Mini 904 - Narnia: LWW Mafia (Game Over)

[wolframnhart]

I never accused you of lurking, and if it came off that way oh well.

Specific question(s): Why did you vote narnian? You said it was a good place to start, but why?

No, 476 is not my best shot at participation, and I could care less if i am on your suspicion list. No one has asked me about my role pm reason for jumping off a vanilla wagon, and if people want an explanation I am more then happy to give one.

Most scum are given fakeclaims, if we massclaimed popcorn style and scum didnt have fake claims they might very well be found out easily.

And I would not support a massclaim on day 2, horrible idea for town there.

[kikuchiyo]

I never accused you of lurking, and if it came off that way oh well.

Okay. Oh well.

Specific question(s): Why did you vote narnian? You said it was a good place to start, but why?

Upon first read, snail's post felt genuine. Rereading it and his subsequent summary dismissal of RBT's play as "town" I realize how poor it is. In iso, you actually give off more of a town read, so I retract my statement. Good place to start meant "we need to start somewhere". We had a "case" and a suspect. A vote adds pressure.

Unvote

I have played with RBT and I don't think it is kosher to write his behavior off as probable town. It is null tell at best. I gave him a pass on day 1 because in previous experience(and two games I've read) his play doesn't change on day 1 even if pressured. Snail writing his play off reads like scum/scum or scum buddying town. In both cases Snail is the part of scum.

Vote: evilsnail

No, 476 is not my best shot at participation, and I could care less if i am on your suspicion list. No one has asked me about my role pm reason for jumping off a vanilla wagon, and if people want an explanation I am more then happy to give one.

I believe I brought it up and felt it got glossed over. After an iso of you, I am satisified at this time. I would, however, be happy to see more participation.

Most scum are given fakeclaims, if we massclaimed popcorn style and scum didnt have fake claims they might very well be found out easily.

And I would not support a massclaim on day 2, horrible idea for town there.

A bit non sequitur here. But oh well. I'd rather not massclaim for the same reason I told dybeck yesterday. Apologies if I have offended you. That was not my intention. I just get bothered when I try to participate and feel overwhelmed with what I percieve to be poor arguments.

Frustrating thing here is that both lead wagons for day 1 flipped town and a third claimed uncountered power. So scum didn't really have to work hard at all. So we are faced with the inevitable wifom of: did scum try and stay off the radar yesterday while town tore itself apart?

[wolframnhart]

No apologies needed, no offense was taken.

More participation in general is what this game needs.

[Kdub]

Vote Count

Riceballtail (1)

- HackerHuck

MadCrawdad (0)

-

kikuchiyo (1)

- Riceballtail

HackerHuck (0)

-

Papa Zito (0)

-

wolframnhart (0)

-

Narninian (1)

- evilsnail

manho (0)

-

evilsnail (2)

- Papa Zito, kikuchiyo

No Lynch (0)

-

Not Voting (4)

- MadCrawdad, wolframnhart, Narninian, manho

9 votes available, 5 votes needed to lynch.

Deadline is February 19, ~ 8:00 pm MST.

[HackerHuck]

...Good place to start meant "we need to start somewhere". We had a "case" and a suspect. A vote adds pressure.

Unvote

I have played with RBT and I don't think it is kosher to write his behavior off as probable town. It is null tell at best. I gave him a pass on day 1 because in previous experience(and two games I've read) his play doesn't change on day 1 even if pressured. Snail writing his play off reads like scum/scum or scum buddying town. In both cases Snail is the part of scum.

Vote: evilsnail

I'm having a little trouble following your train of thought throughout that entire post, but I noticed that you mentioned RBT twice in your post and imply here that he's not likely town. If pressure is so important, why choose someone else to vote for?
I'm also curious why you're choosing evilsnail as your target when you've admitted that his read on RBT is the same as yours. Just how is it that it looks like scum doing it when he says it, but not you?

[kikuchiyo]

I'm having a little trouble following your train of thought throughout that entire post, but I noticed that you mentioned RBT twice in your post and imply here that he's not likely town. If pressure is so important, why choose someone else to vote for?

I am voting for the more likely scum of the two. Not sure if you saw the part where I said "could be scum/scum or scum buddying town". Evilsnail plays the part of scum in both equations. Therefore he is "more likely" to be scum based off of my read.

I'm also curious why you're choosing evilsnail as your target when you've admitted that his read on RBT is the same as yours. Just how is it that it looks like scum doing it when he says it, but not you?

No. Similar, but not the same. My opinion was day 1 based on meta and was "null tell". He's giving RBT a "town" read on day 2 if I am reading his post right.

Meh, I'm not seeing the RBT case. He's been opportunistic with his vote, sure, and he hasn't contributed too much, but there are plenty of people who play like that when town.

I never said RBT was oppurtunistic. His only quality I am aware of which goes with his meta is low day 1 contribution. "Oppurtunistic" should be explained more. How is he oppurtunistic, and why is it not likely scummy?

[MadCrawdad]

Why are you so intent on digging there?

I'm not going to push the issue.

Noone has to reveal anything they don't want to. "Intent" is a mischaractyerization of my stance.

Okay. Then why do you seem so eager to go there?

I'd like some PZ.

Rowr.

Not impressed by snail's post.

You seem to have issues with his predecessor also, as evilsnail drew your early vote on D2 (before he even posted). What initially drew your vote to Sibelius/evilsnail?

[Narninian]

What is "ISO"?

[HackerHuck]

What is "ISO"?

People are using it to indicate when they read someone's posts in isolation rather than in the normal context of the thread. At least that what I'm seeing lately.

[manho]

just loss in 2 games in the same day...

will catch up tomorrow, sorry.

[kikuchiyo]

Okay. Then why do you seem so eager to go there?

Again, saying I am "eager" is a mischaracterization. Does Narninian's recent post indicate that he is "eager" to know what ISO means? No. He is asking a question. I asked a question. When HH said he didn't think it was a good idea, I acquiesced and explained that I would not push the issue. I have not pushed the issue. Where does this interpretation of my behavior as "eager" or "intent" come from? Again, what other lines of questioning would you like to pursue? If mine are not beneficial, then where would you like to start?

Here's a question:

Did scum try and stay off the radar yesterday while town tore itself apart?

With three townies(two confirmed) to choose from, do you think scum would have been more or less active yesterday? Was there any behavior around the wagons which you found suspect and which you feel clearly demonstrates scum behavior? If so, what was it and why is it scummy?

[Kdub]

evilsnail has been prodded.

[Riceballtail]

Opportunistic hammer? Hammering with hours before the deadline is anything BUT opportunistic. Also, I'm liking what I see from Kiku a bit more now than yesterday.

Unvote; FoS:Kiku

[Papa Zito]

You seem to have issues with his predecessor also, as evilsnail drew your early vote on D2 (before he even posted). What initially drew your vote to Sibelius/evilsnail?

His predecessor did an

awful

lot of defending Starbuck yesterday, prior to her flip. I mean, an awful lot. Almost exclusively, even. In fact, not only did he spend his time defending Starbuck, but he made sure to attack those pushing her wagon. Seems he had a case of Perfectinfoitis.

[evilsnail]

Sorry for needing to be prodded. Was V/LA for a few days because of travelling.

I have played with RBT and I don't think it is kosher to write his behavior off as probable town. It is null tell at best. I gave him a pass on day 1 because in previous experience(and two games I've read) his play doesn't change on day 1 even if pressured. Snail writing his play off reads like scum/scum or scum buddying town. In both cases Snail is the part of scum.

I never wrote off RBT's behaviour as "probable town" or "town." So, your reasoning here is flawed, because it is based on that assumption. What I said was that I have seen plenty of players play like that even as town. It's a null tell without anything substantial (and this you concede also!). So, you're voting for me for something I never said.

In any case, I stand by my original assessment.

Btw, would you or Papa Zito care to contribute anything more substantial than "don't like snail's post" or "I realize how poor it is" (if any of this pertains to my Narninian case, anyway)?

[MadCrawdad]

Okay. Then why do you seem so eager to go there?

Again, saying I am "eager" is a mischaracterization. Does Narninian's recent post indicate that he is "eager" to know what ISO means? No. He is asking a question. I asked a question. When HH said he didn't think it was a good idea, I acquiesced and explained that I would not push the issue. I have not pushed the issue. Where does this interpretation of my behavior as "eager" or "intent" come from? Again, what other lines of questioning would you like to pursue? If mine are not beneficial, then where would you like to start?

Eager, because you didn't drop it entirely. You may have changed direction slightly, but you were still heading down the same path in any follow-up.

Here's a question:

Did scum try and stay off the radar yesterday while town tore itself apart?

With three townies(two confirmed) to choose from, do you think scum would have been more or less active yesterday? Was there any behavior around the wagons which you found suspect and which you feel clearly demonstrates scum behavior? If so, what was it and why is it scummy?

I'll be putting some thoughts together, here. It may take a day or two.

Opportunistic hammer? Hammering with hours before the deadline is anything BUT opportunistic. Also, I'm liking what I see from Kiku a bit more now than yesterday.

Unvote; FoS:Kiku

Would it be possible for you to provide specifics....on anything?

FoS: Riceballtail

[manho]

nearly forgotten that the starbuck-lynch is an information lynch, at least imo. so i go through my own iso to see what conclusion i had drawn.

"the lynch is scum-pushed, and the scum behind it is dybeck"
"if starbuck flips town, dybeck must be scum"
"there is at least one, maybe two, scum in the set {dybeck, bv, kiku}"

i think the vig-fishing by kiku was targetted at me. i would definately vig dybeck if i'm the vig. but i'm not. so why did dybeck die? i really don't see the reason for killing dybeck, as he is one of the most likely lynch today. i think he was vigged by someone else. but it's also possible that the scum want us to be confused about the kill.

[manho]

the above post makes a null tell against kiku.

more analysis later.

[Papa Zito]

Btw, would you or Papa Zito care to contribute anything more substantial than "don't like snail's post" or "I realize how poor it is" (if any of this pertains to my Narninian case, anyway)?

Read the post right above yours?

[kikuchiyo]

I never said RBT was oppurtunistic. His only quality I am aware of which goes with his meta is low day 1 contribution. "Oppurtunistic" should be explained more. How is he oppurtunistic, and why is it not likely scummy?

Nice strawman, snail. The above question is the one you failed to address. Also, you have implied that I am not contributing much today. Did you mean to imply that? I have been active and have come up with some thought provoking questions. My stance was RBT, null-tell, day 1. Yours is day 2. You also heaped on the "oppurtunistic" voting. Please address the above question.

Madcraw: Not sure what you are getting at. I made my stance clear on the subject with my initial request. In subsequent posts I made it clear I would not push the issue. I do not see how my behavior translates to "going down a path" or whatever you are implying. If you have a direct question or a direct post you would like me to comment on, then by all means. If not, I don't see how the conversation is at all beneficial.

[evilsnail]

Btw, would you or Papa Zito care to contribute anything more substantial than "don't like snail's post" or "I realize how poor it is" (if any of this pertains to my Narninian case, anyway)?

Read the post right above yours?

Read the post you are replying to? As I say in parentheses, if any of this refers to anything concrete I've said, like my Narninian case, I'd like to hear it so I can address it. I can't do anything with "not impressed with snail's post" or anything related to my predecessor.

I never said RBT was oppurtunistic. His only quality I am aware of which goes with his meta is low day 1 contribution. "Oppurtunistic" should be explained more. How is he oppurtunistic, and why is it not likely scummy?

Nice strawman, snail. The above question is the one you failed to address. Also, you have implied that I am not contributing much today. Did you mean to imply that? I have been active and have come up with some thought provoking questions. My stance was RBT, null-tell, day 1. Yours is day 2. You also heaped on the "oppurtunistic" voting. Please address the above question.

WTF? I missed this the first time around. First off, I wasn't replying to you. I was talking to HackerHuck. So this has nothing to do with anything you said. In addition, how can this be a strawman? How is at all relevant whether I describe his behaviour as "opportunistic" when I proceed to then call it a null tell? I just used it in a general sense to describe lurkish behaviour coupled with voting without really contributing. I didn't mean anything more than that (and why would I? Why would I be secretly making RBT out to be scummier than he really is before calling his behaviour a null tell? I thought I was supposed to be buddying up to him anyway).

I definitely didn't mean to imply that you weren't contributing. I just thought both Papa Zito and you were implying that my Narninian vote was unimpressive. If so, I would like to hear why. That was all.

So, now I have a question for you. Your vote for me, as far as I can tell, has been based on:
- me mispresenting you by saying you called RBT "opportunistic"
- me saying RBT is "probable town" over a null tell

Now, both of these points are obviously untrue. They don't even approach the realm of what could be true. So, do you stand by your vote?

[kikuchiyo]

So, now I have a question for you. Your vote for me, as far as I can tell, has been based on:
- me mispresenting you by saying you called RBT "opportunistic"

This is the strawman. I did not vote you for any misrep.

- me saying RBT is "probable town" over a null tell

Now, both of these points are obviously untrue. They don't even approach the realm of what could be true. So, do you stand by your vote?

No. The vote for you is because my iso read of Narninian reveals a much more clear and concise pattern of thought than your "case" presents. The fact that you seemed to give RBT a "pass" was just icing on the cake.

How is at all relevant whether I describe his behaviour as "opportunistic" when I proceed to then call it a null tell? I just used it in a general sense to describe lurkish behaviour coupled with voting without really contributing.

Yes. Please explain why you describe his behavior as "oppurtunistic" and then proceed to "null tell". Also, please explain how his voting pattern is "oppurtunistic".

[kikuchiyo]

I never wrote off RBT's behaviour as "probable town" or "town." So, your reasoning here is flawed, because it is based on that assumption. What I said was that I have seen plenty of players play like that even as town. It's a null tell without anything substantial (and this you concede also!). So, you're voting for me for something I never said.

This is what I was referring to with the original "strawman" comment. The part of my vote based on your interaction with RBT was a secondary and admittedly weaker part of my reasoning. Rereading my own post, I realize I may be at fault for not being more clear. The vote is mainly because your "vote" post against Narninian seemed genuine at first but did not match up with an iso read of Narninian. Both he and Wolf read town imo.

Do you have any other suspects?

[Kdub]

Vote Count

Riceballtail (1)

- HackerHuck

MadCrawdad (0)

-

kikuchiyo (0)

-

HackerHuck (0)

-

Papa Zito (0)

-

wolframnhart (0)

-

Narninian (1)

- evilsnail

manho (0)

-

evilsnail (2)

- Papa Zito, kikuchiyo

No Lynch (0)

-

Not Voting (5)

- MadCrawdad, wolframnhart, Narninian, manho, Riceballtail

9 votes available, 5 votes needed to lynch.

Deadline is February 19, ~ 8:00 pm MST.

[manho]

Meh, I'm not seeing the RBT case. He's been opportunistic with his vote, sure, and he hasn't contributed too much, but there are plenty of people who play like that when town.

@kiku, is the above post the main reason for your vote on snail?

i don't think the RBT case also.

and i've read the first part of the game, in which starbuck was pushing to a claim. i'm sure it was pushed by scum, but dybeck was not the scum behind it. i've decided that i still think the lynch was scum-pushed, even dybeck flipped town. kiku and PZ are likely to be the scum behind it.

vote: kiku