HOLA MIKEK
I'm not going to do a PBPA because they are very time consuming both to create and for you guys to read, and I find they are usually unpersuasive.
And yet...
Wall-E posted a lot of fluffy posts
, especially early on. I'll not be addressing those individually, but I will note that posting fluff increases your apparent activity without actually helping to scumhunt.
Define 'a lot' of fluffy posts, please. What number would be scummy and therefore worthy of being used as a reason to lynch me?
Wall-E moved his vote around erratically
.
As I do in every game.
Wall-E is frequently evasive.
As noted above, he voted frequently without giving reasons, and when pressed for reasons his given explanations rarely added up. He often just flat out ignores questions. Particularly egregious is post 368. This took ages for an explanation, and when it came it made no sense. He has just ignored further comments on this issue.
You don't like my reasoning on some things? That's what I'm reading here. The other part is that I'm being evasive. Not actively so, but I suppose I can't deny a fair amount of laziness in this game on my part. I've rarely gone very deeply into the discussions.
What, specifically, are these things you don't like my reasoning on?
I'm going to introduce you to the concept of anticipatory information. You know I'm going to ask the question, so please append it to your initial post.
Corndog will be our code-word for this concept for the duration of this topic.
Post 462: Unvote - After claiming the game is over and fabricating a spurious case on me, he abruptly withdraws his vote.
Spurious? Please back this claim with some evidence or argument. I feel my actions there were fully justified.
Wall-E's "misunderstanding" about the game set-up looks insincere
. It would make no sense at all to have night kills in this set-up, the game would be won or lost on day 1. I find it hard to believe he could make this mistake. At the time I accepted it, thinking to myself that his not knowing how the scum operate is a pretty strong town tell. Now, I think this tell was fabricated. It seems implausible to me that he could actually misunderstand the game the way he did, so it was faked. Only scum would have reason to fake that.
The only possible refutation I can give to this statement is to say that it was not fabricated, I truly have never played a nightless mafia game before this one, and the conceptual mechanics of the setup had eluded some of the finer points of my reasoning.
Early on he was pinging his vote about between Tenchi and Zwet/Archon.
These three are problem players for me because they are active but seemingly always mildly scummy. Hence my fascination with attempting to discern their alignments. Did it interrupt something momentously awesome you were contemplating undertaking?
When Archon claimed, he voted for him. He then voted Tenchi for pushing a case on Archon (when Wall-E himself had just been voting Archon!). Then he votes Archon and fakeclaims without reasoning to "fish for reactions". He never explains what reactions he was looking for, or found. I'm not sure what reaction he expected other than "WTF are you voting for someone you said was town, without giving reasons?".
After this he unvotes (apparently bored of trying to make something stick to either of those two) and votes me, claiming the game is over. He doesn't explain this at all, but eventually posts a PBPA that is totally unconvincing. Once that's dismissed he retracts his vote. His eventual explanation for his vote was that he found speculating about pairings to be a scumtell, but now realized this was wrong. That makes no sense. Why would he declare "the game is over" if he found a mild scumtell? This is still unexplained, and he just ignores requests for explanation.
In my opinion, if you want me lynched, this could be the angle to push. I have arguably been pretty evasive, though I assure you it's due to limited time and nothing to do with intentionally being evasive. I understand that you cannot tell the difference, and if there is a thing you want me to talk about, put it in a post like this:
YOU wrote:WALL-E: WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR ME
HERE?!
and I will do my best to appease you.
He seems to like starting new conversations, rather than actually drawing any firm conclusions or giving clear reasoning. For example, when I asked for specific explanation of post 368, he decided to make a PBPA analysis on me instead. He was probably hoping to change the subject and distract from having to explain. There's also this "NOT claim" circle thing we did which was his idea. The idea was unexplained, nobody but him knows what we're going to get out of it, and all he's done with the finished data so far is ask me to re-iterate my NOT-claim. Prediction: Nothing much will come of this NOT-claim thing and Wall-E will try to change the subject again.
More on this later.
The Wall-E/Looker claim business.
Reading this with fresh eyes, this could have been staged to make us conclude that they are not lovers. When I first saw this exchange, all I drew from it was that Looker and Wall-E could not be lovers. But what I didn't notice was that if they were scum together, the could each have another player to claim as a lover, while taking advantage of this large distancing effort of making clear they are not going to claim one another as lovers.
That was the moment I discovered how brilliant it would be for us all to not-claim.
First of all, some people would be nervous even to talk about it. These would be people lurking to hope the idea goes away because they do not want to be the one to lose for their team by breaking their team's strategy apart. Some would be flat-out against it.
I considered mikek mostly scummy for being against it but not stating WHY he was.
He wouldn't point out downsides for NOT-claiming despite all the negativity.
Corndogs.
Post 368
. Talked about this above, but I think it bears repeating: Wall-E has refused to explain this post, and given a false explanation for it.
Bullshit PBPA
to distract from post 368. Reading the PBPA it was obvious to me that he had not noticed any of these things and drawn a conclusion from them, he had started with a conclusion he wanted to find evidence for and gone scraping for it. In the end it was so weak and easily refuted I'm surprised he bothered posting it. Surprised that is until I realised it was actually made to distract from his inexplicable post 368 and make it look as though he had his reasons.
You rather remind me of a very stern person who has purchased a corndog and realized that it is stale.
Rather than talk about how awful the corndog was, all he can do is say, "I hated it! Absolutely hated it!" and will not say what was wrong with the corndog.
What I'm asking is this: Rather than you say, "It's nasty! So awful! I can't eat a bite!" I want you to say "You burned the corndog and used old hotdog oil and also this is a rat whisker here."
How did I burn this corndog? What about my case against you is flimsy, weak or otherwise unworthy of consideration? Worse! Worthy of my deconsideration, if you will. You say it, but do you MEAN it? If you meant it, I'd expect to see more... depth to your thoughts.
More Corndog. Anticipate that I and everyone else will be assuming the worst from everything you say and fill in some blanks for me to work with. I like Cumbaya as much as the next bloke, but we've got a game to play mister!
Inconsistency over claiming
. He said he found it very suspicious that I was "pushing for massclaim". I was never pushing for a massclaim until later in the game, when it would help town most. He also said he thinks Archon very likely town, and Archon was more in favour of massclaim, and earlier, than me! Inconsistent. He's also now had us do a NOT-claim each. If a full claim:
Wall-E wrote:will give the scum a ton of information. It will give us zero, but lock the scum into their claims, which they undoubtedly have already set-up.
... then how can it be that a partial claim will help? If a full claim gives ZERO information to us, a partial claim has to give even less. I think Wall-E has two reasons for asking us to do this: to distract us and to change the subject, and also to get scum enough information to deduce the lover pairs, without telling us too much of use.
Again. What would you rather talk about/do instead of listen to me post? What was I distracting from? I need you to believe what you say and convey such with your language. If you really do believe I was distracting from something, what was it?
Finally, what I saw as a fairly big
scum slip
he made while trying to fabricate a PBPA on me:
Wall-E wrote:Despite all the scummy things I've done - voting with no justification, declaring one claimed lover scum and his partner town, throwing an accusation on mikek with no real explaination - he fails to even basically scumhunt by directly addressing me with a single question.
Unprovoked description of your own play as scummy is hella scummy
It was provoked by you potentially being the mafia.
I noticed you were hesitant toward the not-claim and even mildly vulgar during the time it became clear that others would be playing along. I hypothesize that scum would be jumpy like that, afraid of not-claiming incorrectly and revealing themselves in some unknown way. Like someone who is watching a terrible train crash and is unable to stop it, but stays and yells loudly out of concern. You were concerned that the one lynch we needed would be you because of something you'd said or done earlier in the thread.
The problem is that I have already claimed that I distanced from my partner in the beginning of day 1, thereby destroying this notion that there will be no such behavior from anyone. I have nothing to show you that will tell you that I'm definitely not the mafia, but I DO now have nearly ... 20 pages of information to read and think about. Did you want to add something useful to that?
Get more corndogs.
