Mini 880 - Mini Quick and Dirty - Game Over

[ODDin]

/confirm

I most likely won't be able to participate much in the next couple of days, but I guess that shouldn't be an issue.

[ODDin]

I think it would be fair to do so - write a different setup, have it checked again by those who checked the current one and restart the game with different roles. I can live with that, because I know I wouldn't want to be in Amished's place right now.

[ODDin]

Holy crap you guys are fast.

1) Zorblag:
1.a) Do you mind not speaking in Troll-speak? It makes my head hurt and make your posts harder to read, which is bad.
1.b) Personally, I think checking the mod's patience is silly and bitchy. I figure he asked us to put votes in the bottom of the page for the sake of conveniece, to make them easier to find. No need to be so harsh about it.

2) I find Scien's approach useful. The way he accused AGar is a good way to get out of the RVS, and it indeed brought us out of the RVS (personally I think we're out of it, although are arguments are still pretty weak). Brnging the game out of the RVS is a good thing IMO.

2) Seeing the above, I don't really like how eKim attacked Scien over it - feels a bit like trying to keep the game in the RVS, maybe.

I don't think any arguments here are really strong, mine included, but I agree with Raskol that town should generally vote for those they find scummy. It's not always the absolutely best thing to do (pressure votes and other things might have a townie not vote for his number 1 suspect), but at this point, I think it's a useful tool to get out of the RVS. Non-random votes - even ones based on very weak arguments - shake people up and set them on the right path, from my experience.

So in light of the above:

vote: eKim

[ODDin]

Also, my wiki is up to date with all of my completed games.

[ODDin]

PZ seems to be with one leg out of the RVS and the other still in. This is scummy, IMHO - it gives him the ability to take a certain argument and later say either "it was only part of the RVS and I wasn't serious about it" or "look here, I've been saying that all along", depending on the circumstances.

And I join in to Amished and VP in eagerly awaiting the case on SC.

[ODDin]

I disagree with your first paragraph, ODDin. PZ's ISO 6 says that SC wagon is serious; and his vote for SC was in his 2nd post. I think that makes it pretty clear that he's moving out of RVS while still being joke-y.

If he ever wants, I think he can very well put his personal ending of the RVS at any point there. The way he worded it, even the "SRS BSNS" can be referred to as a joke later on.

[ODDin]

ODDin = Is ekiM or PZ scummier for their actions so far

(Written the moment I saw the post, without yet reading the rest)
At this point, eKim. While I don't like PZ's actions in that they might be laying grounds for future scummy actions, it's still obviously a stretch to say that's a serious scum-tell.

Raskol - I disagree fundamentally that you need chasing shadows scumhunting D1 to look for scum on D2. In fact, I think it obscures scum, because chasing shadows is EXACTLY what scum want to do. You can make anyone look scummy in a PBPA, yet people who do this are regarded as protown for no reason. Scum depend on being able to use such scumhunting to both get townies lynched and appear pro-town. And you can use town reads just as well as scum reads to determine alignment.

Although this addresses Raskol, I think I might say something anyway. And that is that I agree with Raskol entirely on this. Scum-tells are still scum-tells, even on D1. They're usually weaker on D1, of course, but they're still there. It's possible to fabricate a case against a townie, of course, but that's the town's job to understand what's real and what's not.
Also, you do realise that if nothing happens D1 then D2 becomes the new D1, right? The arguments on D2 continue those on D1, the arguments on D3 continue those on D2 etc. Of course, you get stronger arguments by knowing people's alignments and sometimes due to the help of power-roles. But still, arguments that based solely on people's actions and words are also very important.

Also, if you have any serious town-tells, you might share those too.

Why are you pushing this issue? I've been about the most non-threatening person calling out a scumtell ever, constantly qualifying it with my overall concept of the early game being specifically not about finding scumtells and talking about how I think it's barely worth mentioning, yet you've still got a bee in your bonnet about it. What gives?

It's his right to point out wrong things you've said or question you. Why so edgy?
(Also, ironic seeing how you say less edgy = more likely town)

As for judging me, imagine I was scum using this playstyle. I have to either name my scum mates as town D1 or risk getting them lynched semi-randomly. Plus you'll have my opinion and scumreads as they come. Sorry, but I'm not going to be changing how I play.

WIFOM

Troll has seen enough of SerialCleryman's responses to pressure to not be interested in lynching him day one

Explain.

Sando's post 185 is just silly. Amish is actively helping the game - or trying, at least. He may be scum faking it, of course, so you can call his play a null-tell, but I can't see how it's actively scummy.
Also, you were asked who you think is scum, you answered with "look at my vote", but you weren't voting. So, yeah, that was kinda fence-sitting, plus you've basically avoided the question.
And when people point out the obvious here (without even strongly accusing you over it), you get all defensive and righteous.

In continuation of the Sando issue: getting run-downs and opinions *is* good for town. It allows you to analyse people. It allows you to understand what's going on. More info is good for town. What you're saying is ridiculous.

In the last 1.5 days, the following people haven't posted.

1. AGar
3. ekiM
4. ODDin
5. Ojanen
6. Papa Zito
9. Scien
11. VP Baltar

I'm starting to think this game is a practical joke played on us and they're all snickering in a Quicktopic somewhere wondering how long it'll take us to work it out.

I haven't exactly got heaps of free time lying around. I've got lots of stuff to do other than playing mafia. It's no that easy for me to meet the one-post-every-48-hours demand either, and I don't think it's fair of you to ask for more.

[ODDin]

Well, at least that got you to do something.
Now explain.

[ODDin]

1) Your overreaction to my mild calling out the amount of people not participating, with your name being one of them.

It's not easy for me to find time to read the game and participate meaningfully, and I'm doing the effort because I really want to play this game. It was kinda angering to be accused of not participating enough after that.

2) Your supporting of the narrative that I've done nothing when I've been both a focal point of discussion and an active participant in it.

There was a discussion, and I replied to things said in the discussion. I've talked about your playstyle as described by yourself.
Also, do you think that Raskol is scummy for saying what he did? If not, then you shouldn't think I am scummy either - I'm allowed to have the same opinion as he does, am I not?

3) Your goody two-shoes mafia theory spouting.

Too townie fallacy?

4) Your failure to act on your goody two shoes mafia theory spouting by providing much of content outside of mafia theory.

I've said all things I noticed upon reading the thread. I wasn't talking only about theory either, as is evident from the post and I don't feel any need to repeat it. I've also said all sorts of stuff before. And seeing that there's active discussion going on in many various directions, I don't feel the need to stir up new discussion to liven things up. It's very lively as it is.

[ODDin]

ODDin - Spouting goody two shoes town meta does not make you town. The very fact that you tried to invoke the too townie fallacy proves my point. Saying things like 'information is good for the town' and 'discussion is important' is just step one basic theory. It's so easy to say stuff like that as scum and try to pass it off as being a Good Town Citizen when it fact it tells the town nothing it doesn't already know and provides no useful data to look at.

It's like people who say 'I think we should be lynching the person with the best chance of being scum!'

I didn't "invoke" the Too Townie Fallacy. I was attempting to understand what you were trying to say here. If you want to say that what I said is a null-tell and doesn't give me town points, then I'm not going to argue with you. What I don't understand is how it gives me scum points. I said my opinion.

He wasn't assuming that I wasn't contributing, he said he'd be more likely ot lynch me if I wasn't scumhunting. Your posts made it sound like there was no participation.

You've been participating, but only in a very specific manner - you weren't really pushing anybody or accusing anyone. Most of your participation was a discussion of your own playstyle. It's not the sort of participation I find active and helpful, and it doesn't move the game forward. I can agree that you may indeed truly believe in this playstyle as town, and I'm not making the case that you're scum based on your play. I just said that the way you played wasn't helping the game much.
The fact alone that you've posted a lot doesn't, in itself, make your participation helpful.
Of course, you're now quite actively attacking me, and that's great.

And an overreaction is an overreaction. I made the point that 2/3 of the town hadn't posted in 1.5 days in a 2 day prod game. This made for quite lonely playing for the other four of us. You then seemed to take it as a personal attack about your time management. I think that's more likely than average to be a foil. After all, as you say in your goody two shoes manner, more info is pro-town, so people who are hanging on to post just before being prodded should be scrutinised, yes?

I was annoyed by it myself, knowing why I don't post more often, and fell annoyed in the name of everyone else as well. Not posting for a day and a half isn't enough to say they're "hanging on to post", and I feel it's wrong to scrutinise them for that - myself and everyone else on your list there. Sure, I'm all for pushing lurkers to post more, but those people aren't lurkers (at any rate, you have no evidence either way at the moment).
If you feel I've overreacted, okay, though I'm still not sure I did. How what I said is scummy I don't really see, however.

since when do you base your scumhunting on whether or not discussion is lively?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I meant to say is, when there's enough discussion going on, I feel can perfectly well scumhunt within the bounds of the already existing discussion, and thus don't try to artificially create discussion out of nowhere (by aggressively pushing a very weak case, bandwagoning without much reason and things of the sort).

[ODDin]

Overreaction to being called out = awareness of how you're viewed and putting effort into rejecting it = scummy.

Most generally, yes. Consider the specific argument, however. The issue has very little to do with the game - you weren't really accusing people of being scum, and I wasn't defending against being scum. But if you wish to interpret my reaction as scummy, I can't stop you.

Also - seems you've found time now there's a vote on you.

I have a more or less free evening because I've finished all of my assignments for this week, and the next ones are only due next week, so it's a bit of a breather. But you're free to think I'm lying.
(Also, even if I were scum, it would take more than one vote in early D1 to scare me...)

Spouting goody-two-shoes theory = sounding town without doing anything that is pro-town or anti-scum = scummy.

Now that's one hell of a stretch. I think I'm doing enough pro-town / anti-scum things. I've been pointing out scum-tells or town-tells I see about people since the beginning of the game. Seeing that neither you nor anyone else has been accusing me of not scumhunting enough prior to this, I guess I'm not the only one with this opinion. So, I'm "spouting goody two-shoes theories" IN ADDITION to scum hunting, not instead of it. And on its own, I can't see it as a scum-tell.
If you think I haven't been scumhunting enough, explain how.

[ODDin]

And yes you were invoking it, calling it a fallacy means you're trying to say he's wrong, not trying to confirm whether that's what he means.

There was a question mark at the end there. I wasn't sure what SC was trying to do. If he was implying that what I'm doing IS townie, then it was the too-townie fallacy. If that's not what he was trying to say, then obviously it wasn't. That's why I wasn't sure. And yes, I did understand him now.

-----

PZ's post makes me weary. The fact that most of the players believed him to have some sort of case on SC means it's not just some misunderstanding - this was the obvious way to interpret his words. Now he says he didn't actually have any case, and was just voting for the sake of a bandwagon.

Now he's almost accusing Scien of thinking he had a case - but this IS the impression he'd made.

So yes, PZ, you pretty much lied - at any rate, you've created a very wrong impression.
Also, you're not really doing much of a job to contribute more - you just laugh of the things said against you, trying to make Scien look foolish (which isn't a valid defence).

[ODDin]

EBWOP: wary, not weary, obviously.

[ODDin]

ODDin - I don't like how ODDin quietly agreed with VP but didn't move his random vote on ekiM to a player that he apparently agreed as scummy. To me he's waiting to see if a bandwagon materializes.

Nice try, but no.

1) My vote on eKim wasn't random. I voted for him because I felt he was trying to keep the game in the RVS and silence Scien's arguments against AGar. I'm not saying it's a strong argument, but it sure isn't "ooh his name has 4 letters so he must be scum" random

2) My "case" on you was that you might be creating a future possibility for yourself to mark any votes and actions in the early game as either random or not, depending on need. At this point, it is pure speculation, making it a very weak argument. In my eyes - yes, even weaker than my argument for eKim.

[ODDin]

Are you sure I'm the one that created that impression? I'd love to hear how.

I'll tell you how, I believe, the impression was created. You said your vote on SC was serious. However, you didn't explain why - which you should've, for that matter, as "why?" would've obviously been the immediate follow up question, as indeed it was. You not answering it in advance feels like an attempt at creating confusion and getting a chance to post more and thus appear more active (not only do you say X, but you also answer to "why X?" later - two posts at the price of one.)
Now, VP immediately assumed that the vote was serious - a pretty fair assumption to make. You say a vote is serious, people assume it means it's backed by a case of some sort.

Part of the problem was that you were V/LA, thus unable to correct the wrong impression more quickly. However, you really should've taken a moment to think before posting, and you'd have realised that when you say a vote is serious, you might as well answer what are the serious reasons behind it (the fact that somebody had asked you whether the vote was serious obviously means he didn't understand why you'd made it).

[ODDin]

So, in light of the above, but mostly because of blatantly false accusations (against myself, as it happens - but I'm willing to risk being accused of OMGUS here), I'm going to:

unvote, vote: PapaZito

[ODDin]

Oh, and hello there charlatan!

[ODDin]

Charlatan: Perhaps "lying" is a somewhat strong word indeed. A wrong impression was created regarding PZ's reason for voting SC. The impression was that he was voting based on a case. The truth (if we are to believe PZ) is that he was "serious" only in choosing to create a bandwagon - the reasons for chosing the candidate at hand weren't really serious (although I'd point you to SC's post 284, which nicely points out that even this interpretation is to be doubted).
But if we assume that this is the truth, we must ask ourselves why was this wrong impression created. I talked about this in post 281. I think PZ has a conscious hand in creating this false impression - at least in that he avoided telling us his reason for voting SC, although it must have been obvious to him that he'd be asked that.

PZ: Again, you're wrong on all accounts.
My main reason for voting you is that you vote for me and accuse me based on arguments which are blatantly, factually wrong. I can't even fathom how you got that impression in the first place - no post supports that. My post 77 (my first post in the game) explicitly says why I'm voting eKim, and I think it's obvious that it isn't exactly a random vote. Later, in post 200, after being explicitly asked who I find more suspicious, eKim or yourself, I answered eKim.
It can mean two things:
1) You're not paying attention to the game to such a degree that you vote based on things the exact opposite of which has been said in the thread. That's a pretty hard thing for me to buy, given that you're a pretty experienced player.
2) You're trying to fabricate a case against me. I'm not exactly sure why, but this explanation makes more sense than the previous one.

Obviously, this reason for me voting you wasn't there for a long time - it first appeared in post 272, and my vote for you was my first reaction to what you've said.
The thing on SC was there for a bit more time, granted, but it was somewhat more clarified to me in your post 271 (and once again, my posts 280-282 were my first reaction to that).


Also,

Just because you say it first doesn't mean it's not true.

You actually gonna act on that and accuse me of OMGUS, or are you just saying it for the sake of saying it?

[ODDin]

Awesome. That all you have to say?

[ODDin]

(I just want to say that I'll be able to catch up and post in the evening today - which will be a bit more than 48 hours. Sorry for that.)

[ODDin]

Crap, turned out there was an assignment I completely forgot about which is due tomorrow. Which sucks. So, I'll just briefly respond to some things.
I really want to reread some things because I'm focusing way too much on PZ and myself at the moment, which is bad. I'll do this the moment I get some time, but I'm not sure when that's going to be.

That's a good point. I wonder: is it possible to be serious about wanting a bandwagon to grow and not really serious with who the target is? To expect a seriously productive outcome from something only slightly more than random? That does help clarify where those criticisms are coming from.

IMO, it's possible, but you'd need to at least vaguely fake a reason. It seems like there was a weak reason, but the case itself wasn't the point.

@Raskol: I believe you said you're considering voting for me? If so, I'd appreciate your reasons for it.

If pushing for a bandwagon as a reason itself is enclosed at the time I would imagine the assumed stirring would lose some of its point. Seeing the underlined as scummy is shaky, really, postcount upping by one as scum motivation?

That, in itself, isn't my main reason for a vote. However, even if the actually reason for your vote isn't something you want to openly discuss at the moment, you should still be able to state some sort of reason. Pushing cases which you know are weak for the sake of wagons and stuff is okay - but at least present that very weak case. If you don't give any reason at all, then it's just going to look like a random vote and it won't generate the necessary effect either. To create a bandwagon, you need to push a bit. PZ didn't push. For that matter, I think the biggest talk it generated was about his own reasons for the vote and whether or not he was serious about it (which, I assume, wasn't his aim with that vote).

[ODDin]

I will now reread the last pages and try to decide more decently what I think of Amished and Sando.

But before I'll answer Raskol's very interesting question:

hat said, for ODDin and Sando, a question for both of you: if you had an awesome one-shot day-vig power that could only be used in thread right now, would you use it? Whom would you use it on?

This is, as I've said, a very interesting question. I'm not sure enough that anybody at this point is scum in a high enough level. That being said, we all agree that nolynching D1 is bad. So, as a logical extension to the question, if the town has the ability to make two lynches on D1 (and only on D1) - should the town use this power, or choose to make only a single lynch?
I think the answer to this extended question would still be no. A single lynch is important because it gives town information on a player chosen by the town. However, on D1 the chances of getting scum aren't too good. I think lynching 2 people would mean the price in probable townie lives outweighs the info.
And since I answer "no" to the extension, obviously i'd answer "no" to the original question - I don't feel at the moment that the town is maknig a huge mistake and that I'm the only one who sees the light. But it's theory. There's a balance between townie lives and gaining info. My opinion may be wrong. I mean, we all know that nolycnhing day 1 is bad for town, but in a vacuum, I'm not sure I'd immediately understand that on my own.

I hope that satisfies you.

However, why did you ask this only of me and Sando? Why isn't this question directed at the entire town?

[ODDin]

Ok... can I ask you a question? Let's say YOU are in early game, and decide to bandwagon someone for pressure. When questioned about it do you A) say you have a reason? If you give a reason it will likely relieve pressure because it will be easilly refuted as weak. Or do you B) claim that you did it just for the bandwagon pressure. This would take all pressure off totally. The middle way is to claim you have reasons, but not share them. I've seen it done before, and believe it is pretty common.

Me, I don't lie as town. I will admit my actual reasons if directly asked. I believe that the loss of pressure on the intended wagon outweighs the confusion that will be caused by me lying (or deliberately hiding stuff) as townie.
Seeing that early wagons are mostly a method for generating discussion (the specific avenue the discussion takes is less relevant), then it doesn't matter much if the discussion switches from the intended wagon to my reasons for the vote.

-------

We've established that you find PZ's wagoneering scummy -- were there any reactions to that attempt at a bandwagon that you also found scummy?

You mean, from other people? No. I find VP's reacton (the most vehement one) to be perfectly normal. I understand what she thought and agree with most of her points. Other people didn't really react quite so much to this, and no, I didn't see anything special here.
However, I'll say once again: the whole thing between SC/PZ/VP is NOT my main reason for voting PZ.

@ODDin: About Raskol's entertaining hypothetical:

For me, if nobody else is even interested, do you mind pretending that you must use this hypothetical Day 1 vig kill? The option to opt out of that question with a conservative theory answer about not being bloodthirsty is much less interesting (and much less telling, I think) than asking you to name a name.

Actually, I find the original question more interesting. Regardless, my name is my vote. I think PZ is the most scummy person around at the moment (I still think so after the reread I've just finished doing - I'll post my thoughts on this reread after this post).
So, this question boils down to "who do you think is scummiest". Which really doesn't need to be asked via weird hypothetical vig powers.

[ODDin]

Okay, my opinions on Sando, Amished and some other issues.

Sando.

First, he's attacking people for askin him for opinions and then seems to invent weird reasons why it's scummy why that's not what he did, why whatever it is he's trying to say. Somewhat scummy, as it could be a way to avoi discussion and attempt to not participate in the game (not give opinions on people) while seemingly doing stuff. However, seeing that nothing that terribly important was going on in the game at the time, I don't see how avoiding to say his opinions would be all that helpful to Sando-scum. Actually sharing his opinions, and not being so aggressive over nothing would've been not only more helpful but also easier. So, while it is scummy, it's only a little scummy in my eyes.

Then, he seems a bit too relaxed about the fact that he has good chances of being the D1 lynch. Again, not scummy, just weird. I wonder how invested he is in the game.

All in all - a bit scummy, but mostly it feels he's not really in touch with the game.

Amished

I disagree with most of the original case as presented by SC. Post 291 by Amished really makes perfect sense to me.
The point brought up later by Ojanen has a bit more merit, though. It does seem like Amished is using a certain argument selectively for Sando, and not for me. Even if he thought I had other redeeming factors, I'd expect him to at least mention it at one point or another. Later he seems indecisive over whether he missed my post, or didn't miss it but thoguht I was more townie. If he didn't miss it, I'd expect him to mention it somewhere. Not necessarily vote me over it - but if there's something which is the MAIN reason for you voting for X, and it also applies to Y, you should say so. It's not like you're only bringing up scum-tells against the person you're voting for.
However,

@Sando: Your asking for town-read from SC is a null-tell for me now, cause I do believe you would do that as town as well.

Where exactly did this come from? What caused you to change your mind? I don't get it.

All in all - slightly scummy with the town-tells as argument issue. A bit more scummy than Sando in my eyes at the moment.

Misc

Post 259 by SC flared a red light. Seems like SC is knows Sando is town, or simply heavily defending him? Either way, don't like.

Since it was already brought up, I'll explain my asking for SC's town-tells. I didn't really want the town tells. I wanted for him to scum hunt. What I meant was that if nothing else, he might at least share his town-tells - although I'd rather have him finding scum-tells.

Zorblag: Could you pretty please stop with the Troll speak? Your posts consistently take me thrice as much time to read as all the other posts... I mean, I tried to get used to it and all, but I'm afraid I just can't.

[ODDin]

Not quite true - the advantage of a vig shot is you don't need to convince anyone. So it's really more a question of who would you knock out of the game without needing any evidence or convincing.

Let's assume I'm town with no special power role info (it's day 1). Now I HAVE to kill somebody. Naturally, I shall kill the one I find scummiest. Sure, perhaps there are cases where killing somebody I don't find scummiest can somehow help, but at the moment I can't even hypothetically think of such a situation (perhaps if it could somehow generate a guaranteed living townie, but I can't see how it could do that).

So, all I see here is "who do you find scummiest?".

[ODDin]

Well, that's a poor option.

I'd kill the scummiest player who would be hard to lynch.

Imagine the player you thought was scummiest was l-1 with a lot of others asking him to claim. Would you use your vig on the scummiest player then?

Er, you're right, I guess it was a poor option and I didn't think it through enough. In the described situation, you're probably correct - otherwise I'd be forcng the town to scramble for a poor second rate lynch.
However, I'm not sure I see the relevance to the game. What info has been gleaned from my answer, and from the fact that my original answer was, in fact, a poor one? (Altough in this specific case, PZ is still the better choice, as he is both my top suspect and not the intended lynch)

Awesome of you for asking me to give my town reads and then saying you think that my town read was heavily defending him and scummy.

What I'm saying is that the wording of your post made me feel likeyou know Sando's alignment for a fact. I think it was this phrase that really mad me itch:

In short, look past the words (and his words will generally do their best to catch your eye ) and look at the position and the scumhunting, I think that's the key to finding sando's alignment.

There's also a slight vibe of Sando defending you back which reinforces my feelings in this direction. I'm getting the overall impression you two are defending one another.
Then again, you know each other IRL, so it might be atributed to that. So I guess I shouldn't be putting too much stock into this.

[ODDin]

With these two as my choices, I'd go with lynching Amished, though I'd really like to hear his response to my question there. Today I should be able to check the game regularly enough to vote pretty close to the deadline.

[ODDin]

see this is as a nulltell, since I don't know how it would be helpful Sando-town, either.

I didn't say it was pro-town either. What I said is that I don't find it very scummy.

Anyways, right now I'm going to sleep (it's 3 a.m over here), which means that barring the possible nightly excursion to the bathroom with a glance at the comp I won't be around from this moment to the deadline.
Thus,

vote: Amished

[ODDin]

Forgot to unvote.

unvote, vote Amished

[ODDin]

I'm somewhat down with a nasty cold, which means I likely won't be too active in the near future.

That being said, my arguments from yesterday still stand. I've been wanting to look more closely at Zorblag - his behaviour seems somewhat fence-sitting-ish. But I'll do that when my brain works more properly.

Anyways, to get things rolling:

vote: PapaZito

[ODDin]

Still a bit sick, but I see there's disturbingly little activity, so I'll at least answer OJ to maybe help move this somewhere.

My main reason for voting PZ is that he voted based on a case which was factually wrong, and refused to explain his actions when his mistakes were brought up.

Specifically:
1) He said my initial vote on eKim was random - it wasn't (which is clearly seen in post 77).
2) He said it was scummy that I didn't switch from a random vote on eKim to voting for himself. I've explained much earlier in the thread that I found eKim more suspicious than PZ based on the info I then had (post 200)
3) He said I was late to react to things that were already in the game for a long time. Looking at the posts clearly explains that I reacted to said things the moment I saw them.

That's the heart of it. There was also the issue of PZ's bandwagon on SC and all that and stuff that VP said - which I do find a little scummy, but they aren't my main reason for voting.

[ODDin]

Is anyone opposed to Albert B. Rampage replacing Amished?

No.

oDDin, I don't like that vote.

Care to elaborate?

[ODDin]

I'm getting the feeling people aren't really reading my posts, but I'll repeat my arguments yet again.

1.

Let's disregard for a second the fact that PZ's case was against me. He made a case against a player which was factually wrong. All of the arguments were wrong - no interpretation or subjectivity here, the arguments were completely wrong. (See my posts 280 and 296)
When this is pointed out, he doesn't say anything on the subject and essentially disregards the issue. He even proceeds to accuse me of WIFOM for this.
And this is his best case until the end of D1 - a case based on nonexistent arguments.
Now, why would PZ, an experienced player, have a case based on wrong arguments as his prime case? The option that makes the most sense to me is that he's fabricated it - I find it pretty hard to believe that he wouldn't have understood that his arguments are wrong. Maybe he'd say so at first, but if he was genuine about it, I'd expect him to back off and admit to his mistakes.
So, the only explanation I can find is that he's fabricated the case deliberately, that he knows that it's completely bullshit, and still pursues it. I think it's obvious why I think his actions make him more likely to be scum, then.

2.

The above isn't my only issue with PZ - and I've said this before as well. I think that he created generated confusion with his wagon on SC, which he could've avoided. This confusion has hurt the town. Later, as SC has pointed out near the end of the day and partially in twilight, he didn't attempt to use the information that it has generated. I think that although it didn't work out quite like he'd want it to, it still could have been used as a tool for gaining some info.
Also, there's the whole issue with VP, which I also find a little scummy, but I don't want to recap it for fear of putting words into people's mouths.

Other stuff

As I said I'd do, I reread most of Zorblag's posts. There is a slight fence-sitting vibe coming from him, though it's less severe than the first impression I've had. He's saying various opinions and sharing observations, but doesn't really commit to anything too strongly or push anything too far. He says that it's just an impression and that he does, in fact, commit to things strongly - but it doesn't change the fact that the impression is there.
However, in both games I've played with him he replaced into the game at some point, which may account for me getting the feeling he's more active.
So I'm watching him pretty closely at the moment and he's somewhat scummy in my eyes, but I'll wait to see how he acts today.

Also, I really wish to apologise on my issue with Zorblag's Troll Speak. Maybe it's because English is, technically, my third language, but it is harder for me to read his posts than it is to read "normal" posts.

[ODDin]

It's more serious than that. The way he (PZ) put it, my case on him (PZ) was stronger than my case on eKim, yet I didn't change my vote. That's what he (PZ) called scummy.
However, it wasn't so - and this is also a thing I've explicitly said before in the thread, when Amished asked me who I found scummier, and I asnwered eKim, not PZ. (The very beginning of post 200.)
So, it's not only that he said my vote was random when it wasn't - he went on to infer that I didn't vote for a case that I should have felt was stronger (the case on PZ) when I explicitly said that I didn't find it stronger already before.
So, if I'm town, then I shouldn't have lied and say that I find eKim scummier than PZ when it wasn't so. And if I'm scum, it's not like I think in terms of "scummy" and "not scummy" anyway.
So, it's only that he confused "RVS vote" with "initial weak vote". He's made a conclusion from the way I supposedly felt about the two cases (that I supposedly felt the PZ case was stronger than the eKim case), when I've explicitly said the opposite (that I felt the eKim case was stronger than the PZ case).

(I hope I'm making sense with this.)

Then there's another thing - he later said that I waited with reacting to things which were in the thread for a long time, inferring that I must have waited to see how things turned. This is also incorrect, if you just check when the relevant posts were made.

[ODDin]

EBWOP: So, it's not only that he confused "RVS vote" with "initial weak vote".

[ODDin]

Okay, suppose PZ is town. He makes a mistake and thinks my vote on eKim was RVS. He accuses me for it and votes me for it. Okay, mistakes happen. Then I point out that he was wrong. Why doesn't he back off? Why doesn't he admit it was a mistake? Why does he refuse to address it in any way and continue to vote?

I can agree that if you take the post where he votes me in isolation, it could've been a mistake made by a townie. But the fact that he didn't admit it was a mistake and continued to vote for me based on it doesn't sit right with me at all. He obviously read what I've said, he even replied to select parts of these posts. So what's the town motivation behind continuing to vote for something that you know is wrong?

Bottom line: I agree that the original post could've been an honest mistake. It doesn't make sense to me that him not admitting it even after it's been pointed out - several times - can be an honest townie mistake.

[ODDin]

There is one point he has raised that I find very telling, however: PZ started a bandwagon to gauge reactions (I am willing to give him this, because I like to do this too), then did not use those reactions towards any end.

Credit where credit is due: SC raised this point, not I.

Do you feel this makes him more likely to be scum, or is it more along the lines of bad play? I found SerialClergyman's interaction with him at the end of the play intriguing in that he seemed rather heated in his arguments against PZ, but ultimately it seemed more like criticizing playstyle because it annoyed him without committing to a solid position on PZ's alignment.

I think that depends on how good a player I think PZ is. I didn't acually read his meta, but I saw the hype of his nomination for best new player, so I kinda tend to believe that if he does something then it's intended. So I'm leaning towards "more likely to be scum". But maybe I'm expecting too much of people.


Also, I do actually think that my case is pretty strong. But maybe it's just me.

[ODDin]

ODDin, if I remember correctly, you didn't find Sando very scummy for basing his vote on Amished on inaccurate statements about the argument about LoSses. Why is drawing a parallel here to PZ wrong, why PZ basing his argument on your vote being random etc. more scummy?

Several thigns.
1) What Sando said was a misinterpretation, but not as serious as what PZ did, IMHO.
2) Sando was willing to discuss the issue, and eventually admitted that he was wrong and backed off.

@PZ: By refusing to even discuss the issue you're actively sabotaging the game. If you are indeed town, you have to grant the possibility that I am town. You cannot expect me to back off without providing any defence whatsoever, now can you?

AGar: OMGUS is a matter of interpretation and whether you think I'm honest or lying, so I can't really answer to that. As for the empty vote - it's based on a case. It's the best case I've got at the moment. I've been with this case since D1 without much change (because PZ doesn't deign to answer it). Where were you then, I wonder?

Zorblag: You practically didn't provide any opinions with this post. How about

your

top suspects?

[ODDin]

ODDin, if I remember correctly, you didn't find Sando very scummy for basing his vote on Amished on inaccurate statements about the argument about LoSses. Why is drawing a parallel here to PZ wrong, why PZ basing his argument on your vote being random etc. more scummy?

Several thigns.
1) What Sando said was a misinterpretation, but not as serious as what PZ did, IMHO.
2) Sando was willing to discuss the issue, and eventually admitted that he was wrong and backed off.

@PZ: By refusing to even discuss the issue you're actively sabotaging the game. If you are indeed town, you have to grant the possibility that I am town. You cannot expect me to back off without providing any defence whatsoever, now can you?

AGar: OMGUS is a matter of interpretation and whether you think I'm honest or lying, so I can't really answer to that. As for the empty vote - it's based on a case. It's the best case I've got at the moment. I've been with this case since D1 without much change (because PZ doesn't deign to answer it). Where were you then, I wonder?

Zorblag: You practically didn't provide any opinions with this post. How about

your

top suspects?

[ODDin]

I think ODDin is tunneling too hard on PZ over something small. I don't mind people thinking PZ is scum necessarily, but I'd like to see a better case than that if you expect to persuade people that way.

See, my aim in this game is to catch scum, not to lynch PZ. I haven't got more reasons up my sleeve - I've said what I think. If people don't think that the case is strong - okay, maybe I'm wrong with this and am indeed blowing things out of proportion.
What I'm trying to say is, I can't "persuade" you anymore than I already have. If you don't think my case is worthy of a vote at the moment, it's your right. I'm not going to fabricate new arguments just to get a lynch, since that's not what I'm trying to achieve.

Scien: your reasoning is pure WIFOM. You really should know better.
PZ using it also disturbs me.

PZ, you're not voting me today, but you did vote for me yesterday. I think my arguments against you are pretty clear, even if perhaps not very strong. Why you don't make any attempts to answer them is a mystery to me.

[ODDin]

I wish to apologize in advance, I won't be able to be too active for most of this week, since I've got loads of work to do. I'll do my best to catch up on things as they happen.

In the meanwhile, regarding the case(s) against me, frankly, I haven't got much to say. If you think my case is contrived and fabricated, go ahead and do - saying "it's not" won't get us anywhere.
Regarding the tunneling, I did reread Zorblag in iso, but didn't really find anything of value. I might say that if I were scum it'd be easier for me to accuse Zorblag to avoid the tunneling accusation, but that's going into WIFOM territory.
I want to reread AGar, but as I've said above, I'm not sure when I'll manage to do that. The problem is, him saying "I was skimming through D1" negates many possible arguments.

[ODDin]

"I was skimming" should not be a way out.

I'm not saying it's a way out, but it does kill lots of possible discussion. For instance, I mentioned AGar not accusing me until today, although everything he's accusing me for was already there yesterday. His answer? "I skimmed past it yesterday." I can't continue questioning that or pushing in that direction.

[ODDin]

@ODDin - had I been here yesterday, I would've been suspicious of you. Not enough to vote, because Sando was waving scumflags all over the place in my book, but enough to come into today suspicious of you.

That's what you say.

[ODDin]

OJ: I didn't ignore it, I just didn't have the time needed to reevaluate it and make a decision. I wasn't sure what to think and so didn't say anything until making a decision. I did say I won't be able to participate much, and that's what came of it.
Now I thought about this, and I think you have a point. I did accuse PZ mainly for believing he was attacking me for the first wave, not the second. To be frank, it still doesn't make sense to me that he meant the second wave, but I'll take his word on it. In this light, it's more miscommunication than twisting facts on his side - although it really could've helped if he said something a himself earlier. I'm still annoyed at him, but now this certainly doesn't deserve a vote.

VP has made some interesting points on Raskol, and Raskol replacing out without even addresing it is annoying in the extreme.
And crypto is accusing people for... NOT being on the Sando wagon? Say what?

Zorblag not voting anyone and still not expressing any serious suspicions so close to the deadline is disturbing, and raising my suspicion against him back up.

unvote

, and I'll have to think a bit more on whom I'm going to vote.

[ODDin]

crypto, do you even stop to think about what you're saying?
Let's say that S1 is number of scum on first day mislynch, SN1 is number of scum not on first day mislynch, A1 and AN1 are all people on / not on first day mislynch.
You simply say that SN1 > 0 most of the time - which tells you that there is some chance that scum are not on first day mislynch (no shit). What you're supposed to check is whether (SN1/AN1) > (S1/A1), that is, whether the chance of finding scum not on the mislynch is larger than finding scum on the mislynch.

Right now I'm leaning towards Zorblag and crypto with my vote. I want to hear more from them before I decide anything, though.

[ODDin]

Regarding Zorblag: I don't like it that he's fence sitting still. It bothered me at the end of D1, but then I reread what he wrote and it made more sense to me, and also I thought that I've never seen Zorblag actually starting a game (I played 2 games with him but he replaced in). Plus, he said that he's aware of the impression he's creating and that it's not true. So I decided to let the issue drop and see how he behaves D2. It hasn't changed much, we're very close to the deadline and he's silent, which doesn't sit right with how I remember him playing town (and I've seen him play town D2, and I saw him pushing arguments which weren't really great).
However, he's promised more content, so I want to wait a bit and see whether he actually comes up with something, and what.

Regarding crypto: there are the things you said on Raskol, and I agree with you on them. I admit to not seeing it myself, but when you pointed it out, you have a point.
Another issue is crypto's crap argument on the Sando wagon. I want to hear more from him to try to decide whether he was completely clueless or whether he was actually attempting to fabricate weird ass arguments.

[ODDin]

ODDin, you're voting for me because you think I'm "fabricat[ing] weird[-]ass arguments." Are you sure it isn't because suspicions of you? What are my weird-ass arguments?

I am not voting you. Actually, scratch that, I am as of the end of this post. But we'll get to that.

Your weird[-]ass argument is quite clear - it's the one about the value of looking for scum among those not being on a townie wagon D1. It has no mathematical basis (the chances to hit scum randomly in each group are equal at best), and it contradicts the logic of the game - not being on a towie wagon is not a scum tell, and if anything, it's a town tell.

The game isn't large. Currently you only have to keep track of 8 people - even this isn't so hard. And even if it is difficult for you (seeing that you replaced in pretty close to the deadline), there are MUCH better ways to choose a group of people to focus on.
Instead, you're making a really lame excuse as to why you're choosing a specific group of players to focus on.

So, yes, I think you're making up bullshit reasons to vote and suspect people, which is scummy.

Is my coming vote OMGUS? I'll let everybody else be the judge of that.

Is Raskol replacing out without addressing them only annoying, or also scummy?

Only annoying. I don't think replacing out of the game means something about the player's role, especially when a specific reason is provided which says the opposite. So, no, I don't think it's scummy, since I see no reason for Raskol-scum to be more likely to replace out than for Raskol-town.

And as promised

vote: crypto

[ODDin]

ODDin, what are your reads on AGar and VP Baltar?

My read on AGar is slightly scummy, because I don't entirely trust that he simply skimmed D1 and not deliberately stayed under the radar.

My read on VP is slightly pro-town. He hasn't done anything I find scummy. He's fairly active, he pushes things but doesn't tunnel, looks like he's actively scumhunting and looking for new stuff.

it contradicts the logic of the game - not being on a towie wagon is not a scum tell, and if anything, it's a town tell

FOS: ODDin.

You know that's wrong. Oh, and I didn't call it a scum tell. I'm saying I find it very likely that there's scum among the three of you.

No, I don't know it's wrong. Also, I said it isn't a scum tell, and you apparently aren't saying it's a scum tell either. So how is this wrong, exactly? Notice that I didn't say it's a town tell - though it might be under certain circumstances.

The game isn't large. Currently you only have to keep track of 8 people - even this isn't so hard.

I didn't say it was hard to keep track of eight people. I'm saying that typically it's easier to pick scum out of a small group than it is to pick scum out of a big group.

There's a thing called tunneling. There's a reason it's bad.
First of all, you shouldn't only be looking for one scum at a time. You should be looking for all scum all the time. Other than that, the narrow focus doesn't allow others to properly understand your relations to people. Suppose somebody flips scum. One goes back to reread how other people were treating him, what were they saying about him, could they be his scumbuddies. But oh, well, crypto didn't even bother looking at him, so zero info from here.
This is bad.

And even if it is difficult for you (seeing that you replaced in pretty close to the deadline), there are MUCH better ways to choose a group of people to focus on.

Wanna reveal those ways, O Mighty One?

Well, for starters, you can go with those who have a vote on them already. Since there are townies around who actually read the game, it'd make sense to assume that they found at least some reasons to vote for people, and that there aren't extremely scummy things they've missed. So, if I really had to limit the group of people I choose from, I'd probably go for those who have a vote on them.

So, yes, I think you're making up bullshit reasons to vote and suspect people, which is scummy.

You just said that. Also, you're still being moronic. Also-also, I already said that wasn't the primary reason for my vote for AGar. Also-also-also, I didn't say I suspected any of those three players. I already told you "accusing" was too strong a word. Stop misrepresenting my posts and/or stop being a terrible reader.

I see that calling me a moron / idiot is a favourite defence tactic of yours. This is gonna get you places.
Now, I can agree that you aren't accusing them. The fact that you limit your search to 3 people you aren't even accusing or calling scummy makes this all the worse, you know. People around here are being asked for top 3 SUSPECTS, and you're giving 3 people who are the only people you're looking at at all.

Is my coming vote OMGUS? I'll let everybody else be the judge of that.

Why can't

I

be the judge of it? Anyway, yes, hopping off your super-awesome Troll/PZ soapbox to vote for me because you think I'm mathematically deficient and scum-hunting illogically is 100% OMGUS. It's especially delicious when you ignore Raskol all game and then suddenly claim to have had an epiphany about Baltar's points versus him.

Way to go.
1) I unvoted PZ for reasons which had nothing to do with you. There was miscommunication between us, I didn't understand some of the things he was saying, the issue was clarified (thanks to OJ), I realised that in light of the clarification my vote on him as very weak, I unvoted.

2) I was never strongly accusing Zorblag. I was suspicios of him, yes. I still don't like his play and think it's scummy, but I don't think I said that I super suspect him.

3) Worst, however, is the fact that you weren't even voting for me. OMGUS as a scum tactic is meant to nullify the attack against you by instead attacking the one behind the attack - if you convince people that your attacker is scummy, then you sort of defend yourself. How exactly is OMGUSing you supposed to help me if I'm scum? You were barely attacking me at all.

4) It does feel like you're OMGUSing me, however. Very much so.

5) That being said, I can agree to the issue about Raskol. Yes, I didn't notice the points against him until VP posted it. If you think I lied and just hopped on the opportunity to vote you, you're free to think so.

6) Still, it escapes me how voting you would help me if I were scum. For crying out loud, I'm the only one voting for you. I have more votes than you.

And then you essentially admit that what you're doing may look like OMGUS, but you don't even bother arguing to the contrary.

Anytime X accuses Y and Y accuses X it can be called an OMGUS. To say your vote isn't OMGUS means, essentially, to say "no, I'm not lying". If you think I'm, saying "no I'm not" won't change your mind. That's why I don't find much sense in defending against OMGUS accusations - not now and not ever. The only "defence" I can provide is what I said above - to say that I don't see how my actions benefit scum. But this is bordering on WIFOM.

[ODDin]

crypto - you're full of shit and you're contradicting yourself. If you're NOT limiting the scope of your scumhunting to only 3 people, then the whole thing with "it's easier to search for scum among 3 people than 6" loses its point.
When I talked about you accusing people / calling them scummy, I obviously referred to the 3 people you mentioned as a group. You mentioned AGar separately, yes, but you included myself and VP in those who should be lynched. You only "accusation" of VP remains to this point that he wasn't on a townie wagon D1, and yet he's one of 3 people you believe should be lynched today.

Regarding chronology, you've begun accusing me much more severely and actively AFTER I expressed a desire to vote for you.

Also,

I'm not interested in pursuing a case on you at the moment. If I did I assure you my case against you would be much more ... existent.

So, you FoS me based on a nonexistent case?

Lastly, I AM attacking you based on your apparent scuminess. I'm attacking you for tunneling and inventing lame excuses for tunneling.
While we're at it, have you read the game at all? You've barely said anything of substance regarding the entire game. Are you, perhaps, just happy to argue with me with idiotic one liners that go nowhere hoping it'll make you look very active and then we'll forget you didn't bother with actually reading the game or commenting on real stuff?

That's the second time you've done that this game. Is this normal for you?

This time, you will notice that crypto has actually accused me of OMGUS himself before I said this. What I said was a reply to a direct accusation.
However, as I've said, I don't tend to "defend" myself against arguments which are, in their core, "I think you're lying" - simply because I don't think there's much point in defending against them. I can't prove I didn't lie. I've already explained the reason behind my vote - if one thinks the stated reason is a fabrication and the actual reason is different, there's nothing much I can do. Any attempt at defending against such accusations is bound to be WIFOM.


Also, I like 544 by Zorblag.

[ODDin]

crypto - you're full of shit and you're contradicting yourself. If you're NOT limiting the scope of your scumhunting to only 3 people, then the whole thing with "it's easier to search for scum among 3 people than 6" loses its point.
When I talked about you accusing people / calling them scummy, I obviously referred to the 3 people you mentioned as a group. You mentioned AGar separately, yes, but you included myself and VP in those who should be lynched. You only "accusation" of VP remains to this point that he wasn't on a townie wagon D1, and yet he's one of 3 people you believe should be lynched today.

Regarding chronology, you've begun accusing me much more severely and actively AFTER I expressed a desire to vote for you.

Also,

I'm not interested in pursuing a case on you at the moment. If I did I assure you my case against you would be much more ... existent.

So, you FoS me based on a nonexistent case?

Lastly, I AM attacking you based on your apparent scuminess. I'm attacking you for tunneling and inventing lame excuses for tunneling.
While we're at it, have you read the game at all? You've barely said anything of substance regarding the entire game. Are you, perhaps, just happy to argue with me with idiotic one liners that go nowhere hoping it'll make you look very active and then we'll forget you didn't bother with actually reading the game or commenting on real stuff?

That's the second time you've done that this game. Is this normal for you?

This time, you will notice that crypto has actually accused me of OMGUS himself before I said this. What I said was a reply to a direct accusation.
However, as I've said, I don't tend to "defend" myself against arguments which are, in their core, "I think you're lying" - simply because I don't think there's much point in defending against them. I can't prove I didn't lie. I've already explained the reason behind my vote - if one thinks the stated reason is a fabrication and the actual reason is different, there's nothing much I can do. Any attempt at defending against such accusations is bound to be WIFOM.


Also, I like 544 by Zorblag.

[ODDin]

I was unaware I need a case for a suspicion.

LOL

What about it?

He voices actual suspicions and seems connected to the game. He's doing more than he probably could've if he wanted to continue lurking. It also looks more like how I remember him from games he was town.

[ODDin]

In which make it doesn't make sense to you and why did you decide to unvote despite of that?

I don't think PZ was lying when he said he was referring to the second wave. It doesn't *completely* doesn't make sense to me - I can see, if I really try, how he was referring to the second wave. What I mean is that I don't feel my initial assumption was a wrong one to make and that it was reasonable for me to understand what he was referring to correctly.
So, if he says he was referring to the second wave, it seems the logical thing for me to believe him.

(I hope I'm making sense with this myself now, I'm pretty tired ATM)

Can you expand on what you meant by the "as promised" here?

At the beginning of that post I said I was going to vote for crypto, but I voted at the end of the post as per BB's request. That was my "promise".

[ODDin]

Thanks BB for the modding. I would, in concept, like to do such a game again, but I'm not sure I'll have the time for it in the near future.

Scum, you did a great job indeed.