ie not lying due to a technicality. If he did this, he was 1 of 2 things, the doc or a scum.

Why would you do it as Scum Kairyuu? For interests sake? To try it out, see how it goes? Since it worked so brilliantly the first time, why not try it out as scum? You're playing a game after all, the way to get better at it is to try new things.

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.

I'll post regarding Kairyuu's Korts/Chaos gambit in a sec.

[Sando]

Ok, there are 2 issues here, and i brought them up in one of my posts (#41), and that is the argument between Korts vs Kairyuu and Kairyuu vs Chaos, i shall from now on refer to these as KvK and KvC.

What are they about, in my opinion?

KvK was based around Korts complaint regarding Kairyuu 'random' voting. I personally think it is a very silly argument, but hey, it gets discussion going. It's all based on semantics in my opinion.

Also, everyone should please take a stance on the debate between myself and Korts. It's for something I'm working on.

Kairyuu asked for our opinions on the debate between him and Korts. I provided it:

Re: Kairyuu vs Korts
I think it's fairly obvious that if you wanted me to declare for a 'side', then I'd be on Kairyuu's side. I don't think that Korts seems scummy, but he seems more scummy than Kairyuu if that counts for anything. I still think it's a pretty big stretch to get so offended, or at least seem to, over what amounts to semantics with words.

And unless i misunderstood the question, i stand by this. In my view, Korts got 'angry' at Kairyuu for random voting when he was in fact arbitrarily voting. He also didn't like that Kairyuu seemingly made a big deal out of it. I think it was very semantic of Korts, although i felt that it promoted discussion, which is good.

I should point out that my 'taking your side' was purely on an argument regarding the semantics of random voting, it had nothing to do with you accusing Chaos, which i addressed in my next paragraph:

Re: Kairyuu vs Korts
I think it's fairly obvious that if you wanted me to declare for a 'side', then I'd be on Kairyuu's side. I don't think that Korts seems scummy, but he seems more scummy than Kairyuu if that counts for anything. I still think it's a pretty big stretch to get so offended, or at least seem to, over what amounts to semantics with words.

Note that i made sure to seperate these 2 things, you're now trying to tie them back together to make a fairly weak case.

I agreed that there was some scumminess to Chaos's actions, although now that you've retracted them, I guess i now disagree with you. I still believe that his unvote was scummy, whether or not you say it is a scumtell or not.

However, I did not feel that you had built a sufficient case on Chaos to make me change my vote from Japles to Chaos. I think my quoted text speaks for itself really, I saw your point regarding Chaos but I didn't think it merited a vote, still didn't even when I went through and pointed out why i thought it was scummy with a timeline of sorts.

I just want to be clear, I seperated my answers between the KvK debate and KvC debate, i think you're taking my KvK answer and applying it to the KvC debate.

[Infinis]

Also, I'm not unvoting yet. It seems to me that the RVS is all the more silly if everyone pulls their votes at first sight of serious discussion. I looked at a couple of games and now I see it's not uncommon day 1 culture. Wouldn't the votes mean a bit more and be a little more likely to trigger some reactions if they didn't evaporate so easily? I know we have now some material already but I what's the benefit of unvoting if you don't want to change you're vote yet? That's kind of why I questioned you earlier, Infinis, seemed to me like you were eager to unvote which could have some implications...

Eager to unvote...arr you serious I understand the need for jump starting the conversations but suspicion for terminating my random phase Vote and its timing this early in the day is preposterous. Are you intentionally shotgun style accusing many to later attack your accusers as OMGUS voters?

[Sando]

Kairyuu and Chaos, scum.

Why? Well lets see:

Random vote: Chaos40 for being the last person to post before me.

@Korts:

It's not the fact that Kairyuu's vote was arbitrary that bugs me. It's the fact that he explicitly stated that it's random, pre-emptively defending against any fake cases that might be built on it and giving him another reason to hop off the wagon in case it builds up.

I wonder, does the fact that it has become a serious vote since I made it change your opinion of it? As it stands, I didn't like Chaos' response. He backtracked a good deal when I questioned him, and I find that suspicious. So yeah, the vote is serious.

If Kairyuu is scum, Chaos is more likely as well--random voting a scumpartner is not unheard of by far, and with the attempt at denying any real responsibility for the vote I smell distancing.

It's a valid strategy, but quite a foolish one to use in a Newbie game. When an IC votes a Newbie partner, said partner is going to feel rather more pressured than if anyone else voted them; therefore making them much more likely to slip up and get lynched.

Why is this odd? Kairyuu got accused of being linked to Chaos because he voted for him. What does he do? He makes his vote 'serious'. He then says that it would be a silly thing to do in a newbie game, however, this is a quote from the 'doc' game that this blew up over:

The only way to teach is to play at your best. I like this play because it gives me the opportunity to boost the activity levels of the thread by generating a major issue to discuss, which people can't hide from. A newbie game is still a game of mafia, and handling it with kiddie gloves only serves to hurt the newbies who are trying to get a feel for how it is played on this site. So yeah, I respect your opinion, but I disagree.

and

If they're confused, then they should just keep asking questions until they understand. I'm not really seeing why you are worried about being overly gentle on the new players. If you do that then they think they'll be able to get the same treatment in a larger game and might not be able to deal with the extra pressure. Again, all people need to do is ask questions. That's what the ICs are here for.

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... &&start=50

Posts 50 and 68 respectively in the game i linked. So Kairyuu has changed his mind and is advocating playing differently in this game when he said clearly in the other game that ICs should play hard. Also, while it is apparently a silly move, you also send a signal to your scumbuddy to not worry about the vote by saying that when an IC scumbuddy votes a newbie it puts pressure on them. This is pretty subtle in saying that he shouldn't feel pressured, but when combined with your previous comments, it seems like a nice way to look like you're pressuring him when you're not.

Now i figure if i can start getting you to talk about a previous game, you'll screw up, and you did, i just didn't notice till now. You've changed your mind from 'don't treat newbies with kids gloves' to 'IC scum need to be careful not to put pressure on their partners in newbie games'. I think the reason you've changed your mind is because you're now scum.

Then we have this revelation:

My case on Chaos is utter crap in my eyes.

Wow, people start actually looking at Chaos in depth, and now the case is 'utter crap'. This is pure distancing, you lead the charge on your protege scum, then once you FORCE people to associate their vote on chaos with agreeing with you, you pull the rug out from under them, thereby destroying any scumhunting on chaos. It was nice, i like it, how did you do it? With this little gem:

Also, everyone should please take a stance on the debate between myself and Korts

Then when i reply regarding the Kairyuu vs Korts debate, you attack me for my views on the Kairyuu vs Chaos.

You also say that i'm buddying up to an IC, yet the argument was between 2 ICs and you asked us to take sides... You deliberately manipulated someone (me) into getting the tag of buddying up to an IC, there was no way to avoid it.

Not before your buddy can find something 'scummy' in my post though.

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?

I respond to this, and Kairyuu takes over the 'scumhunting' for Chaos, that's nice of him, don't you think? This is after:

Ojanen: Interesting, but not scummy. I like the questions. It shows you're trying to scumhunt.
Sando: Essentially the same as Ojanen. Putting actual effort into the game.

Now, fine that he changes his mind, but it seems pretty oportunistic in light of everything else to jump on someone you previously thought was 'interesting, but not scummy'.

This all feels like amazing distancing from Kairyuu, he didn't just vote on Chaos, he pulls his vote in such a way that noone else can really vote for Chaos. I still don't feel that Chaos has defended himself adequately, and Kairyuu's defence is:

2. My second, and main, part of the gambit was my case on Chaos. His unvote was a null tell in my mind (it could be scummy for the reasons I mentioned, but when he defended himself I got the impression of him being town, so I ran with it). He has defended himself rather well, and looks decently pro-town in my eyes.

His unvote was a null tell, but could have been scummy... And when he defended himself, he got the impression that he was town, that's some pretty good scumhunting Kairyuu, thanks for sticking to your convictions like the rulebook says we should.

Kairyuu has distanced, changed his mind from his previous newbie game, and manipulated me into the tag of IC buddying. He's also effectively killed discussion regarding his previous 'suspect' based off his gut. All well and good to vote with your gut, don't destroy the possibility of us discussing it without looking scummy. Kairyuu, you're scum.

Unvote - Vote: Kairyuu

FOS: Chaos40

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.

Look forward to hearing from you all, all of you you lurking bums, this just got good!

[Kairyuu]

This game just got quite a bit more interesting. Expect a nice, long post addressing every one of your points tomorrow Sando.

Oh, and thanks for the OMGUS by the way. It definitely tells me I hit this one out of the park.

confirm vote: Sando

[Sando]

Sorry, a friend of mine is reading this and pointed out to me that i misquoted, myself of all people. Post 56, i posted the Kairyuu vs Korts quote twice, the second quote should be:

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. I can see why you feel he's scummy, but considering the above, I'd rather keep my vote on Japles for the moment.

God i look stupid now, considering i said "Note that i made sure to seperate these 2 things". So yeah, this quote should be my 3rd quote in 56. It's referenced from post 41.

I did in fact seperate them quite well, thank you very much, in my original post 41.

[Sando]

This game just got quite a bit more interesting. Expect a nice, long post addressing every one of your points tomorrow Sando.

Oh, and thanks for the OMGUS by the way. It definitely tells me I hit this one out of the park.

confirm vote: Sando

Am i correct in thinking that OMGUS would be voting for you simply (and basically only) because you've voted/made a case against me? Assuming i am...

I've explained why it isn't OMGUS. When you started taking me out of context and i started feeling manipulated, I went back and reread the thread and some of the 'doc' thread, then i posted my thoughts. You forced me to respond to your accusations, in writing them i realised how manipulative you were being. You were a lot more obvious with your manipulations in your last newbie game, and you seem to have changed a lot since then, both in actions and views. Considering you were vanilla then, that doesn't bode well for you being vanilla here.

Feel free to correct my view of OMGUS, you making a case against me where i felt manipulated and taken out of context, combined with me knowing that i'm townie, set me to looking at the person accusing me. I didn't think this is OMGUS, but i realise that you want people to think that's why I'm doing this, and i respect that, scum.

By the way, as an IC, how come that you know that a quick lynch is almost never good for town, you know i'm at L-2 (you just posted) and yet make no mention of it. Thanks for confirming my views on you.

P.S. I've replied

a lot

today and will continue to if discussion continues, i have the day off, i wont be like this every day.

[Sando]

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.

Your first paragraph seems really bad, here's what i actually said:

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. I can see why you feel he's scummy, but considering the above, I'd rather keep my vote on Japles for the moment.

If you think this is being the 'main supporter' i'd hate to see what the other supporters were doing. I basically said exactly what you're saying Ojanen said, 'Ojanen being another but only stating that she could see the point and not making much of it'.

I didn't make much of it, so i didn't vote you, i didn't even FOS you. I saw his point, still didn't think you were scum. You questioned me on it, and i responded to that, i still didn't think you were scum, so i didn't vote you.

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

So here's the breakdown for you:

- Kairyuu accuses Chaos, asks for opinions.
- I agree that Kairyuu has a point, but decline to vote as i don't think Chaos is scum.
- Chaos gets in my face (not Kairyuu's btw), asks me to explain
- I explain, funnily enough, because i was agreeing with Kairyuu's points to begin with, just not his conclusion, i basically used his points.

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'm sticking with my FOS on you, you're scummy mate.

[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.

[Sando]

I'll post on this once I have a chance to go through it in a few hours.

Quickly, if you use the 'quote' button it'll do it. The other way is that instead of {quote}, type {quote="Chaos40"}.

Obviously change the brackets back to [ ]. End it with {/quote} and that'll create a quote of 'Chaos40 said'.

[Sando]

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.

I didn't say that I said the same thing as Ojanen, I said that " I basically said exactly what you're saying Ojanen said", there's a difference there.

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?

Are you deliberately misreading what i said, or do you not understand that it's part of my writing style (and speaking/debating style to ask a question and then answer it myself. I asked myself why i would have think on how to respond, then i answered it. If you don't understand why I don't want to be in the position of thinking someone is either the doc or scum (at the same time, Im obviously happy to think someone is one or the other), then I'm a little worried.

You're trying to pull apart my argument, and it's very weak. You didn't actually address my answer, just pulled the first sentence out of context, and your subsequent question I've already answered. If you're not satisfied with my answer, don't just ask again, push on specific points.

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.

Wait, what? Are you now saying that this is a minor point? This is what this whole thing has blown up over, and now you're saying it's a minor point? I'm at L-2 with 2 ICs on me, and it's a 'minor point'?

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.

You're right, I've reread it, and you didn't really push me. I felt 'pushed' because i felt your answer to my post, as well as others, was unsatisfactory. I felt the need to clarify what my view was, so that you could not claim to not understand my position.

And i'm pretty sure your last paragraph is quoting someone else.

You've misinterpreted me, seemingly taken me out of context, although that could be a misunderstanding, and i still believe in the case for you can Kairyuu being scum. You have, however, found one part of my case against you where i was wrong, well done, should we just ignore the rest?

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)

[Sando]

Since I'm going to bed soon, and last time i did that 3 votes came up on me, and 3 more would be 1 more than needed to hammer, i think we should have the quick-lynch talk. I personally think that one reason Kairyuu didn't post a longer reply earlier was that he was hoping you'd quick-lynch and he wouldn't have to worry about the annoyance of being questioned by me.

I am currently at L-2, this means that 2 more votes and i'm deadsies. I've read a few games, I'm yet to see one where a quick-lynch is used beneficially, or even mentioned in a positive light, on D1. A quick lynch effectively kills discussion, especially when one of the main discussers is lynched.

As townies we want as much information as possible, quick lynches stop the flow of information. They are almost universally good for scum, hence why we don't want to do it.

Discussion should probably be had regarding the fallout of someone flipping as a townie. You've just had this big bandwagon on someone, and they turn townie, someone screwed up somewhere.

But for now, I want to make sure that anyone voting from here on out realises what they're doing. If you want to hammer, fine, but making the hammer vote then saying 'oh bugger i didn't mean to happen' is incredibly bad for town. Make sure you know what you're doing.

Also, a hammer, and potentially the L-1 vote, will be seen as scummy unless backed up by very good reasoning. Personally i think this is the biggest reason not to hammer me, as i believe both scum are voting for me already, so someone else hammering will give them ammunition they need against another townie.

The L-1 vote is hugely dangerous, and shouldn't be used to pressure. L-2 is pressure enough at this stage of the game. L-1 makes it incredibly easy for a scum to come along and hammer, claim they didn't mean to, and they lynch a townie while giving away only a smallish tell. L-1 means you want this person hammered.

Remember, if you lynch a townie D1, their opinions are the only opinions of a confirmed townie that you have, you want to have as much of it as possible before doing it. And if they turn scum, the more they talk, the more likely they are to get linked to their scumbuddy.

Also, I'm not sure why I'm talking about this and not an IC. I think one of the ICs is scum, and since a quick lynch on me would be good i can understand him not talking on it i guess.

Night people, i eagerly await Kairyuu's reply. I wont be responding for nearly 24 hours from now most probably.

[Korts]

Ugh. This is just like me, getting a wall'o'texter newbie game on my hands... I'll be catching up soon.

[Vel-Rahn Koon]

Official Vote Count

Josh Lyman - 1 (Ojanen)
Ojanen - 1 (Josh Lyman)

Sando - 3 (Kairyuu, Chaos40, Korts)

Kairyuu - 1 (Sando)

Not Voting - 3 (Bekkatha, Infinis, Japles)

5 to Lynch

[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.

[Sando]

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".

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.

I'll address your last point tonight Chaos40, i think we've just misunderstood each other again. The bit that you proved wrong about my argument was my accusation that you pushed me to explain my viewpoint early on, which you didn't, reread the sentence with that in mind. More on this later, and Kairyuu can post too

[Sando]

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.

Can you please note what part of my defence you don't believe? Just saying 'i don't believe you' doesn't give me much oportunity to defend myself. I'd rather my defence wasn't purely about you and Kairyuu being scum, therefor i'm not. As you said, I've tried to defend myself against the accusations of scumminess, or at least explain them, but if you just say 'i don't believe you', then there's not much I can do to defend myself.

And if you find my argument confusing, ask for clarification, don't just dismiss it. It sounds like you don't want clarification on my arguments...

[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.

[Ojanen]

This has certainly flared up.

For the gambit I think I lean on the side of it not really giving substantial scumtells:

What actually forms the divide between myself and Korts in this case is the fact that I was deliberately acting mildly scummy to get Korts to criticize me (of course, the 'random vote' issue was unintentional, but it served as a good starting point). Someone paying attention to that, and to what Korts was saying, would, as a townie (not 100%, but my estimate is that it's better than 60%) side with Korts and find me scummy, possibly even enough for a vote. A scum, on the other hand, would probably be more focused on the fact that I had a decent case on an easy townie target, and would side with me in order to have that route available to them in the event that the wagon gained steam.

The thing is, if you look at the responses, most of the people who commented on the issue before you terminated the experiment were talking from a very general viewpoint and if anything tended to disagree with Korts. So your townie reaction prediction at least seems a bit off. Also, Sando had already commented on this before you talked about vote shifting serious, so I don't think his opinion on KvK was dictated by the will to pursue Chaos as an easy target. If he's scum, then ok, it could have been somewhat convenient but not calculated, I think. KvC, well, I also stated that I could see the case so I don't think it's an unreasonable townie opinion to have, but it is true his reaction was eager.

The Slip, on the other hand, is interesting and Kairyuu could be onto something there. Too weak to get make it L1 yet, though, and didn't have time today to more than just skim rest of the arguments on each side.

Eager to unvote...arr you serious I understand the need for jump starting the conversations but suspicion for terminating my random phase Vote and its timing this early in the day is preposterous. Are you intentionally shotgun style accusing many to later attack your accusers as OMGUS voters?

I've been reading more games here and I see now that it's common practice in this forum, so you're right, it's not suspicious, though intuitively the custom pinged me at first. Your second sentence is noted as rather jumpy. That would be ridiculous from my part.


@Kairyuu: Confirm vote: wasn't mentioned in the rules, what is it, a game mechanic or a rhetorical device for weight?