Newbie 922: Day 3

[havingfitz]

Your "case" against Cojin was certainly well documented. It seemed to boil down to (a) you do not like Acosmist's lengthy posting and (b) sticking your fingers in your ears and running around ignoring everyone and everything. As for the case for Lawls's scummy behavior, I believe it is documented from Page 1 to Page 16 of this thread; check it out. (I would like to preemptively note that you are likewise being sarcastic and snarky, so I do not think I will be responding to calls from you to adjust my own posting style at this time.)

Bullshit. The fact I do not care for Acosmist’s posts has nothing to do with my suspicions towards Cojin. To lessen my suspicions by making such a statement is completely misleading. As is your point B. I have no reason to agree on points that are incorrect, and the points being discussed for the most part between Acosmist and I were contained in the ISO analysis I did on Cojin...which only contributed in small part to my Cojin vote....which came later.

My rationale for viewing you as the most suspicious at this time is for leading the bandwagon against Cojin. He was at L-1; suppose that I decided you were more credible than Acosmist and cast my vote with you. We then would have lynched the doctor; his play was less scummy than certain others (especially Lawls) and had claimed doctor. Do you really not think that, if a lie, it was an unsustainable lie that would be sorted out overnight? You still think you would have been comfortable leading that wagon?

Cojin being less scummy than Lawls is debatable...they had equal support up until the last day. I view the questionable last second build up of the Lawls wagon with a lot more suspicion than I do either of the ‘tunnelling’ efforts by Acosmist or I. As for the Doc claim...I have explained my reasons for not wholeheartedly subscribing to his claim (post 368).

Your tunnel vision was certainly detrimental to your analysis (or lack thereof). Either it is unintentional, but anti-town nonetheless, or intentionally anti-town. You seem to be smart enough to realize when you are being detrimental, so I am suspicious of you rather than simply sad for us townies.

Similarly, Acosmist tunnelled Lawls. Is the Lawls tunnelling only acceptable because you choose to join the Lawls wagon last minute? I did share a bit of my suspicions with Lawls, Pan, and BaB on D1 so I was not entirely tunnelling. And the lack of analysis accusation is bullshit...especially given the level of effort you put into your Pan and Lawl votes on D1.

Finally how about you "justify to the rest of us your

last second move to

insistence on leading and staying on a townie wagon?"

I answered your move explanation question and in return you answer my question to you by repeating it back to me? Nothing I did with regards to Cojin was last second. And the fact he was town was not known at the time (as for Lawls). My efforts towards Cojin can be found here:

ISO 2, 5, 14
ISO 22 where I disagree with Acosmist's dead on content description of Cojin's posts (though not is support of a vote switch to Cojin)
ISO 22 where I place my vote for the last time on Cojin
ISO 38, 39, 45, 47, 52 continue to pressure Cojin

So how about answering my question to you regarding your well timed move to Lawls...which occurred the same post you unvote Pan and w/o any of your revised town-Pan rationale given above. When did you formulate your revised opinion of Pan? After she hammered? It wasn’t much prior (EF ISO 27) to your vote on Lawls that you had said your top two suspects were Pan and Nacho and that you were, “finding Lawls less and less scummy with each passing hour. ” And you made no comment of suspicion towards me (at least not in your top 3) despite the fact all your current suspicions were relevant by the end of D1 as well (sans the knowledge of who was/n’t town).

Definitely think one or both scum are on the last ditch move to the Lawl wagon. Only caveat to that would be Bab whose gameplay (and lack of) warrant suspicion.

Votecount
Nachomamma8 - 2 (havingfitz, Ellibereth)

Not Voting - 5 (Acosmist, RayFrost, Elementary Fermion, Nachomamma8, Panacea)

With 7 alive, it's 4 to lynch.

[Ellibereth]

I always see Fermion on without posting. By always I mean over the past 2 days.

[Ellibereth]

Definitely think one or both scum are on the last ditch move to the Lawl wagon.

Giant QFT, see my colorful VC's on the previous page. There were also def scum on Cojin wagon.

as for Bridges, he also flaked in his other newbie game wherever else. Basically it was a site-wide flake.

[havingfitz]

I gave plenty of reason for my suspicions towards Cojin and I have never tried to get any policy lynched.

Welcome to being wrong:

For those who want to use wrong votecounts as an excuse for hammering....

Cojin is currently at L-1

. I'm keeping my vote on him because his game is rubbish. He has lurked, provide crap responses to question when he's bothered to answer them, and sought approval for his actions from the rest of the players. Could he be town? Sure. But if he is a doc as he claims to be.....I'm not even sure scum would bother killing him at night since surviving would make his claim even more doubtful.

His play just warrants a lynch.

Then maybe scum would have mercy and NK one of the town wallposters.
BTW...Ray and Bridges are doing a great job of making Cojin and Lawls look like active participants.

Emphasis added, happy to help.

What are you hoping to illustrate with your added emphasis? Mentioning Cojin was a L-1....so? The play warrants a lynch line is preceded with reasons...to which only the lurk comment could be construed as supporting a policy lynch but which is not the lone reason for my suspicions towards his play. The only policy type situations I have had exposure to that I would support a lynch on are lynching liars and active lurkers....neither of which Lawls or Cojin were guilty of iirc.

I try to get people for scummy actions/accusations....such as accusing others of pushing for policy lynches.

Not so much, apparently.

Apparently yes....unless you can concoct a better example.

What were your reasons again for suspecting Lawls? I ask because you never really made much of a case on Lawls when you voted him.

It's still on this page; your mouse wheel not scrolling properly?

I saw your reasoning prior to the lynch. By the end of the day I would hope you'd have had a few reasons for voting Lawls. I was commenting on the fact you gave no reassoning for voting Lawls when you initially voted him. It was almost two weeks after your vote on Lawls before you gave any insight into your reasoning (Acos ISO 32), and again in ISO 47. It's interesting to note that once you did provide some reasons they were just as applicable to Cojin.

Coming out of D/N1 I'm leaning against Acosmist being scum.

That's...surprising.

Why is it a surprise? I don’t recall casting suspicions your way on D1. I don’t consider lack the of social skills a scumtell.

[havingfitz]

Definitely think one or both scum are on the last ditch move to the Lawl wagon.

Giant QFT, see my colorful VC's on the previous page. There were also def scum on Cojin wagon.

as for Bridges, he also flaked in his other newbie game wherever else. Basically it was a site-wide flake.

How is there def scum on the Cojin wagon? As that consists of Ray and I...which is it and what is your reasoning for that statement?

I think the last three votes on Lawls are extrememly scummy and would not be surprised if both scum were on it...and I can not fathom there not being at least one scum on Lawls' wagon.

Does anyone not think there is scum on the Lawls wagon? And if not...who among the four do you think it is?

And welcome Elli (?)...I found BaB's play suspicious. His absence site wide is more palatable than if he had only bailed from this game, but I am not prepared to give him/you a pass. I am however more interested in pursuing the Lawls wagon options ATT.

[Ellibereth]

There's always scum on the wagon, especially one so close to going over the precipice.
Did you see the VC's I put on the last page? I don't know who yet because I've only read something like 2 pages of this right now, but there's at least one scum in You, Ray, and Nacho, and at least one btw. Fermion and Nacho.

[Ellibereth]

And I can't help but get into a staring contest with your avatar everytime you post.

[Ellibereth]

Oh, and fitz = town now.


(1, 2) scum in Ray, Nacho
(1, 2) scum in Nacho, Fermion

[havingfitz]

@havingfitz: Is your post due to my ISO 26? If so, how did ISO 27 change your position? If not, why didn't you say anything about my scumminess in any of your previous posts?

Yes. No. Probably a combination of being tied up in wallposts with Acosmist and the fact I thought I had identified scum.

On further review...other than your late flip to Lawls (which was not necessary as the Cojin wagon had as much weight to it) and your ridiculous cop claim comments (which served no benefit to town interests), the only scummy thing from your pre-ISO 26 play is the fact your vote is all over the place.

[havingfitz]

And I can't help but get into a staring contest with your avatar everytime you post.

I won't blink, but you don't have eyes...stalemate?

Oh, and fitz = town now.

(1, 2) scum in Ray, Nacho
(1, 2) scum in Nacho, Fermion

Well...that was easy. Why is Ray scum (since he is the only other person on the Cojin wagon and there is def scum on that wagon)?

And since you have listed Nacho in both scenarios...for the third time...shouldn't we just say "Oh, and Nacho = scum now?"

[Ellibereth]

You get that my notation means "There is 1 or 2 scum in Ray and Nacho".
Nacho was also on the Cojin wagon, no? And Ray's not def scum yet.
Nacho = scum yet because Ray, Fermion is still possible.
I have it all colorfied on the last post last page.

Code: Select all

Total posts per player slot as of 432.
Nacho:33
Fermion:37
Ray: 48
Elli: 50 
Acos: 56
Fitz: 61
Pan: 67 

[Ellibereth]

EBWOP: Nacho does not = scum yet

[havingfitz]

You get that my notation means "There is 1 or 2 scum in Ray and Nacho".
Nacho was also on the Cojin wagon, no? And Ray's not def scum yet.
Nacho ≠ scum yet because Ray, Fermion is still possible.
I have it all colorfied on the last post last page.

Code: Select all

Total posts per player slot as of 432.
Nacho:33
Fermion:37
Ray: 48
Elli: 50 
Acos: 56
Fitz: 61
Pan: 67 

You said earlier that scum was definitely on the Cojin wagon. At the end of D1...Nacho was on the Lawls' wagon. The Cojin wagon was Ray and I.

Why did you provide the post totals?

[Ellibereth]

I mean when the Cojin wagon was at it's peak! Second votecount on the last post of the last page.
I'm doing the Adel thing with all the objective information, expect more. (Pan's number should be a 69). Furthermore, with the hypothesis that scum are likely to post less than town, the review of the postotals and my vote analasys have a big huge venn diagram overlap.

[Ellibereth]

Below is based off number of times word appears in a person's ISO. This means that when they're quoting and all that, etc. etc.
Their might be error in a few but nothing big.

Unvote

for now.
Fermion Ray is looking more like a real possibility looking at the abnormally low interaction level.

[Elementary Fermion]

Furthermore, with the hypothesis that scum are likely to post less than town, . . .

Where does this hypothesis come from?

Given the hypothesis that people with screen names that start with E, I have to say, Ellibereth is looking pretty suspicious. . .

[havingfitz]

Below is based off number of times word appears in a person's ISO. This means that when they're quoting and all that, etc. etc.
Their might be error in a few but nothing big.

Unvote

for now.
Fermion Ray is looking more like a real possibility looking at the abnormally low interaction level.

Interesting. Not sure I buy it. Can you show some examples where you have had success? So EF has mentioned Ray 18 times and Ray has only mentioned EF 6 times? As we all post at different amounts I'm not sure this is applicable. The people who are posting more are naturally going to mention certain players more often. Less active players like RAY are bound to have fewer mentions of individuals (ie EF). Either way...I applaud the effort...even if it feels a bit like IIoA.

[Ellibereth]

Code: Select all

Average times FERMION mentions a person: 30.125
FERMION max: Pan/Acos/Cojin: 45
FERMION min (-Elli due to Bridgeflake): Nacho, Ray: 18 
FERMION max/min: 2.5

Average times NACHO mentions a person: 21.875
NACHO max: Acos: 34
NACHO min(-Elli due to Bridgeflake): Fitz 9
NACHO: max/min 3.78

Average times RAY mentions a person: 14.75
RAY max: Lawls: 25
RAY min(-Elli due to Bridgeflake): Fermion: 6
RAY max/min: 4.17

Okay, then look at the above. Taking averages and min/max into account. The Fermion-Ray relation is abnormally low.
I have a town read on you, but I have to check on the relation between you and Nacho just in case too.

[Acosmist]

Correlation between these numbers and alignment, go.

[Elementary Fermion]

So how about answering my question to you regarding your well timed move to Lawls...which occurred the same post you unvote Pan and w/o any of your revised town-Pan rationale given above. When did you formulate your revised opinion of Pan? After she hammered? It wasn’t much prior (EF ISO 27) to your vote on Lawls that you had said your top two suspects were Pan and Nacho and that you were, “finding Lawls less and less scummy with each passing hour. ” And you made no comment of suspicion towards me (at least not in your top 3) despite the fact all your current suspicions were relevant by the end of D1 as well (sans the knowledge of who was/n’t town).

I believe that I clearly stated to which parts of the argument against Lawls I subscribed when I voted for him.

I really don't think Lawls can be judged by his shenanigans with being replaced, because, as EF and I have discussed before, he doesn't seem like a mastermind. You have to impute some considerable cunning to him to call that a plan. I think he's scum for what he did before, avoiding questions, recycling analysis, etc. I think the pressure of keeping up his facade when he was faced with the kind of play here broke him, and he threw in the towel.

I do think that this is pretty accurate. I refuse to think that Lawls is playing us with his replacement maneuvering. I explained my reasoning above that this made him Townish, but

I find myself being convinced that this reasoning here is superior

. I was calling Lawls scummy long before this. . . stuff, . . .[emphasis added]

So, yeah, there I specifically said that I had changed my mind on Lawls, and the reasons therefore. In retrospect, ooops on me. Sure it will not be the last time that I am incorrect on sometime (I bet the same goes for Acosmist [and for RayFrost, who I have now mentioned]). As I felt that my vote was where it belonged when it so belonged, I did not see any reason to discuss Panacea further at that time. The moment it became appropriate to do so, I did.

[Ellibereth]

Also, you NEED the information (Votecounts, Post Counts, Interaction Counts), to do the analysis (getting who's scum from them).

Fermion: On a non concrete level because I'm not in the mood to look for and do the numbers right now (someone may have in MD already, and if you want to do it, go take the 10 last completed Newbie games or so, record everyone's post counts and see that scum are almost always in the bottom part of the spectrum, there are of course exceptions), Town have much greater incentive than Scum to post often.

I don't want to claim it's a fact until I dig up something concrete, so it's a hypothesis for now.

[Ellibereth]

Correlation between these numbers and alignment, go.

Scum are very likely 2 out of {Nacho, Fermion, Ray}.
The interaction raises the chance of {Fermion, Ray} due to the lowness of it, especially since I recall Ray had specifically done the low-contact thing in a game which he played with Yos2 as scum (too lazy to look for it now).
I'll be moving away from concrete information to look into their direct player interactions shortly.

[Elementary Fermion]

Roughly (havingfitz) all of the posts (RayFrost) in this game (Ellibereth) have been (Nachomamma8) about how each player (Acosmist) approaches this game differently. (Panacea).

We have just seen how the so-called "meta" was actually pretty worthless. So even if some general trends may exist (and that there is assumed arguendo), it does not follow that such general trends apply to the players in this game--especially at the rate they have been replaced.

Furthermore, regarding your methodology, I am interested to know if you were able to control for abbreviations of names, as well as instances a player may be discussed without mentioning him or her by name. Are names in quote box titles, but nowhere else, still considered? And et cetera. . . you get the picture.

[Nachomamma8]

@Elli: Out of curiosity, how are you calculating all of this? Ctrl+F & Windows Calculator?

Nacho, how does Cojin's flip reconcile with this judgment of yours Yesterday?:

I was wrong... Was there anything else you were expecting to hear there?

[Ellibereth]

Yeah, people play differently. But objective facts are objective facts. The numbers I posted are all objective facts. We can also say things in a more general manner i.e. Most people do A and Most people do B. There are people that are exceptions to each general thing, but these people are usually quite consistent in which particular normalcy of following their abnormality. There are people that activly engage to make diffeerent ine very game, but I assure you they are few and there are none in this game.
Meta is not worthless, it was probably the manner in which it was used that went wrong. Also, how are you willing to call something worthless after foreseeing one failed attempt at use (regardless of how well it was done).
I'm in no mood to type out my methodology in detail but trust that it was sufficiently controlled so that the error wouldn't be too large. If you want to cross-check my work for error please do, I would appreciate it.