Mini 793: Scrubs mafia- GAME OVER

[Brandi]

"Maybe you should read more Brian, you are on the list of those who have been lurking."

Is a perfectly fine and acceptable TRUE STATEMENT. I suggested he should read more, because he had his information wrong. Seems like you don't like any sort of positive suggestions at ALL inhim. Seriously, you could at least -TRY- to make some sort of logical sense.

[Fishythefish]

hp has yet to offer much of an opinion on anything. Seems like active lurking.

giving an opinion on a limited number of things=/=not giving much opinion

Accusing someone of something they haven't done is not a townish idea imo.

My post was based on an impression that, on review, was largely wrong. Your posts are short, and you have not addressed some of the things others have been talking about, but while you have yet to build a big case on anyone, there is more content there than I thought. Retracted.

[Dr. Perry Cox]

Votecount

4 Brandi

(Slicey, Fishythefish, BrianMcQueso, inHimshallibe)

3 Slicey

(Maturin24, Tzeentch, Furry)

3 inHimshallibe

(Brandi, veerus, hp [leaves])

Not voting: Debonair Danny DiPietro, Gorrad

(Inactive players have been prodded.)

[Debonair Danny DiPietro]

inHim cut my quote which has a way of distorting things in this case as it allows the actual order of things to be flipped. I unvoted as to note that I was not seriously voting for fishy, not to free up my vote to vote inHim. The question mark and tone of the post aren't a reflection of me searching for approval, but instead me presenting a potentially interesting point, but one I didn't have a strong opinion on.

Well one thing that I dont get is why anyone would never have a vote out once they even see a slight scum tell. There are just so many reasons to be voting as compared to not voting, if you really want me to list them I will go do that, but it should be fairly obvious. Point aside though.

It's not that I don't see the value of voting, but that you're downplaying the detriments of a trigger-happy voting style.

Show me where wagoning in the random stage is harmful. Seriously, its a different playstyle but it doesnt mean he is scum. Just try and learn to read it.

Let's see, as inHim has shown it's a good way to bring suspicion on yourself, which is generally counterproductive for a townie. If also done to the wrong player it can induce false positives which are bad and while I trust myself to properly interpret such a bandwagon that's not a trust I can extend to other players very easily in a game of mafia, now can I?

Furthermore, you're changing the argument from an original indictment of me for not shamelessly bandwagoning inHim to defending inHim despite the fact that I've never really attacked him. I've only disagreed with your assertion that an aggressive voting style is always good, I've never stated that it's always bad.

There is really only two tones, pro and anti-town. I dont really think there is such thing as completely neutral tone unless you basically say "I have no opinion whatsoever". Saying "I think he votes on too little reasoning" is still in a negative light given that voting with little reason is viewed much more widely as a scum telll then anything else. Even if you view it as a null tell, bringing up something that is likely to be viewed as a scumtell is scummy if its not accompanied by a vote.

Only two tones? Mafia must be so much easier in your binary world because from where I sit not only do you have to properly define words and actions along a full spectrum from completely anti-town to pro-town you also have to then take the analysis to another level and then determine the likely motivations and explanations for those behaviors.

Everything is either anti or pro town once you do all that. Hell if you really wanted me to I could of said "Everything starts out as something that is said. Now, you take the quote and apply your personal standards of if any tells that are in it are pro or anti town. From there you apply it to the situation at hand and draw conclusions. From there you are able to decide if it is a pro or anti town quote". In the end its still going to be a town or scum tell.

Yeah, I'm going to disagree with this, there's a huge amount of junk posted in any game of mafia. The ability to parse through it for valuable info is key. The tendency to over analyze every last word looking for a scumtell based on the spacing of the o's in looking is conversely not productive.

Besides you said it yourself, "given that voting with little reason is viewed much more widely as a scum tell" and that's what you and inHim apparently expected of me; to vote based on a little reason I found. So, essentially you're faulting me for not behaving in a scummy fashion, peculiar behavior itself.

I dont view it as a scum tell in the random stage first off. Also what are you saying here? Im missing it. If you see him as the scummiest, even if it is not a lynching tell, you still should vote. I usually am not happy with a lynch untill around page 15, but I vote before then.

And I'm happy for you that you've got a style of game you like, but don't try and dictate how I should play the game.

[hp [leaves]]

I reread Brandi and don't understand why she has four votes.

[Gorrad]

Right now, I don't really get town vibes from inhim OR Brandi. I'd bet that this is not a two-townie argument.

[Furry]

Prod on slicey and anyone else who might need one?

More after I get off work tomorrow

[inHimshallibe]

I reread Brandi and don't understand why she has four votes.

Well, there's probably a scum on there.

Also, I think it was you who mentioned I hadn't responded to all of the arguments against me. Bump or it didn't happen.

[hp [leaves]]

Trying to not rock the boat ---> scumtell

Here comes some WIFOM: would I really have

announced

my non-rocking-the-boat-ness if I were scum?

Yes, you would. And are. Responding to arguments with WIFOM is also a scumtell.

Well... are you even sure that was me trying to not rock the boat? My intention was more along the lines of, "I want to vote someone I think is scummier than many of the other players in the game,

and

other players might agree with me this time."

So you think DDD is not scummy anymore?

Voting lurkers is just like forcing them to post. You can also gather reactions.

What's this?!?! Voting for other reasons? What a novel idea.

Hmm, I may finally have a thoughtful post to make in this game, but I'm going to go do other stuff for the day. I'll be back later.

I don't understand this post. Can someone explain?

bump

[Fishythefish]

I reread Brandi and don't understand why she has four votes.

Well, there's probably a scum on there.

What? You should think that there are good reasons to be on Brandi's wagon, since you are on it yourself.

unvote, vote: inHim

I don't think you believe in the wagon you are on.

[veerus]

I reread Brandi and don't understand why she has four votes.

Well, there's probably a scum on there.

What? You should think that there are good reasons to be on Brandi's wagon, since you are on it yourself.

unvote, vote: inHim

I don't think you believe in the wagon you are on.

That, in a nutshell, has been the basis of my vote since early on. He's just jumping from wagon to wagon until something takes without a real conviction or opinion.

[inHimshallibe]

Trying to not rock the boat ---> scumtell

Here comes some WIFOM: would I really have

announced

my non-rocking-the-boat-ness if I were scum?

Yes, you would. And are. Responding to arguments with WIFOM is also a scumtell.

Well... are you even sure that was me trying to not rock the boat? My intention was more along the lines of, "I want to vote someone I think is scummier than many of the other players in the game,

and

other players might agree with me this time."

So you think DDD is not scummy anymore?

No, I still think he is scummy. I was trying my part to actually put some pressure on scum, and I saw there was no support for the DDD wagon at that time. So I hopped on over to Brandi.

Voting lurkers is just like forcing them to post. You can also gather reactions.

What's this?!?! Voting for other reasons? What a novel idea.

Hmm, I may finally have a thoughtful post to make in this game, but I'm going to go do other stuff for the day. I'll be back later.

I don't understand this post. Can someone explain?

bump

"Voting for other reasons than necessarily to lynch?" would have been a better statement.

[Tzeentch]

Alright all, I'm sorry I've been so quiet recently - I've only really had time to read at work for the last few days (been trying to organise getting a new place) but will be contributing more when I get home tonight.

[inHimshallibe]

I reread Brandi and don't understand why she has four votes.

Well, there's probably a scum on there.

What? You should think that there are good reasons to be on Brandi's wagon, since you are on it yourself.

unvote, vote: inHim
I don't think you believe in the wagon you are on.

Oh, come off it. He asked why there were four votes. At the very least by playing the odds one would figure that one scum is currently voting in that pool of four.

Also, this Brandi vote is splitting the town quite effectively, and a scum would be wise to bus.

That's not to say that I don't have conviction in the vote I made, or that I don't believe the other two (or one, or three) town voters are making good votes.

[Fishythefish]

That's not the point.

You were explaining the fact that Brandi's wagon had 4 votes on it. You didn't even mention Brandi's scumminess in doing this. Of course it's very possible there is a scum on that wagon- but if you think Brandi is scum you should tend to believe the other players on her wagon are more likely town than the average. Answering hp's question/statement in that way is an irrelevance, and it doesn't feel like a post made by a townie who thinks he's voting for scum.

[Dr. Perry Cox]

Votecount

4 inHimshallibe

(Brandi, veerus, hp [leaves], Fishythefish)

3 Brandi

(Slicey, BrianMcQueso, inHimshallibe)

3 Slicey

(Maturin24, Tzeentch, Furry)

Not voting: Debonair Danny DiPietro, Gorrad

(Inactive players have been prodded. Maturin24 has not picked up his prod and will be replaced at the end of D1 if still alive.)

[inHimshallibe]

That's not the point.

You were explaining the fact that Brandi's wagon had 4 votes on it. You didn't even mention Brandi's scumminess in doing this. Of course it's very possible there is a scum on that wagon- but if you think Brandi is scum you should tend to believe the other players on her wagon are more likely town than the average. Answering hp's question/statement in that way is an irrelevance, and it doesn't feel like a post made by a townie who thinks he's voting for scum.

I had mentioned Brandi's scumminess in several posts before that one. I suppose I assume too much.

hp's comment was kind of offhanded and rhetorical; I'm not sure he was expecting much of a reply. I did reply, and in a similar fashion to the way he posed his statement; I just chose to use quite possibly one of the most reloaded responses that I could muster. I pretty well

knew

someone would raise this point, but in being completely honest with the town I expressed all of my thoughts on the matter (my suspicions of Brandi plus my thoughts on her wagon. At the moment I'm still guessing 2-1 or 3-0 town to scum. I believe Fishy to be town, so at the time I was thinking 3-1 or 4-0).

[hp [leaves]]

I'd like veerus to post more.

[Furry]

(Inactive players have been prodded. Maturin24 has not picked up his prod and will be replaced at the end of D1 if still alive.)

Wait seriously? We wont get a replacement for the entire day?

Also more slicey votes, might get him to respond to the things against him instead of trying to lurk them away.

[Furry]

Let's see, as inHim has shown it's a good way to bring suspicion on yourself, which is generally counterproductive for a townie. If also done to the wrong player it can induce false positives which are bad and while I trust myself to properly interpret such a bandwagon that's not a trust I can extend to other players very easily in a game of mafia, now can I?

Furthermore, you're changing the argument from an original indictment of me for not shamelessly bandwagoning inHim to defending inHim despite the fact that I've never really attacked him. I've only disagreed with your assertion that an aggressive voting style is always good, I've never stated that it's always bad.

You are right that this doesnt really have anything to do with the situation at hand, so im fine with admitting difference of playstyle and moving on. If you ever use him play at the beginning though ill be back and more obstinant then ever.

Yeah, I'm going to disagree with this, there's a huge amount of junk posted in any game of mafia. The ability to parse through it for valuable info is key. The tendency to over analyze every last word looking for a scumtell based on the spacing of the o's in looking is conversely not productive.

Sure it is, the more you can pick up about the nuances, you can pick up things that dont line up with what has been going on for the rest of the game.

And I'm happy for you that you've got a style of game you like, but don't try and dictate how I should play the game.

Well this isnt quite my style, when its my style im posting three or four times a day. That involves a lot of WoTs, arguments etc etc.

[Brandi]

Hi, I've been at a friends house the past few days, will be making an effort for a decent post soon.

[veerus]

(Inactive players have been prodded. Maturin24 has not picked up his prod and will be replaced at the end of D1 if still alive.)

Wait seriously? We wont get a replacement for the entire day?

As I was reading the thread, I thought the same thing... That's a bit ridiculous and robs us of a day's input from another player.

DDD, your argument with Furry quickly derailed into theory instead of scumhunting... Who do you think is scummy right now?

[Brandi]

Making an INCREDIBLY LONG POST SOON. Look out for it =P

[Brandi]

Alright, I've done a re-read, and so I would like to address my case against inHim, as well as many other thigns, so that those who haven't been paying full attention, or those who are confused, can better understand my convictions as well as my line of reasoning for - everything. Also so I can post my thoughts on other players.

Page 1-

Random voting, Furry goes and places a 3rd vote on me with no explanation, which I questioned, because in general, if a person places a 3rd vote on a player during the random stage, they generally have a reason for it.

Fishy implied that my 'reaction' was 'extreme.' Because of the fact that 3 votes on a player during a random stage is pushing it, I believe it was perfectly understandable that I make a note to question it. At first I assumed that maybe he did it out of spite, because I was facetiously making a jest at the furry fandom with my random vote towards him. If I had offended him, that would imply bad town play, because his vote would have been out of emotion, but he went on to state that the vote was indeed random, and for him personally, 3 random votes doesn't seem scummy, or odd. So it was no longer an issue.

Gorrad votes Furry for the 3rd vote, Fishy votes Gorrad for voting for Furry, Furry unvotes and votes for Fishy for voting for Gorrad instead of me.

This line here:

- Yes, I view both Brandi and Gorrad as slightly scummy- Brandi for her reaction to random votes, which I believe scum react slightly worse to, and Gorrad for automatically voting for the third voter of a wagon, which could be a defense of Brandi.

This is an example of the POST HOC fallacy. Fishy notes that my reaction to a 'random vote' was 'bad.' When at the point of my reaction, It was quite CLEAR that I did NOT know that the vote was random.

Next up, HP makes his guess on '4' scum.

First serious post by inhim:

unvote
vote: Furry

I don't like the way you backed down from that vote, even if it was "random."

This is a terrible line of reasoning. The first thing that you notice is that he put "random" in quotations. This implies that Furry's vote was not random. However, Furry noted that his vote on me was in fact, random.

Second of all, inHim just did the VERY THING that he is voting Furry for. He took his

random

vote off of Brian, and put it on Furry. Just like Furry took his

random

vote off of me, and put it onto Fishy. Hypocrite much?

Third, there is nothing wrong with removing a random vote. Random votes are just to get the game going, very little to no information can be gathered from random votes, therefore it is only reasonable, for the sake of

PROGRESSING THE GAME

, that a random vote be either a) reinforced with serious evidence, or b) removed, and a serious vote be placed on another player for some actual reasoning.

Fourth of all, the fact that he wanted 3

random

votes to stay on a player implies that he was hoping for some sort of baseless QUICKLYNCH to happen. Which is INCREDIBLY SCUMMY.

Moving on.

I go on to post my initial gut feeling for the game. I note that I get a null tell from HP, even though that probably wasn't necessary beacuse everyone else other than Fishy, Gorrad, and inHim were neutral to me as well. inHim as I had previously stated was acting scummy, Gorrad just seemed to have a general towniness about him, and Fishy seemed like he was digging too hard for things that weren't there, but that sort of assertion I thought, was probably beacuse he really wanted to find scum. So I mentioned how I felt.

Page 2

HP makes a point that 'trying too hard' can also be a scumtell. I didn't reply to him, but I made a mental note of it.
Veerus votes HP for calling out 4 scum in a 12 player game.
Fishy jumps on, agreeing with that reason.
HP questions Veerus.
Fishy says that it is serious.
HP says that 4 is the maximum.
Furry says that isn't a valid reason to bring up 4 possible scum.
Maturin questions inHim, says he doesn't like Furry and my 'banter' [There was no banter, Furry didn't really respond to ME] and he doesn't like how I voted inHim because it was a defense of furry. [Odd that he thought it was a defense, which it obviously wasn't]
Gorrad posts again, spouting some sense on the 4-person-scum group idea.

At that point I note that I don't believe that what HP had to say was enough for any sort of lynch. I've never been in a mini before, I really wasn't aware of the likeliness of 4 scum, therefore I wasn't really sure -at that point- of whether or not there was 4 in this game.
Fishy agrees with Gorrad, that 4 scum is unlikely. However he doesn't unvote HP at that point.
Brian votes Fishy for pushing his vote against HP.
Gorrad votes me.
Fishy notes that he thinks 4 scum is possible, and therefore he has a good reason to have a vote on HP.
I question Gorrad's vote.
Furry goes on to say that 4 scum really doesn't make any sense.
Gorrad explains his reason for voting me. [Because I said that we shouldn't forget about HP's 'slip']
Next post, from inHim:

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

This right here, proving point #4 of my beef with his previous post. He is ADMITTING that his only real reason for voting for Furry was the fact he took a

BANDWAGON

off of ME. A BANDWAGON THAT WAS BASED PURELY ON

RANDOM VOTES.

Fishy seems more likely to be lynched because there is some actual reasoning behind the votes other players have put on him, therefore he is more supportive of it, because it means we might

MOVE INTO NIGHT QUICKER.

Next, Fishy debates with Furry about the likeliness of a 4 person scum group.

Page 3-

Brian interjects, convincing Fishy that there isn't a 4 person scum group, and that the wagon on HP has no merit.
Fishy says he accepted the idea of a 4 person scum team, but realizes how silly that was, and unvotes.

Veerus posts, making a good point:

But the person that interests me is inHimshallibe. We're in the middle of our first non-random discussion and he interjects just to switch from one bandwagon to another without contributing anything to the ongoing argument. That stinks of scum trying to seem active without posting any content.

unvote; vote: inHimshallibe

I respond to Gorrad's issue with me, letting him know that like Fishy, I had accepted the idea of a 4 person scum team, but at the same time I didn't see that as a good reason to vote HP, and shouldn't really be forced as a point unless he does scummy things later on, as well as there being some sort of proof that there are 4 scum.
Gorrad says that if I try to use that against him and there is no proof, that he'd lynch me. Which is reasonable.

Moving onto inHim's next post:

At Brandi: I'll admit it wasn't the strongest, but explain to me why my reasoning was "crappy."

unvote
vote: Fishy

I like this wagon better than Brandi's.

Because, you act like there is something wrong with moving from a random vote to a more serious one, and implied that his vote wasn't even random when he said that it was. He didn't even give a reason for voting me originally, so there was nothing to "back down" from.

I see what you're saying. What I was saying was that Furry seemed to be extra-verbose in relating, "Oh, that was random." If he had said that, I'd have had no problem at all. Scum overexplain a lot of the time, and it was an initial type of gut read.

veerus: It's Day 1, meh. I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

Fishy seems to have cooled it on his front. Too bad he still has the most votes (I think.) Someone needs to climb aboard!

Now, lets take this apart, shall we?

What I was saying was that Furry seemed to be extra-verbose in relating, "Oh, that was random." If he had said that, I'd have had no problem at all. Scum overexplain a lot of the time, and it was an initial type of gut read.

There is nothing, NOTHING in any of his previous posts that imply that that is what he was saying. Nothing at all. He changed his reason. First it was because he didn't like him 'backing down' from his vote, and now its because he was 'too verbose?' But let's look at Furrys post anyway:

Brandi's reaction to Furry's vote seems extreme, but 4 votes seem a step too far for this, so I'm going with the person who attacks her attacker.

Why is a fourth vote bad? If you really think someone is going to get lynched page one you have another thing coming. Also I take it you view both Brandi and Gorrad as slightly scummy at this point? Why would you not be voting Brandi if you view her as scummy? Also why is a third vote bad for that matter even?

Also that vote was quite obviously not serious, those votes are more backed up by reasoning, quotes, cases, you know... scumhunting.

unvote
vote Fishy

Explain your last vote and why you voted Gorrad over Brandi

A side note though, its difficult to really offend me, and believe me I will let you know if you do.

SEE: BOLD AND ITALICS. That is the ONLY point in which he responded to his vote towards me. Now let's compare what inhim said to the bold and italics:

Also that vote was quite obviously not serious, those votes are more backed up by reasoning, quotes, cases, you know... scumhunting.

"Oh, that was random." If he had said that, I'd have had no problem at all.

It is quite evident, that Furry was saying the equivalent of "Oh, that was random" Not those EXACT WORDS, but the same point, in one sentence.

Next:

veerus: It's Day 1, meh. I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

inHim is saying that, basically, he doesn't want to vote with reasons, because that gives too much INFO to go back on, too much to USE FOR CASES to bring up later on. He doesn't want to have to give any legitimate reasons to vote anyone, or lynch them, because it's too much "EFFORT." GOD FORBID SOMEONE GO BACK THROUGH THE FIRST FEW PAGES AND BRING UP HIS REASONS FOR VOTING PEOPLE LATER ON IN THE GAME. THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T HELP THINGS PROGRESS AT ALL. ;P

Fishy seems to have cooled it on his front. Too bad he still has the most votes (I think.) Someone needs to climb aboard!

Translation: There no longer seems to be any legitimate reason to be voting for Fishy, too bad there are still people voting for him! Hurry! Lynch him so we can move into night!

Next-

Furry responds to inHim, asks Fishy what he thinks of me.
Fishy says he doesn't like my labeling of him as 'probably town,' goes on to question inHim, and then vote him.


inhim responds, saying basically what he said in his previous post. But adds this:

Wagons get things done. Much more so than non-productive voting.

Seriously? This makes little to no sense. Wagons get things done, votes don't? Votes make wagons, votes are productive for this reason. However, wagoning for the sake of wagoning, without any sort of set REASONS for said wagon is less productive than everyone voting someone different for different reasons.

DDD posts, unvoting, and saying he doesn't like that inHim has counted his random vote in the beginning of the game as support for the serious wagon for Fishy.

Fishy continues to question inhim.

I post again, reiterating to Fishy my reasons for saying he was probably town. And I guess what inHim had said previously didn't register, because I asked him what his

REASONS

were for voting for Fishy.

Gorrad responds to a question of mine.
Maturin reiterates what I already asked inhim.
Veerus makes a small point against inHim, Gorrad is confused, Veerus clarifies:

he's deflecting without really defending his actions and tries to fuel bandwagons without any logic.. ie. playing scummy while hiding behind the "it's too early in the game" excuse...

inhim posts again, pretty much confirming that "Hey, I know that I'm being scummy! I NEVER DENIED THAT I WAS SCUMMY, but at least I'm being honest about it! So you can't have a case against me."

Honestly, it was because he had the largest wagon at the time. There you go, although I think I've already said that.

Please tell me how I've deflected anything. I've not tried to hide anything that I've done. The post of mine you quoted was pretty blatant in my intent to wagon Fishy.

Once again, I've yet to excuse myself of anything, especially not using this "too early" argument. >.>

and then...

Maybe I'm too old-fashioned, but I've never gotten this many questions from trying to wagon. It kind of perplexes me that most of you all are focusing on intent to lynch rather than using bandwagons as an instrument of the game. Does no one understand what I'm getting at with this?

Translation: IN MY DAY, WE DIDN'T PLAY MAFIA, WE PLAYED "LYNCH RANDOM PEOPLE UNTIL THE GAME IS OVER" Seriously, not only is this a flawed 'method of play' for the town, but I don't even see how those with SCUM ROLES would be happy with playing the game if the town didn't even TRY.

Next, inhim votes DDD, for making valid points against him. ;P

Fishy then discusses with inhim about bandwagons.
Gorrad posts:

Don't develop all this theoretical... stuff... within the game; just play each game.

Read as: You've got me in a corner. Please stop scumhunting.

PAGE 4-

HP votes inhim.
inhim responds to Gorrad's last post, and actually makes a good point:

Once again, throwing something out there while not putting your vote where your mouth is.

At that point I didn't think about it, but re-reading it does preplex me as to why Gorrad did not vote for inhim at that point. He obviously thought he was being scummy.

Brian makes a post, but it reeks of him not paying attention to anything going on:

There is merit to bandwagonning for the sake of bandwagonning, especially this early. A bandwagon creates pressure on a player which forces reactions from that player. It creates a situation that people in the town must respond to and have an opinion about. It's good for the game.

Yes, it is true, voting for players to put

PRESSURE

on them is good. But that is NOT what inhim had been doing. He wanted to bandwagon ANYONE at all whether they were SCUMMY OR NOT, just WHOEVER HAD THE MOST VOTES. He just wanted to lynch someone, anyone, with as little information as possible. That is NOT good for the game at all.

Next, Tzeentch posts, a very wordy post, noting that HP's last post was misleading, and putting some thoughts on inHim, while making a solid point towards bandwagonning in regards to Brian's previous post.
Another post from HP.
Then Slicey posts. Being very much a fence-sitter. I haven't really been to happy with Slicey all game, he says he'll give us content, and then he doesn't. All he has done is make pointless posts, or echo the thoughts of others. He hasn't given any original thoughts, and this worries me. His post consists of him voting for inhim, while saying what everyone else has said, and then goes onto to make some points against me, which I had already previously addressed.
HP posts, PS: 82, and I'm not really sure what he meant by that.
Slicey posts again, saying he doesn't want to lynch inhim this early.

Inhim retaliates to Slicey's previous post. Making this point here:

And I did have a reason to vote Fishy when I joined the bandwagon - I agreed that his reactions to the now-infamous "4 scum" comment were too zealous. I also admit I was being obnoxious about continung the bandwagon, but I'm not apologizing for that part. It is what it is.

Does anyone else not see that he keeps going back and forth from "I don't have a reason" to "Well this might be a reason." And all of his reasons come AFTER people PRESSURE him into giving him one, and they are things that he never even remotely IMPLIED in any of his PREVIOUS POSTS?

I agreed that his reactions to the now-infamous "4 scum" comment were too zealous.

BS. NOWHERE, Not ONCE at the point in which the 4 person scum group was being debated did inhim even post his THOUGHTS on the matter. Post subject: 48, all inHim did was vote for him and said he liked his bandwagon better. That doesn't look like him "AGREEING" to ANYTHING. Then in PS 56, he says that Fishy cooled down, and that all he cared about was getting a lynch regardless.

Next, another post from slicey.
Tz posts again, and votes for slicy for a 'strawman':

You reworded it as this:

You're saying we should lynch players based on who has the most amount of votes, not based on how scummy they are?

This is not what inHim said. Maybe it is what he meant, I don't know, but it's definitely not what he said and it's also phrased far more simplistically, which makes it look scummier than it was.

Vote: Slicey

- I find strawmen to be one of the most notable scumtells.

Now first of all, Slicey wasn't STATING anything, he was asking a QUESTION. "Thats not what he said, its what he meant!" Also is a very odd reason to vote someone. But again, inHIM did say that, blatantly, MULTIPLE TIMES.

Next, I post, then Furry posts saying he will reread at some point.
Fishy says he thinks Slicey is strawmanning too. I'll admit, Fishy does word things poorly, but the point is still very much true.

What I am seeing here is an

Argument from Fallacy

If a person argues that because one reason for coming to a conclusion is false, the conclusion must be false, they may be trying to use this logical fallacy. If that reason was indeed the only evidence against them, this is not wrong; however using one mistaken assumption by one player to discount the arguments of other players, or other arguments, can be misleading.

Just because Slicey's reasoning for coming to his 'conclusion' was not valid, does not mean that the CONCLUSION ITSELF is not True.

Fishy then votes me, completely misunderstanding what I was trying to say, and actually blatantly strawmanning me, when he was using a strawman as a basis for his not liking slicey.
Inhim posts a response, call's me snarky. [He has a habit of disregarding anything someone says against him that makes LOGICAL SENSE as someone having a bad attitude.]

I make a post, pointing out the things I've already addressed multiple times. I also am more agressive in my attacks against inhim, and make a side theory of inhim/fishy. Now I'll admit the idea based on what was going on wasn't too likely, however that doesn't mean that Fishy hasn't done some very scummy things, and the idea of an inhim/fishy scum group isn't completely scummy. However, there just isn't as much evidence against Fishy as there is against inhim.

Next, inhim posts again:

veerus:

It's Day 1, meh.

I'm not going to add much if there's nothing to be added. That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned. I'll do my little thing on the bandwagon.

Maybe I should have made this abundantly clearer, but Day 1 is really the only time I bandwagon "just because." I'm trying to generate a lot of possible information with many bandwagons.

To lynch someone you have to have a CASE.

lol

A bit over dramatic don't you think?

lol

And of course I don't like the wagon on me... That's pretty much the case for anyone, right? (loljester)

No one seems to like my DDD vote.

unvote
vote: Brandi

First of all- inhims first point is an OBVIOUS relativist Fallacy.

The Relativist Fallacy is an argument in which a player states that they are justified in rejecting an opinion because they believe that this doesn't apply to them. For example:

* Player A: Vote: Player B
* Player B: Why are you voting me when all I've done is removed a random vote! That's not a scumtell!
* Player A: Maybe not for you, but it is for me.

He is saying "Maybe that is scummy to you, but it isn't to me!"

And then he blatantly contradicts himself with this line:

I'm trying to generate a lot of possible information with many bandwagons.

a complete opposite of:

That's just more garbage to wade through on a reread, and doesn't help anyone, as far as I'm concerned.

Before he said that he didn't care about gathering information, he said that it was too much trouble/effort. Now, he's saying the point is to gather information. Which, if I hadn't said it enough already: Bandwagonning, with no reason behind it, and killing off a possible townie, just because you want a QUICK LYNCH gives little to no information to be brought out.

Second of all, If you notice, every time I make a valid point he just says "lol."

Not only is that flippant, it shows he has nothing to argue with, or any way to back up what he has said. He thinks that if he treats my points like they are 'funny' then he wont have them brought up again. Guess he was wrong.

Third, inhim unvotes DDD because no one seems to be in support of his wagon. He then votes for me, completely contradicting his statement in PS 72:

Seeing as my preferred type of Day 1 is not going to happen, I'm going to have to abandon the "reckless" bandwagonry.

Done with your reckless bandwagonry? Not only that, but it was a blatant OMGUS. Just like his vote for DDD earlier. DDD and I BOTH made valid points against him. He even was giving VEERUS crap about the VALID, LOGICAL POINTS that he made against him.

Fishy posts, questioning me and my theory, and states that he still thinks I'm scummy.

I respond, and explain what a VI is.
Fishy says a lot of things that doesn't make much sense. On the next page, DDD does a good job clarifying.

PAGE 5-

DDD clarifies,
HP makes a point, reiterating what I have already said to inhim in much simpler terms.
Fishy responds to DDD.
HP makes another valid point.
Slicey, makes... a post. Though not much of one. All he says is that he was wrong, but doesn't give any reasons as to why he came to that conclusion. I really really dislike the vibe I get from PS: 104.
Then, I clarify that DDD's clarification is in fact, CORRECT.
Veerus asks for some clarification from Slicey as well.

Inhim posts again, saying he is going to give us some WIFOM, gives it to us. And then says this:

Well... are you even sure that was me trying to not rock the boat? My intention was more along the lines of, "I want to vote someone I think is scummier than many of the other players in the game, and other players might agree with me this time."

Asking 'are you sure'? What?! "Oh well if you're not so sure, here, let me make something up to put further DOUBT in your mind so that I can get you off of my case" The only reasoning you gave was "NO ONE LIKES MY PREVIOUS VOTE" and that was it. THAT WAS IT. the only thing extra that could be IMPLIED from that was OMGUS. This is inhim, once again CHANGING AROUND HIS REASONS.

Next, inhim unvotes me. Looks like the pressure was getting to him.

Veerus posts, noting the obvious backpedaling from inhim.
inhim responds saying that random/reasonless bandwagons were not his ONLY REASONS for bandwagonning ever. A moot point at best, as it does not make anything he has done all game any less scummy.

Furry posts, noting that he agrees with inhim for his original vote against DDD. Then votes for slicey.... And says this:

First you vote inH for his playstyle of the wagoning thing. So he wagons to get information. Wow. Must be scum there man. If you can go back through all his past games and find significant correlation between him doing this as scum, I will listen.

More of the "Argument from Fallacy" that I mentioned earlier, coupled with the Relativist Fallacy. Saying "its his style" doesn't excuse him from his actions. Then, hes forcing another fallacy, saying that he needs to go back through all of his games where he is scum and point out the ones in which his "playstyle" helped the scum. This is an

APPEAL TO PROBABILITY.

First of all, if you are accepting that this is his PLAYSTYLE, then that would mean he plays that way while he is both SCUM and TOWN. Also, if you want to bring the burden of PROOF into this, go back and read through his games YOURSELF. Don't ask someone else to do it. Furthermore, why on EARTH would you USE THAT AS EVIDENCE when you haven't personally looked into it? Not to mention asking a person to read all of another persons game for the sake of the GAME AT HAND is ridiculously ASININE.

Next, HP posts, responding to inhim, asking if he doesn't think DDD is scummy anymore.

I post, noting that I have not been playing emotionally. Aggressively? Yes. But not emotionally. Inhim tends to make a lot of BS statements, without ever giving ANYTHING to back it up.

I also note how wishy-washy he is being.
Fishy asks Slicey his opinions.
I make note of lurkers.
HP agrees, votes Maturin to try and get him to post.
Tz makes a post after I mention he's lurking. Asks why HP voted Maturin. [Wish that worked for everyone else.]
HP says its good to pressure lurkers. [I agree!]
Inhim posts again, being flippant as usual.
Blahblahblah more talking about people who need to post more.

PAGE 6-

Brian posts, being lighthearted with inhim. Null tell for now.
Then he accuses me of OMGUS, which shows that he hasn't been reading, once again.
Gorrad makes an inactivity post.
I note that my attacks are in no way

PERSONAL.

And that I haven't voted everyone that has attacked me. I've been pretty clearly on one person's wagon.
I make a bunch of posts.

DDD addresses addresses Furry's point against him where Furry had supported inhim.

Fishy posts, claiming that he thinks my attacks were OMGUS fueled, when in reality they weren't. I can kind of see how he could get that if he wasn't paying attention though. I also wasn't really clear in my responses either.

The thing is - earlier on the game I posted my initial gut feelings. Those usually change throughout the game. It was meant to be taken with a grain of salt, not "THESE PEOPLE ARE TOTALLY TOWN WE SHOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING AGAINST THEM" or anything like that. It had just as LITTLE MEANING as when HP tried to "guess all 4 scum" in his post on page 1. Also, I had thought that 4 scum was possible, just like FISHY thought that 4 scum was possible, and that's why I made my comment about HP. But I retracted it after it was made CLEAR that 4 scum wasn't going to happen. I had tried to explain this to multiple people and I got the feeling that it was being ignored, and honestly I don't see how it could ever be seen as a tell to make an early 'guess' as to who might be town, when you don't hold to those feelings the whole game. Maybe if I had said that they were 100% town and there was no reason to make any cases against them, and ATTACKED people because they were ATTACKED, that might be scummy. But giving a gut feeling? No I don't think so.

Also, there are multiple things that Fishy has said/done that seemed very scummy to me that aren't just tacked onto his early beef with me. I'll make note of that later, it it isn't completely obvious from all this that I have already gone through.

Next post - Slicey

He 'attempts' to clarify, and fails. It seems he is referring to what Furry attacked him about. It looks like he is just trying to take any heat off of him possible, he doesn't like being aggressive or backing up his points. This isn't really as much of a scum tell as it is bad play and anti-town. Then all of a sudden his read on inhim goes down to neutral - which is very odd to say the least. Then he claims that he's keeping his vote on me, and talks about how sick he is.

Hp posts, asking inhim to clarify something.
I post, failing to really explain something to Fishy. [which I just did now a few paragraphs up]

Furry responds to DDD, continuing their debate.
DDD responds again.
Gorrad makes a V/LA post.
HP asks for prod on Maturin.
Another post from Furry responding to DDD.


inhim posts again, making little to no sense. PS#143 is really, just a bunch of fluffy BS.

Fishy reiterates that there needs to be more from Slicey and Maturin.

I point out that inhim is spewing BS.

Then he posts again with more BS:

Now she's mudslinging more than just me; Brian got caught up in some mud as well.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.' You seem to be doing this a lot actually. Whats wrong with latching on to you? You are incredibly scummy. I'm not going to just 'ignore' scum. But that's what you'd like, wouldn't you? None of your arguments hold any water - you just keep repeating the same BS over and over again.

I didn't mean that latching on to me was scummy; I was just using it as a frame of reference. Also, I believe the way in which you just attacked my post is a subtle strawman.

Yes, because when I say you are spewing BS, that is TOATALLY me taking apart your argument and presenting a weaker argument. No. All I said is that you weren't giving ANY EVIDENCE for your claims.

You just love blatantly out-right lying, don't you? You are the only one slinging 'mud.'

Also, if you hadn't noticed, I had issues with inHim and Fishy BEFORE They voted me. I am the one being OMGUS'd.

Maybe you should read more Brian, you are on the list of those who have been lurking.

Emphasis mine.

OH YES. THAT'S RIGHT. HOW DARE I TELL ANOTHER PLAYER WHO HASN'T BEEN POSTING TO STOP LURKING. OH MY GOD WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IF PLAYERS STOP LURKING?! THAT COULD REALLY RUIN IT FOR THE SCUM! AND DEAR LORD, TELLING THEM TO READ MORE SO THAT THEY CAN

UNDERSTAND

WHAT IS GOING ON? WHAT AN INSULT! HOW DARE I BE SUPPORTIVE OF TOWNIE BEHAVIOR! THIS IS JUST UNCALLED FOR. [If you didn't notice, that was sarcasm.]

Finally, posts 127-131 seem incredibly scummy to me because of my personal belief that scum are more worried about attaining "posting perfection" than town.[/quote]

Another Relativist fallacy. "It is my PERSONAL belief"
Personal beliefs do not make up what is and what isn't scummy. I'd rather someone make points against others based on FACTS, not "PERSONAL BELIEFS."

Next.

HP posts saying that Fishy is wrong to accuse him of lurking and posting little content.

Veerus responds to inhim's note of himself clarifying something for Gorrad. Pretty much concluding that inhim is doing just what he has accused me of, "mud slinging."
HP notes that he doesn't respond to arguments made against him.

PAGE 7-

I make a note to inhim that he was wrong about saying I was mudslining, which I have already reiterated in this post.

Fishy responds to HP.
DDD posts another response to Furry.
HP posts his confusion as to why I have 4 votes.
Gorrad says that inhim and I both give him bad vibes. He says he doesn't think its a two townie argument, and I agree! I think its 1 scum, 1 townie. Inhim = scum. Brandi = Townie. :B

Furry makes a "I'll post tomorrow" post.
inhim notes that THERE IS PROBABLY 1 SCUM ON MY WAGON. I agree with this also. ;P

HP makes a bump, which was requested from inhim.

Fishy is flabbergasted at the fact that inhim would imply there was scum on my wagon, and then promptly votes for him.
Veerus responds to Fishy's flabbergastedness.

inhim responds to HP.
Tz makes a post saying he will re-read.
inhim responds to fishy. Starting with "Oh come off it" [a little aggressive don't you think? Not a tell, but still. ;P]

Fishy responds to inHim's reasoning.
inhim makes another response to Fishy.
HP posts saying he'd like Veerus to post more. [me too.]
Furry posts asking for a wagon on Slicey.
Furry posts again responding to DDD again.
I say that I've been away and that I'll post soon. This post was made at at 9:37 pm.
Veerus posts asking for DDD's thoughts.
I SAY THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE A BIG POST.
80% of the way through typing this, I post again saying I'm going to make a big post, at 1:08 am.
[[OFF TOPIC: I feel really bad that it has taken me over 4 hours straight to make this post. I must be a slow typer or something!]]

ANYWAY SINCE THIS IS COMING TO AN END, I WILL POST MY THOUGHTS ON EVERYONE UP TO THIS POINT.

1) BrianMcQueso -

He's fairly wordy but also fairly lurky. He also doesn't seem to be trying very hard when he does post. I think if he re-read, and actually understood the points people were making more often, this game would progress a lot nicer. He has totally misunderstood everything about inhim, as well as the points I have been trying to make throughout the game. For the time being I do not really see him as scummy, just lazy town.

2)Furry-

Very verbose as well, but definitely not a lurker. He uses a lot of fallacies in his arguments, and seems to attack people for the wrong reasons but with good intentions. He seems to push the idea of "playstyle" a little to fervently. I actually find this relating to art. As an artist, I see that some are very much against criticism when they receive it, and respond often with "its just my style." This is all good and well, but there is a LIMIT to how much something can be called STYLE and how much something can be seen as a definite area in which someone needs to improve. If I'm trying to draw a cat and I give it a long neck, and make its left paw twice as big as its right, and then make its eyes too close together and put it in a position that is not physically possible - that is a bad drawing, you can't cry "Art style." Just as well as you can't use obviously scummy tactics throughout a game and try and back it up with saying that is just how you play. I'm still pretty neutral towards Furry, and I feel like I need to go back and read his dialogue with DDD a bit more to get a better read of him.

3) veerus-

I haven't seen anything scummy from him. I think he acts in ways that are very logical, He isn't really lurking per-se, but it would be nice to get a lot more input from him more often, as I see him as very helpful to the town. Right now I get a decent townie feel from him.

4) Gorrad-

He doesn't give too much input, and what he has given hasn't been much of a town. Early on he voted for me... then unvoted for me. He was helpful and logical in the debate about a 4 person scum group. And that is about it. I get a neutral read on him, though I am hoping he will post more as well.

5) Debonair Danny DiPietro-

The most I have seen from him input wise, is his debate with Furry, which I have yet to read too much into. At this point I don't really know what to think of him. Neutral as well.

6) Fishythefish-

Fishy seems to like to pick at peoples words, and strawman them. He has taken a lot of things that I and others have said out of context and changed them around. I think that maybe he has just been inferring wrong, and that perhaps his strawmen are not fully intentional. However, there are also the points in which he has been just echo-ing the words of others. Early on in the case of HP- he echo'd Verrus's point. Later on he echo'd inhims 'points.' He also echo'd Furrys *incorrect* point about Slicey making a strawman against inhim earlier on. Overall, I get a scummy feel. However I also get that 'unsure townie' vibe as well. I do not think he would be a good lynch for this day.

7) Maturin24-

I doubt he will be with us much longer, he'll probably be replaced by day 2. However It is still seems like a good idea to give my thoughts on him. 3 posts all game, 1 being a random vote post. The other two being directed towards inhim. I can't get a real read on him, and while I do think that asking questions is a good way to get information, it's a null tell at best. His vote is still on slicey from the random stage, which kind of bothers me as it makes the slicey wagon look bigger than it already is. Not his fault though. Hopefully his successor will be more active.

8) Slicey-

Slicey. He could be labeled as a fence sitter at best. He random voted me, then voted inhim [his vote was NEVER counted because of the fact he did not UNVOTE to vote for inhim], and left suspicion on me. Like Fishy, he has been echoing the points of others. He acts really confused most of the time, and never really gives any original thoughts. He likes to hide in the shadows an go unnoticed, and I see him as a very weak townie, that is incredibly anti-town, because he never attempts to be productive and he backs down way to easily.

9) Tzeentch-

Null tell from him except for the part where he incorrectly labels one of slicey's posts as a strawman. He is very wordy when he posts, though he acts very unsure about the things he says. I'd need to hear more from him to get a better read on him.

10) inHimshallibe-

Scum.

Scummy scummy scummy scum. Throughout the game he has pursued baseless wagons in support of quick lynches, Took apart the posts and actions of others and made many blatant strawmen, as well as blatantly LYING about many different things. He has had the habit of saying something, then changing his mind and saying something completely different. He has OMGUS'd EVERYONE who has made valid arguments against them, and fails to properly to respond them. His use of "lol" against my sound arguments towards his horrible play which I mentioned earlier is an example of this. Though he also has failed to properly respond to many others, not just myself. He has used so many logical fallacies its a wonder he hasn't been lynched yet. Fallacies include: strawmen, red herrings, relativist fallacy, AtP, WIFOM, and OMGUS. Possibly other things, but this just what I can name off the top of my head that I have noticed that he has used. His posts are also riddled with hypocritical bullshit. In fact, he spews more shit than 2girls1cup, and I feel that he should be the one who is lynched today.

11) hp [leaves]

Pretty good vibes from him, on a scale of 1 to 10, 5 being neutral, 1 being scum and 10 being town, I'd give him a 7. He seems to be very supportive of voting people for logical reasons, and for getting lurkers to be active. His posts are short, but informative. I think his presence is helpful for the town.

Now to do one more thing:

Who I think is

TOWNIE:

veerus [On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give him a 6]
hp [leaves] [On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give him a 7]


Who I think is

SCUMMY:

Fishythefish [On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give him a 4]
inHimshallibe [On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give him a 2]


Who I have a

NEUTRAL

read on:
Everyone else, they get a 5.

Have fun reading, everyone.

[Brandi]

I noticed an error here:

Fishy says he thinks Slicey is strawmanning too. I'll admit, Fishy does word things poorly, but the point is still very much true.

I meant to say:

Fishy says he thinks Slicey is strawmanning too. I'll admit,

Slicey

does word things poorly, but the point is still very much true.