Newbie 922: Day 3

[Elementary Fermion]

I have played several games before, though this is the first on this website.

So, with that out of the way. . .

Vote: Lawls

(easiest/shortest name to type)

[Elementary Fermion]

Hey all. Here are some of my thoughts at this moment, before getting back to real work.

I get the point of RVS, I really do. I am in favor of starting the game moving in any direction rather than none. What I don't get into as much is the overanalysis during the RVS. I think that, upon the identities of the first lynchee and first mafia nightkill being revealed, the analysis can really ramp up.

I personally can't get into the whole "well why did you randomly choose him and then randomly change and randomly randomly randomly &c."

Once this stage is over, the real analysis, bickering, and deceit can begin.

[Elementary Fermion]

Is Elementary Fermion the other ‘Newbie’ you were referring to? Because he had already provided his game experience (once again...mafia experience in several games on another site so by no means a Newbie) and yet you jumped off his wagon equally fast.

Just to be clear, I by no means claim to be any sort of expert at this game. This particular community with its protocals and quirks is of course entirely new; I see this particular game being educational for these reasons.

[Elementary Fermion]

Elementary

: What's the best method for catching scum?

By voting for them!

But really, in the few games that I have played, the people who talked the most and the least were scummy, or at least had some other non-vanilla role. After a lynch and a nightkill have both been consummated, I find that the true hunt can begin, based on those two actions and the responses thereto.

[Elementary Fermion]

The ongoing discussion is deep and meaningful, and I would be remiss were I not to participate by further spamming the thread with long winded ramblings about nothing.

So. . . despite Acosmist's research regarding Panacea's chatty nature, I still find it highly suspicious. Feeling guilty? Why not bury the board with loads and loads of nothing. Good luck to the town finding a kernel of evidence among the chaff. Same goes for RayFrost. I am sure it is just a playing "style" or some such, but it is suspicios. In fact, I would not be surprised if these "styles" are cultivated for exactly that reason, and after many games, when the suspicious activity has been used for innocent goles and guilty ones alike, people wouldn't be so sure.

But, as this is my first game on MafiaScum (hello you two other MS n00bs in this "newbie game"), I find the overwhelming posting of feeble-at-best theories to be, well, scummy.

However, in an attempt not to extend this day even further, I am not going to change my vote. I voted once with firm conviction and I am standing by it. I am not going to be a 2d or 3d vote on someone and ignite a marathon of "EF is jumping on bandwagons defend yoruself scummy &c."

Conclusion, lots of unnecessary posts looks suspicious to me, and when there has been so little action so far, most posts are unnecessary.

[Elementary Fermion]

I made this post long to annoy Elementary Fermion.

I LOLed. Nice.

[Elementary Fermion]

And people say my posts and worthy

??????

He's saying that fermi made a pointless, contentless post.

And he almost said it coherently! My post was indeed pointless and devoid of content. That is why it fits in here so well.

[Elementary Fermion]

So. . . despite Acosmist's research regarding Panacea's chatty nature, I still find it highly suspicious. Feeling guilty? Why not bury the board with loads and loads of nothing.

Well that's a mite extreme; I wasn't aware that you held that esteemable authority of deeming all of my content as "nothing." I'm not posting spam. I'm fairly certain that all of my posts (though I'll give you the "Welcome, Ray" post and maybe a couple of others) contain at least

some

content.

Point taken -- you have been far too nice to warrant such pointed langauge as "nothing."

So, let's turn this into a teaching moment. Let's pretend that I am somewhat new to the concept of playing Mafia on a forum such as this. Let's further assume that, based on said limited experience and other vague impressions, that I do not place a lot of stock in analysis based on a random vote, believing that the results of Day/Night 1 are far more enligtening.

Now, with this supposition in mind, why don't some of you non-newbies explain why I am wrong and what exactly is the worth of posting ad nausem on Day 1. Heaven knows we have enough non-n00bs in this game.

[Elementary Fermion]

I've only played with him as town, yes. I've read two of his scum games before, but it was for entertainment purposes. I intend to run a Ray-meta over the next two days. I can definitely tell you then.

I think that would be useful for several purposes. Some people have brought up the theory that you two might be working together...since I

have

read some of your and RayFrost's games, I'd be in a position to spot misrepresentations if they pop up.

Anything come of this yet? Or are you still convinced?

There has been an awful lot of meta analysis this Day. Any suggestions for scum-hunting when a person has no (or few) other games? (Like this should have been?) Is it possible for someone to have radically different play styles, even for the same roles, to defeat this kind of analysis? In other words, just how useful is this type of play, as opposed to play based solely on in-game content?

[Elementary Fermion]

Is it possible for someone to have radically different play styles, even for the same roles, to defeat this kind of analysis? In other words, just how useful is this type of play, as opposed to play based solely on in-game content?

Meta is only effective when the person you're meta'ing isn't aware of it. Once they are, it's not difficult at all to switch up your style (heh, take my play for example. I'm pretty sure this is the only time I've actually been semi-helpful in a game...). In-game content is where the good stuff is at; meta should only truly be used as a starting point until you have strong reads on people.

Well that settles it for me. . . my next game, I will play entirely differently (by posting, perhaps!).

But seriously, I appreciate the effort other people, especially Acosmist, have put into this strategy for this game, but I personally find it meta-tiring. (You know it's right!)

For what it is worth, I could have sworn that Lawls was up to 3 votes (Cojin voted for him in Post 63, and I haven't found a retraction though I may have missed it).

So, since demanding questions of others is where it's at:
1.) Cojin - how does it feel to be at L-2 (assuming that I am correct)?
2.) havingafitz - if Cojin is indeed the second vote on Lawls, and Acosmist the third, do you still view Cojin and Lawls with the same suspicion? Remember:

You (Lawls) are staying involved at a low level and not contributing much. You have made one post with a lot of content of debatable value and very very little else. I would not bet on you and Cojin both being scum but I do think at least one of you are.

Please explain why or why not your suspicions change.

Votecount
Lawls - 3 (Elementary Fermion, Cojin, Acosmist)
Cojin - 1 (havingfitz)
Acosmist - 1 (Lawls)

Not Voting - 3 (Panacea, RayFrost, Nachomamma8)

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch

[Elementary Fermion]

EF...Did you ever give a reason for voting Lawls? It appears your vote is still there from the RVS and I have not seen any other reason for you still parking it there,

Well, I have seen no reason for changing it yet.

I would hate to unvote, or to change my vote, and then need to spend days and days defending my reasons for doing so (since, as I said, I have none).

[Elementary Fermion]

Is Cojin at L-2? I thought I was the only one voting him at the moment.

NO he isn't -- I mistyped. When I said:

1.) Cojin - how does it feel to be at L-2 (assuming that I am correct)?

What I meant was: 1.) Lawls - how does it feel to be at L-2 (assuming that I am correct)?


I don't know why I switched Cojin's and Lawls's names in my question #1; sorry for any and all confusion. I was probably thinking about how Cojin's vote on Lawls was the one that was missed and just typed the wrong name.

So anyway, Lawls, sup?

[Elementary Fermion]

Can everyone give their top two suspects...especially those who haven't got a vote out yet? It's obvious for a few of you (ie those who have voted) but for others not so much.

My top choice is still Lawls, which is why I still have my vote on him. I random-voted for him, and the ensuing discussion, mostly by Acosmist and RayFrost, has persuaded me to keep it.

As for my second choice, it is a tie between. . . Acosmist and RayFrost. The sudden hostility is. . . odd. You were both doing what you were doing, and then doing it with anger. Actually, I would go with RayFrost as Acosmist has been constantly scumhunting and RayFrost as started providing gems like:

So... town reads is beneficial.

Town hunting is as useful as scumhunting.

So yeah.

You saying it isn't finding scum would be an inaccurate statement.

This is I feel not at all an accurate representation of what Acosmist was saying, though he defended himself well--making any attempt for me to do so redundant. But, the misdirection combined with the sudden attitude shift is setting off alarms for me.

[Elementary Fermion]

Regarding Elementary Fermion: he's lurking, to be sure. Do people see that lurking as scummy or just as a bad habit to be discouraged with pressure? I want thoughts on paper about this.

He's another pretty bad lurker, and while it does appear mostly habit, I get a slight sense that he doesn't care who is lynched... more so than disinterested town would feel. So yeah, lurker leaning-anti town.

I would prefer for scum to be lynched, actually.

When I have nothing to contribute, I would prefer not to post, unlike. . . people in this game, I guess. I do check in to see if there is anything worth responding to, and if so, I do. If that makes me a lurker, discourage away. Or lynch me so I can quit caring; of course I am obviously town (right RayFrost? [post 157]) so that wouldn't be the best move, but I still think we will end up winning.

Why did you change your vote, havingfitz? I brought up Cojin's invisible vote on Lawls days ago, and no one cared at the time. (That may actually have been content I contributed to the game, but, you know, the "lurking" thing gets in the way of people paying attention I guess?). You mention how you think Lawls is scummy, we get close to a majority, and then suddenly a change of heart? Could you be a little clearer on your reasons for me please?

[Elementary Fermion]

Unvote Lawls, Vote Cojin

Why? Because I only have one vote. (I really wish I had two to give)

Also because you are basing your potential vote on "what people think,"

and

BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE YOUR $%^%$ VOTE ON LAWLS!!!!!!

Way to pay attention. <shakes head>

This still isn't sitting right with me. Havingfitz seemed pretty convinced about Lawls, or at least had the super strong suspicions, but changed once he was at L-1. While there is something to be said for allowing Day 1 to drag on even longer (although I won't be the one to say it, as I am on the record with my thoughts on Day 1), it seemed an odd reason and odd timing to switch votes. I am not calling it scummy, but there is something about it that keeps making me scrtach my head. Havingfitz, would you care to explain a little more why this single reason you gave justified this switch?

I am just reminded of another game I was in, wherein one Mafia led the charge against the other, and strongly, in order to win town trust. He backed off at the last minute, but town didn't catch it; Mafia won. So, like I said, it just seems a little weird, but I am willing to be convincd.

[Elementary Fermion]

He's reminded us a few times that he's a newbie, which don't like as a rule, and it always seems he posts just enough to be trailing along without committing too far and then skipping away. It sets off my scumdar, but I'll check him out more after the Night's events.

Let me see what I can do with this. When I made newbie references, the following is what I was trying to articulate:
*I have played Mafia elsewhere a few times.
*Those times were not informal, but were not at the commitment/zealousness level of MS.
*I personally would like to play Mafia more frequently, with the type of people who populate MS.
*I have no illusions that I am inexperienced relative to people who have played multiple games on MS.
*To further my goal of playing more frequently and on par with MS regulars, I would like to learn more about how this particular incantation of Mafia is approached.
*A newbie game is likely a good place to pick up such instruction, whilst working through a game with similarly experienced and similarly inquisitive newbies such as myself.
*Rather than developing in such a fashion, this particular game has developed into a collection of experienced players saying little of importance, but doing so

ad nauseam

, with a mod who cannot count to three in order to get an accurate vote count and who does not respond to PMs.
*The (very slightly) occasional IC tip that actually comes through is as profound as "do not self-hammer" and "link to your previous posts if necessary."
*Meh. QED

So, there that is. I apologize for my being previously inarticulate. I will try to correct the same in the future.

When I say that I find much of what is posted to be unhelpful, thus rendering Day 1 barely useful and less than worthy of the volumes and volumes of text being generated, I am presenting the impressions I have developed over my past few games and looking for an explanation from our panoply of experience in this game of why my impression is not correct. Please, for the love of God, explain to me in clear and concise terms how three weeks of “lurking,” “scumdar,” and “answer me” work. Show me a positive end result, and I will be receptive to the concepts so employed. But if (and, I am willing to bet, when) we lynch a townie this first Day, I fear it will be because we were essentially bludgeoned into doing so by one of the players who talks and talks and talks without saying anything. It could happen innocently, to be sure, but I predict that is how it plays out. And, should I be shown to be wrong, I will gladly eat my words. Winning is better than being a correct pessimist.

Moving along, Acosmist pointed out some specific instances of this kind of language, so I am not going to dredge up more specific examples, but I fail to see how saying things like “I think he might be sort of slightly scummy but maybe not but he doesn’t post too much so I think I might investigate him because he’s a mite-suspicious” &c. help the cause. At all. So, umm, someone is in this game. That gives him (or her) a 22% chance of being scum. Congratulations, you are all potentially scum. The fact that someone does not post with a frequency that conforms to my own pre-conceived notions of pro-town posting frequency doesn’t (or shouldn’t) make him suspicious. The frequent poster may find the more pensive type scummy, but the reflective player may (should?) easily find the frequent poster equally suspicious. I attempted (poorly in retrospect) to bring this point up before, but here it is. I did not enter this game believing that it should take 500 posts to lynch someone the first day; obviously some of you did. If your experience has conclusively shown that your way is correct and mine is naïve at best, please enlighten me.

I am not saying uncommitted language, and lots of it, is necessarily wrong, or that it cannot work, or that it does not have its uses. What I am saying is that I do not see them. (Yet—benefit of the doubt.) Much like above (way above), when I asked about this business of “meta”-ing (Acosmist, I think I understand exactly the disgust you have with the perversion of that prefix), it is because I am in this game as much to learn as I am to play. Everyone else, however, is here just to play, not to assist or to guide, and I do not feel this game is the proper forum for such mindsets. This, of course, ties back into my discussion of the newbie thing, immediately above.

This post will be the last time that I will mention these topics, however. I will do my best to abandon my idea of contributing when there is something to be said, and start posting, frequently (to make everyone happy!), whenever I think someone else took the time to type something unhelpful.

[Elementary Fermion]

most likely after the first night if im still alive

Do you anticipate being the first nightkill? What reasons would there be for you to be the nightkill?

Or do you think that you will be lynched this Day? What do you think of the case against you?

[Elementary Fermion]

Elementary, your post gives me a feeling you're frustrated town. Would you agree?

Is frustrated the same as bored stiff?

. . .I don't like that you're so adamant that our D1 lynch won't be [scum]. . .

Actually, what I said was "if (and, I am willing to bet, when) we lynch a townie this first Day, I fear it will be because [of reasons]." Come on now, English major, "I am willing to bet" on a particular occurrence is quite different from "adamantly" predicting said occurrence. Please quote me correctly; failure to do so is scummy.

I would shed no tears if he modkilled you for the way you just said that [in response to the ongoing incorrect vote tally].

This here is killer to me. No townie who embraces any sort of a desire to win this game would wish for the arbitrary modkilling of a fellow townie--especially for nothing more than the raising of a serious, and well documented, concern about the mechanics of the game in the genuine hope of correcting it. What if you yourself had put your vote on Lawls (instead of being

still

uncommitted after so long) believing you were only putting him at L-1, based on the published vote count, when in fact you ended up bring about his lynching and the end of the Day? Perhaps that is better than bringing it up, but I expected better organization out of MS than that. If this is the sort of eggshells upon which one must walk at this site, well then wow on that. Perhaps a modkill (though unjustified) would cure my frustration and get this manner-less ruffian out of your hair all at once.

This all as it may be, the embracing what could be an opportunistic death of a townie for no justifiable reason is far beyond the scum vibes that Lawls puts out. I said I wouldn't change my vote on Lawls until I had a reason, and since I now do, I hereby

Unvote

and

Vote: Panacea

[Elementary Fermion]

ISO 6 - Yep, that post was inaccurate. No way to defend that.

Point removed: Cojin

No, that's not how it works. The point would be removed if something about his subsequent post

negated

the value of the previous post. Say Cojin called someone out as being scum, got him lynched, and - mirabile dictu! - that person was scum. We'd give Cojin a point for the analysis leading to the lynch. But suppose Cojin himself bites it at a future time, and we found out he was scum with the original guy - well, remove that point, because correctly identifying your scumbuddy is not an achievement of any kind. The situation here isn't like that. If he screws up, it doesn't negate the fact that he got something right previously.

So in summary...if Cojin does something positive he gets a point, but if he does something scummy like spread a misconception...just gloss over it?

I think what Acosmist is saying is that getting something wrong (innocently) does not change the fact you got something right earlier.

Consider American football. If the home team kicks a field goal, they are now winning 3-0. If they again attempt to kick another field goal, only this time it is wide of the mark, they are still winning 3-0. Points are not removed for a subsequent failure.

Now, however, suppose (for the sake of this hypothetical) that the first field goal was later found to be defective: the home team surreptitiously had the goal posts widened, the ball moved ten yards closer, and the ball filled with helium. Then, as its kicking of the field goal was not "an achievement of any kind" the home team should have those points removed from its score.

If Cojin leads us to a correct lynch, but only because it was his partner and not because of his analysis, then his point in retrospect was not deserved at all. This I believe to be the point Acosmist was making.

[Elementary Fermion]

the post seemed way out of character for him.

So you are "meta"-ing me now? Based on the previous two weeks, I guess? Essentially I have spent two weeks saying "I don't know why everyone keeps saying nothing over and over" and asking what the point was. Having abandoned hope, I figured I'd join in.

Is frustrated the same as bored stiff?

Woah. EF gives me the vibe that he's cautious with his voting, so when he says he's bored in the same post he believes he's pegged a scum, that sets my scumdar a-dinging.

I specifically mentioned that I would not change my vote without a good reason.

I am not going to change my vote. I voted once with firm conviction and I am standing by it. I am not going to be a 2d or 3d vote on someone and ignite a marathon of "EF is jumping on bandwagons defend yoruself (sic) scummy &c."

I didn't want to open myself to a barrage of questions that are both groundless and essentially unanswerable. So, cautiousness to avoid annoyances? Sure. Reading the volumes that this game has generated, with so little content among the chaff, I find to be boring; this doesn't change whether or not I feel that I have identified something suspicious about someone. So, in conclusion, I don't see why you think that this matters whatsoever. I guess I could have been more specific by saying "bored stiff because of the lengthy diatribes that don't really cover anything which populated this game since it started." That clear it up?

Also, for what it's worth, I posted my reasons for changing my vote when I so changed it. Why did you need to wait to be asked to do so?

Also, it's inconsistent with the tone of his post; if he was town, he would be angry at you for trying to get him, an innocent townie, killed. He would be angry, but definitely not "bored stiff".

I am sorry that I didn't make my anger even clearer. Although, since Panacea referred to it is a "meltdown" I think that at least some people figured it out.

Votecount
Lawls - 2 (Cojin, Acosmist)
Cojin - 2 (RayFrost, havingfitz)
Acosmist - 1 (Lawls)
Panacea - 1 (ElementaryFermion)
Elementary Fermion - 1 (Nachomamma)

Not Voting - 2 (Panacea, BridgesAndBaloons)

With 9 alive, it's 5 to lynch

[Elementary Fermion]

Exactly. So, when you change your vote, one can assume you've found a good reason. And if you've found a good reason, then one could assume you've found a good reason to believe that the person whose vote you switched to was scum. And since the feeling of pegging scum is the greatest feeling in the world, one could most definitely you wouldn't be bored if you had pegged scum, unless that nonchalance was feigned. . . That's not what I'm trying to say. I find it odd that anger and boredom mingle in the same post for you.

I am sorry that I have still failed to make this clear. The "boredom" comment encompasses everything since the rules (which I failed to read apparently!) were posted. This persists, despite any temporary elation I may have felt while deciding Panacea's actions were scummy. It is a question of "ongoing" versus "temporary."

For what it is worth, our being all riled up is much more enjoyable than the previous nine (9) pages.

[Elementary Fermion]

Why did you need to wait to be asked to do so?

I like to do that sometimes. If someone just attacks a vote you've cast seemingly without any reason, there's a good chance they're scum. If you've had a town read on them for a while, and they follow your vote with little/no reasoning, you might want to rethink your town read. If they do nothing but question as Panacea did, then it's a bit of a null-tell, but it does show they're not believing that the vote is out of place.

I do not believe that I would ever do that, but I can see what you are saying. Thank you for answering this question; it broadens my understanding of others' approaches to this game.

[Elementary Fermion]

"I

would

shed no tears

if

he modkilled you." I didn't say "Hey, mod, you should kill him!!" I said if he did (which, by the way, he has the right to do as mod of a player in violation of the listed rules), I wouldn't be too upset.

Follow along:
1.) Town would be upset if they just lost one of their members in a manner which was not at all necessary.
2.) My being modkilled because I mentioned a documented problem and followed up in a non-diplomatic fashion would be not at all necessary. ("Justified under the rules" is different than "necessary" in this context; this type of death would have been easily avoidable and a waste of a role.)
3.) Panacea admits she

would

NOT however be upset

if

this were to happen.

Therefore. . . Panacea must not be town. QED. (And when I switched my vote to you, you got pretty defensive about it. Everyone, take note.)

Panacea, please respond to my question about if you were to accidentally cast a deciding vote on someone because you were misinformed about the number of votes.

Sorry to say, but you all have woken me up. Panacea, your point about the tomes of text to look back on in the future of this game was a good point. (Wish you could have made it much earlier, but I am on board now.)

And my surly style is exactly that; I am certain you could understand, having as chatty a style of your own as you do. (Pay attention all you future meta-ers!!)

[Elementary Fermion]

No offense, but I really don't like the flavor of this particular game. Just a side note. We need to lighten up.

Yeah that's partly my fault. And I apologize. Genuinely and sincerely.

Acosmist is right (though I am not going to re-scour his post to find the specific language): I am trying to post more frequently and constructively.

So, Panacea, I take back my hostile words and would like the timbre of this game to improve. I will do my part.

Anyway, today has been crazy busy, but I will try to respond to Acosmist's and Panacea's points later tonight or tomorrow morning.

[Elementary Fermion]

You know what I can't play games on this site big step up from where I usually play.

Unvote Vote Lawls

Please withdraw your vote? I'd very much like you to hang around MS. This is a great place to learn. I'm sorry this game has been a newbie-nightmare. Will you please consider replacing out here and trying one more newbie game before you give up on this site? I promise it can be a fun place. Or hang in a while longer? Elementary already woke us up to the need to make this game more newbie-friendly.

I don't see the point my first game was horrible as well

C'mon Lawls, that's even worse talk than I was doing. Things have just started to get interesting!

[Elementary Fermion]

Executive summary: I have a remarkable proof that havingfitz is wrong which this margin is too small to contain.

Not trying to argue with the summary again (see comment below)...but what is the remarkable proof I am wrong...and what am I wrong about? The points I am making towards Cojin? If your remarkable proof is your comments quoted in the post below...I would say your proof is anything but remarkable.

Google Pierre de Fermat.

Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi.

Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet

. (emphasis added)

I see an inconsistency with the way he treated both situation. He called Pan out for her behavior and then basically did the same thing he called her out on.

No, he certainly did not. Panacea made a categorical statement about L-3, then acted in a way contrary to that statement. Here's what Cojin said (emphasis mine):

Wow have we seriously put

her

at l3 already?

Cojin did not express shock that we put anyone at L-3, but that we put Panacea at L-3.

That should warn you against leaping to the conclusion that Cojin thinks all L-3 situations at that point are bad. Maybe it was something about the Panacea case that shocked him. That'd be a pretty common opinion - more than one of us has pointed out that the case against her was garbage.

What? You say he did not express shock that we put anyone at L-3....but that we put Pan at L-3. What? Pan falls under the category of anyone for me. As do Lawls and EF whose placement at L-3 did not get the same response.

There is a rule against making universal generalizations based on an existential instantiation. For instance (keeping with my American football analogies), I am upset when The Steelers (one of 32 NFL Franchises) loses The Superbowl (one of several NFL Playoff Contests). From this you cannot validly conclude that I am upset when

any

NFL Franchise loses

any

NFL Playoff Contest. To the contrary, it makes my heart sing to see the Dallas Cowboys lose

any

NFL Playoff Contest (or indeed any game of any sort). Acosmist is pointing out that Cojin expressed shock at A SINGLE OCCURRENCE and that it is not logically permissible to extend that to EVERY POSSIBLE OCCURRENCE. Stop arguing about it; he's right.

You know what I can't play games on this site big step up from where I usually play.

Unvote Vote Lawls

I am inclined to think this self-vote is more town throwing in the towel than it is scum throwing it in.

Still happy with my Cojin vote.

This is good reasoning; as an until recently frustrated townie, I understand exactly what Lawls is saying.

Of course, he could be a genius and playing us all, but I doubt it.

[Elementary Fermion]

Your NFL analogy doesn't work because fans of teams are just that...fans of teams and they don't feel the same way towards other teams. Other than Panacea towards Ray...I don't think anyone in here is a fan of another member (except perhaps scum for their partner). I've made my opinion known regarding Cojin's shock and it isn't going to change. As I doubt either of your is so it's not worth thrahsin out longer (though I have a feeling someone will want to). There is no right or wrong here. Cojin's actions are suspicious to me.

There is no wrong or right regarding your suspicions. Perhaps your pancakes were burned this morning, and so you now find RayFrost suspicious. Whatever. What you are entirely incorrect about is making universal generalizations based on existential instantiations. That is a logically invalid operation. Google it, or take a logic course, or simply listen to me. You can not do that.

The fact that NFL team fans are indeed fans has no bearing of any sort on the analogy. What I did was present a specific instantiation, and then showed how it was obviously incorrect to conclude based on a universal generalization. You cannot go from specifics to generalizations. Well, your gut can, but logic cannot. Acosmist was pointing out the logic of the situation, and I have a feeling that you were responding with your gut. That's fine; just make it clear lest it be made clear for you.

[Elementary Fermion]

IC comment for EF

A no lynch would essentially provide no vote analysis to use for future assessment and give scum a NK that would only leave town with WIFOM and speculation to consider.

That makes sense. But how do we marshal up a majority in such a short time frame?

In addition to your call for top two suspects, I suggest everyone provide at least an abstract of your reasons. For what little it may be worth, we could also, in a final act of desperation, just lynch Lawls, saving the mod from needing to find yet another replacement. Of course, voting for that express reason is hardly better than a No Lynch in terms of Day 2 analysis, so I would suggest not doing this unless we can come up with non-desperation reasons as well.

Now, for my two cases in chief:

I.

Panacea (for whom I am currently voting): she has been the only character to expressly state that she would not mind the town's win condition being made more difficult. See my individual post number 22 for the argument. Acosmist I know also added analysis to this in the ballpark of that post, and of course Panacea defended against the argument.

Caveats: This case presupposes that I am indeed town. It also presupposes that a rational player of mafia would not actually want his own win condition burdened. While that premise in and of itself is not too hard to swallow, I am willing to allow that MafiaScum means so much to Panacea that she would be willing to accept such burden to preserve its honor and decorum or something like that. (I would also like to take this time again to apologize for my earlier disrespect.)

II.

Nachomamma8: As has been pointed out before by others, his sudden and (at the time) unjustified vote on me had a very opportunistic flavor to it. Truth be told, I did not find his justifications to be all that great when presented, but I am by no means a disinterested party here. I personally do not find this to be a very strong case as it has very little corroborating evidence, but as of my writing this, I find him to be second in my suspicions.

I am finding Lawls less and less scummy with each passing hour. I figure there can be four things going on here. First, he may be frustrated/overwhelmed town, and simply wants out (as he is saying). Secondly, he could be a townie bluffing big time. He was at L-1 for quite some time, and managed to defuse that through his actions. This could be for the good of the town; his bluffing made us focus somewhere else more constructive. Third, he could indeed be scum, or as I would like to call it, brilliant scum, with similar analysis to the second possibility. Finally, he could be frustrated/overwhelmed scum, with analysis similar to possibility one.

As fantastic as his bluffing may have been in cases two and three, I think his official replacement request takes it too far. If he will not be around to see the fruits of his brilliant maneuvers, then there was no point. He will not get credit for the win. As for why I am leaning towards case one being more likely than case four, I do not think that someone with a scum role would be willing to replace out this close to getting away free on the first Day. That, and I may be able to relate (a little!) to the frustrated townie feelings. This all makes me think that my option one above is what is going on with him.

I am willing to listen to and consider carefully cases against any other players.

[Elementary Fermion]

Basically, the problem is this. Philosophers are, in a manner of speaking, in a certain rarefied sense of the term I am about to use, boring. - No, really, we are. Philosophers, clumped together in any group where the ratio of philosophers to non-philosophers is 1:1 or greater, excluding the limit case where there are only two people in toto and only one of them is a philosopher, will actually talk about philosophy. They will automatically correct each other's use of quantifiers and disambiguate statements where the intended meaning was perfectly plain. At any rate this is what I do.

Never have so many said so much to accomplish so little for so few.

I am glad to have at my disposal the tools of the philosopher's trade, without deigning to practice the profession. Critical thinking is something both vastly underutilized and underappreciated.

I don't know what to do about Lawls. This is the worst time he could possibly be replaced. I still think he's scum - top suspect.

What did you think of my delineation of four possible scenarios and their respective likelihoods? Do you see another possible explanation or just weigh the facts differently?

Waiting eagerly for some Ray/BaB responses.**

Agreed.

Furthermore, I think text WALLS should be kept at a lower number; if only because I think our lurkers are getting by quite easily between them.

Definitely the lurkers' fault. . . . I quite honestly do not regard it as my fault if people get lost among the walls. The relevance of all this discussion to any one person is manageable, and there are ways to find the relevant parts that don't involve reading the entire post.

And, well, if lurkers use the walls as an excuse, we should investigate sinister motivations for that.

Well, Acosmist, I am going to agree that, perhaps, your mega-posts could be broken into smaller consecutive posts. I do not think they so need be, but certainly could.

Is there a bright line difference between not really having anything of substance to say and "lurking"? As this game began, I felt as if I had nothing of consequence to offer, and was accused of lurking. Attempts at posting to discount the lurking accusation were then characterized as having nothing of substance.

[Elementary Fermion]

Elementary: Thank you for providing my argument to your case against me in your post. Professional, efficient, and it saves me from having to do so.

I am trying! You could still state why you think your counterargument is stronger than my argument against you.

I would like to add, however, that winning isn't my primary desire when it comes to playing Mafia; it's that everyone has a good time and learns a bit while they're at it.

Oh.

For what little it may be worth, we could also, in a final act of desperation, just lynch Lawls, saving the mod from needing to find yet another replacement

You said in the same post that you're leaning toward Lawls being town. Is this so different from what I said, if you think he's a townie?

Also as an aside: I pulled the "We should just lynch the non-contributor and save the mod the trouble" stunt as scum myself.

Clever, actually. Yes, my position seems mildly inconsistent, though I did qualify it as much as possible with the "final act of desperation" language. According to Acosmist , there is a good chance of Lawls's being scum. If so, this would not be bad, even though I am willing to view it as a town tell at this time. In the alternative, supposing the town tell to be correct, seeing who made what arguments against Lawls at what time can still be a springboard for analysis on Day 2. I do not think it would be a complete waste, though not as useful as a legit bandwagon would be.

Well, Acosmist, I am going to agree that, perhaps, your mega-posts could be broken into smaller consecutive posts. I do not think they so need be, but certainly could.

Does that make it any better, though? I am going to say what I think needs said, whether in one gigapost (I am one-upping your prefix) or in several smaller posts.

I was referring only to the presentation, not the overall quantity. Perhaps you could break up your teraposts (ball's in your court!) using headings to coincide with your executive summaries?

[Elementary Fermion]

I think we have 12 hours and nothing is happening :/

Deadline is the 24th.

Did the mod PM that to you?

Not a PM, and to everyone: viewtopic.php?p=2178942#2178942

Of course, this is still presuming another replacement, which may or may not occur. Lawls, answer things.

[Elementary Fermion]

Same to EF. Why are people just assuming day won't end in an hour? That's ballsy, I guess.

I cannot imagine anyone would let me say my original, ignorant thoughts on Day 1 were correct. So, there must be sumpin gonna happen.

[Elementary Fermion]

Then maybe scum would have mercy and NK one of the town wallposters.

You included? Would that help your win condition? Acosmist is going out of his way--obviously spending many hours per day on this game (whether that is actually healthy or not is a question for another day!)--in order to analyze every single thing that is said by everyone; would it help your win condition for him and his energetic contributions to be silenced?

I personally believe my win condition would be strengthened by non-contributing townies' being night killed. (Unless, of course, scum are stupid enough to off one of their own!)

[Elementary Fermion]

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, so I don't have a huge problem deciding to

Unvote

and

Vote: Lawls

just in case anyone else is so convinced and we decide to actually have a lynch today.

I'm a good BSer. I have two degrees, one in philosophy, one in law. I know how to write long, boring columns of text with more style than substance.

Nah. . . really??! :shocked:

[Elementary Fermion]

Coming out of D/N1 I'm leaning against Acosmist being scum...slightly against EF as scum. TBD on Ray. ATM, I'm thinking scum are within the BaB, Pan and Nacho group. Really don't like how Nacho handled the end of D1 though.

So, let's see here. You think that the scum among us could be either Acosmist, me (slightly), BridgesAndBaloons, Panacea, and Nachomamma8. I assume that you are claiming yourself to be innocent. That means you are suspicious of five of the remaining six players, and the sixth (RayFrost) is merely “to be determined.”

Thank you for that hard-hitting analysis. Also, looking back on how adamant you were against Cojin, who obviously was the doctor, can you justify to the rest of us your continued push against him?

You might have tagged five (and perhaps you will determine the remaining six) of us as suspicious. (Welcome to Mafia by the way--suspicions run rampant!) But I would have to say that you occupy the highest spot on my scum list now.

[Elementary Fermion]

Pan appeared to be your top suspect prior to your late switch to town. Has she done anything other than her reluctant hammer to drop or did I just manage to pass her?

I made clear my argument for Panacea's scumminess, based on the statement she made about a potential modkill. I reasoned that no Townie would make such a statement—unless, and this is a big unless—such Townie was putting the sanctity of MS above any game or win condition. Panacea both pre- and post-modkill statement acted pro-town, and she stands resolutely by the single proposition which would go around my argument, to wit, the sanctity of MS as a whole. Therefore, my suspicion on her is much lower than it was at its peak.

As for Cojin…he played scummy. I made my case against him...feel free to review it. . . . I made my reasons for voting Cojin clear…what was your reason for a convenient vote on the [sic] Lawls? Can you justify to the rest of us your last second move to a townie wagon?

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.)

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? 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.

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

last second move to

insistence on leading and staying on a townie wagon?"

[Elementary Fermion]

Welcome, Ellibereth! I do hope you enjoy reading. . .

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

Cojin, you're acting... weird. Freaking out and claiming PR when you're at L-2 and no one really wants to lynch you isn't TownCojin play...I mean, I just read Newbie 908, where you pegged two scum in two days after a successful Doc protect; the only thing that messed up your game was vanilla fakeclaiming cop... The Cojin that's playing in this game definitely isn't the Cojin that's playing in that one...

I think this demonstrates the limited usefulness of "meta."

[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. . .

[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.

[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.

[Elementary Fermion]

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.

I am sure you do so trust. I, however, am in no mood to double check your numbers as a substitute for your explination of your methodology. That's not how the world works.

[Elementary Fermion]

It's looking like it's going to incriminate you anyway so I'm not surprised you're trying to look for faults.

That's how we treat research in the real world. April fools.

We will all look back on your statement and laugh, by the way.

[Elementary Fermion]

Wow the New Guy™ is so amazingly good. All those numbers scare me but he makes them look so normal and incriminating. Wow. . .

[Elementary Fermion]

Also, RayFrost, please post.

I trust that this post, in which I mention someone with literally no justification, will be taken into account in your super secret scum identifying number method which you cannot share with us for fear of losing your protected trade secret status.

[Elementary Fermion]

Anyway, Wagon Analysis has netted Fermion. Wagon gogogo.

None of the rest of you mere mortals can argue with this!

Vote: Elementary Fermion

Get me the heck out of this game, and expose the New Guy™ as a scummy railroading blowhard all at once. w00t

Also, I have a feeling you don't know what correlation means. But it must be super high! Like infinity squared high! So high I can't even see it!

By the way, making vague, baseless claims based on "numbers" is dumb.

[Elementary Fermion]

"Pretty damn high" it not the same as, say, ".4192".

It's also not an objective fact. I thought that's what we were doing here, talkin' 'bout objective facts. Is it possible you weren't? If you are throwing numbers around without regard for their meaning, this is the worst possible set of players to have replaced into.

Acosmist, come on, do not attempt to discuss the realm of magic numbers with the Number Diety here. You are obviously too stupid to follow his reasoning (which can be summarized as follows: numbers therefore EF is guilty RayFrost).

Vote for me, expose him as a tool, lynch him, win. Gogogo

[Elementary Fermion]

I am not self destructing. I am repsonding (RayFrost) to absurdity by being absurd. This clown does not have a clue about rigorous deduction or statistics, and I find his abuse of such fields offensive.

Nacho, are you town? If so, vote for me. Do it. Then you will have your proof to vote this doofus off the island. I am willing to be a martyr to show this clown for the fool he is.

I guess YET ANOTHER random person replacing into this game and going nuts with outrageous theories just rubs me the wrong way--especially when he does so by butchering my education and career.

[Elementary Fermion]

@EF...other than leaving the game...what did you hope to gain by a self vote?

I am repsonding (RayFrost) to absurdity by being absurd.

You're either being a pathetic quitter or you are doing it for a calculated reason (assuming you take the vote off yourself or don't replace out which would then give credence to the latter).

I am willing to be a martyr to show this clown for the fool he is.

[Elementary Fermion]

Maundy Thursday. Then Good Friday. Then Holy Saturday. Now Easter. All real holidays in the world's largest religion.

This.

But I am back now. Hope to catch up later tonight.

[Elementary Fermion]

Hmm. Just glancing back at the Lawls lynch and found that sixty percent of the wagon was built in two hours and fifty minutes (Elementary, Nacho, and myself in that order). I know we were really close to deadline and all, but if you all wouldn't mind glancing back at it yourselves, does the pacing seem natural? I'm particularly interested in what Elementary and Nacho have to say about it. (And I know my drawing attention back to it will produce some questions my way, so I'll just wait for them, shall I? )

My vote was on Lawls for nearly three (3) entire weeks. The one break that I took was when you made your {anti-town, pro-MS} statement. Once I was over that, I came back over to Lawls. I believed for a while that his own curious meltdown was townish, but was convinced otherwise, primarily by Acosmist. As I had spent nearly three (3) weeks thinking he seemed scummier than others, it was not difficult to so convince me.

I also was not going to vote for a claimed doctor. That is just about ludicrous, actually. That claim, if a lie, would quickly unravel, allowing us to lynch the lying scum at some point in the future. I would look for scum on the Cojin wagon before looking at the Lawls wagon.

[Elementary Fermion]

Wouldn't Lawls have been taken over a no-lynch, Nacho, since he was the highest voted? The rules seem to say so...

Activity Rules and Information

• Days will have a deadline of three weeks. If the deadline is reached, the day will end without a lynch.

I was once accused of not reading the rules. Let no one make such an accusation again.

[Elementary Fermion]

~I just realized how much im posting so im going to try and tighten it up a bit here~

Don't worry about that in this game AT ALL. The more (replacements and text) the merrier!

The town didn't gang up on me (vote-wise) because they want to win.

Ellibereth, having claimed that his magic numbers mean one thing, and then later mean another thing wholly inconsistent with said first thing, and with no explanation for either conclusion (sic), is stupid and scumtastic. Why don’t you go ahead and turn some lead into gold for me while believing that the set of irrationals is null.

Also,

Unvote

[Elementary Fermion]

And I am not using ad-hom attacks to discount his points. I'm pointing out where and why I disagree with the points he is making and including any ad-hom comments for free.

So you do not know what an

ad hominem

attack is, then? That fits with your meta of not knowing what words mean and consequentially being afraid of them. For instance:

Fact => if you [Acosmist] didn’t post like such a pompous ass with an obsession to prove yourself right when you are wrong, the walls of text wouldn't have been quite so large.

In this game, where figuring things out is important (and being right therefore likewise important), you accuse Acosmist of being a “pompous ass.” This does not help town. What it does is attempt to discredit what he has to say because you do not like the way he says it. That “reasoning” is so juvenile that most school children would not fall for it.

An

ad hominem

attack’s purpose is precisely to sidestep any legitimate points being made. If you cannot beat them, call them names. This is exactly what you do. Trust me, you have put enough character deficiencies on display that could serve as a basis for such attacks. However, Acosmist (whom I may discuss as he is in this game with us!) instead chooses to point out the deficiencies in your

statements

, not your

manner of providing the same

.

Also, Furry, if you are so very much convinced an Elementary Fermion bandwagon was the way to go on Day 1, where is your vote on me now? You could not possibly think that my role would change from scum to town overnight, could you?

It is always best to be voting someone who you think is scum, . . .

So what changed?

[Elementary Fermion]

I dont vote untill im caught up, and if you have been following along, that explosion thingy made you read pretty heavily town to me. . . . With luck I will be all caught up soon.

Thank you for taking the time to get caught up. I would think that this is especially important in this game, where so many personalities have been swapped in and out.

Done with day one at this point, biggest question is why people didnt jump off the doctor claim. Fitz give about the worst justification though in "scum wouldnt kill him for WIFOM"

I do believe that this is the argument that I have made and Acosmist has pounded into the ground. I find it very suspicious that havingfitz has yet to acknowledge this logic which renders his actions horrible.

[Elementary Fermion]

And I am not using ad-hom attacks to discount his points. I'm pointing out where and why I disagree with the points he is making and including any ad-hom comments for free.

So you do not know what an

ad hominem

attack is, then? That fits with your meta of not knowing what words mean and consequentially being afraid of them. For instance:

Fact => if you [Acosmist] didn’t post like such a pompous ass with an obsession to prove yourself right when you are wrong, the walls of text wouldn't have been quite so large.

In this game, where figuring things out is important (and being right therefore likewise important), you accuse Acosmist of being a “pompous ass.” This does not help town. What it does is attempt to discredit what he has to say because you do not like the way he says it. That “reasoning” is so juvenile that most school children would not fall for it.

EF...what is the purpose of your post above? How is it benefitting this game at all? I know what an ad hominem attack is. How are my comments on Acosmist’s posting style taking away from what he is saying?

My comments were based on posting style and had no bearing on post content or validity, which were both addressed without using any ad hominem attacks.

I would say a better example of an ad hominem attack would be your meta statement above regarding me. Or you calling Ellibereth a tool and a clown. Don’t you agree? Another good example would be saying someone is posting like a moron.

"My comments were based on posting style and had no bearing on post content or validity" – ummm, yeah. That is what I said you were doing. You go to extreme lengths to avoid any sort of discussion of your inconsistencies or any other logical debate, based on "posting style." Not helpful, that approach.

Let us compare your actions to my disgust of shoddy research methods. Ellibereth shows up and starts throwing his magical numbers "research" around. When he is asked for his premises, his methods, and his statistical analysis (all of which he claimed to have), he refused, having since dropped the charade entirely. Abusing statistics in this fashion is every bit as ludicrous as wearing clown shoes and a big red honking nose. So, based on his arguments and actions, he was a clown. His contribution to the game was worthless. (Hey Ellibereth, we are all still waiting on those statistics!) The way he has completely backed off that line of reasoning (sic) confirms this. Now, contrast this (an argument that is shown to be gibberish to the point where its proponent backs off) with your criticizing of Acosmist because he uses words you cannot pronounce. That is quite a bit different. You are afraid of “estoppel” because you do not know what it means but do not want to allow yourself to look stupid by asking, and so you say Acosmist cannot possibly be right

because of the way he communicates

.

@everyone - can you summarize the case on whoever you are voting in five sentances or less?

The above response to havingfitz is precisely why he is my number one suspect. He claims to hate "wall posts" or whatever, claims they are scummy, and yet continues to engage in the same. He does so while failing to respond to arguments and instead quibbling over vocabulary. And, HE WANTED TO LYNCH A CLAIMED DOCTOR. His reasoning for this was TERRIBLE, bordering on inexcusable.

Ellibereth is my second suspect at the moment, again for the reasons I outlined above as ancillary to explaining to havingfitz the difference between taunting stupid people and actual

ad hominem

attacks. He shows up, claims he cannot bother to read the things that have been written in this game, but finds the time to go through and make up some elaborate spreadsheet of every vote cast. He then claims that his numbers tell him exactly who is who in this game, except (a) he would not open his methods up to peer review or even describe them at all, (b) he incorrectly maintained an existential instantiation of a universal generalization based on existential instantiations when such premises were debunked, (c) he very quickly flipped his claimed results from his "numbers research" with no explanation, and has been reduced to posting at my frequency (which has been criticized as of late), and (d) has dropped his "numbers research" altogether without answering any of the questions put to him about it. To me, this seems like scum that replaced in and tried to throw a load of feces in our faces.

Finally, I am finding that I do not have the time to go through and put together posts the way Acosmist or havinfitz apparently do. I read everything that is posted, usually multiple times, and consider it all. When I feel I have something to contribute, some insight unnoticed by everyone else, I will respond. I am sorry that I cannot give you five thousand word articles every time.

[Elementary Fermion]

Finally, I am finding that I do not have the time to go through and put together posts the way Acosmist or havinfitz apparently do. I read everything that is posted, usually multiple times, and consider it all. When I feel I have something to contribute, some insight unnoticed by everyone else, I will respond. I am sorry that I cannot give you five thousand word articles every time.

My only real problem with your activity right now is the lack of questions. While observation is obviously crucial, more observation than contribution (remarks, comments, arguments, questions, etc.) generally gives off a more scummy vibe, whatever the game. Wasn't dissing you if that's how it sounded, my apologies.

Oh no no, that makes great sense. That does not change what I have going on in the real world though. But you do make a good point, so I will ask everyone:

What do you think of the way Ellibereth flipped on his own "research" and has not mentioned it again, despite numerous requests for his methodology?

[Elementary Fermion]

Every time you talk about the doctor claim, you further weaken your own credibility.

Remember, when Cojin claimed, there were two possibilities: (1) he was town or (2) he was scum. Under possibility (1) (regardless of whether or not he was actually a doctor), lynching him would be bad. Under possibility (2), although a lynch would be good, he has locked himself into a course of conduct from which he cannot possibly retreat. We would not forget on Day 2 that he had claimed doctor on Day 1. (Some of our replacements might miss it from not reading the game, but that is another story.)

If one thing can be said for your arguments, about this you have been consistent. You have consistently maintained that lynching Cojin was the better course of action, even when you continue to present information that undermines this conclusion. You just told us that a doctor, going in to Night 1, has a better than 10% chance of preventing a nightkill. And that is based purely on random play; a minimally observant and competent doctor would likely increase that percentage based on the Day’s conversations. So now, based on information you offered, you claim that an at-worst greater than 10% chance of blocking a scum nightkill is not a sufficient reason to allow the doctor go into the night, lynching him if and when his unsustainable lie falls apart around him. Trying to deny the town a potential 1-in-10 chance of confounding scum, a potential chance

we now know that you knew about

, is as anti-town as I have heard yet in this game.

That is finally enough for me, which is why I am finally going to

Vote: havingfitz

.

[Elementary Fermion]

Under your one and two scenarios you provide you leave out the desire for scum to live another day.

Yes, the possibility of doctor protection trumps scum

who cannot possibly get away

.

Thanks for putting me on your list! With the reasoning skills you put on display, this will only further my towniness in everyone else's eyes.

[Elementary Fermion]

So you would rather bank on a ~12% chance someone would get a protect (assuming the claim was legitimate and

if

scum decided to pass up the NK option) for a lynch of your top suspect?

My choices are lynch someone now, and have 0% chance of stopping a nightkill, or keep that someone in my sights, but maybe have a nearly 12% chance of stopping a nightkill? If that is what you are asking, well, yes, by golly I would take the 12% over the 0%, and lynch if and when the claim, which would be an unsustainable fakeclaim, falls apart.

Or bring you some well deserved attention with my VT flip.

Go right ahead and hammer yourself; prove me wrong.

[Elementary Fermion]

Uh...I've run through the votes three times now. It's 1:34 am and I need sleeeeeep. By my count, it's Acosmist, Nacho, Elementary. So I'm gonna

[HAMMER HAVINGFITZ]

and leave time for a bit more discussion while I sleeeeeep... I'll be up in a bit to continue.

I do hope that this will be a big topic of discussion on the next Day. This is not the type of mistake I would expect anyone to make, but especially not after actually listing all of the other votes present.


However, I do not like this either:

Well that actually is a hammer then . . .

vote havingfitz

just incase, I still want some credit for this lynch though even though im not on the final VC.

An unnecessary vote for the sole purpose of being associated with the lynch? Is this so when your scumbuddy havingfitz actually does flip scum, you have at least some distance from him? This is yet another topic that had best be discussed next Day.

Also, I asked

questions

of everyone about Ellibereth's abrupt change in methodology. I would not expect him to respond, and my thoughts are already a matter of record. Would the remaining five of you ever care to chime in?

[Elementary Fermion]

Vanilla.

Can someone explain popcorn please? I will go look for it in the wiki, but this is the first I have heard the term used.

[Elementary Fermion]

Thank you.

Acosmist, then.

[Elementary Fermion]

May as well get comfy, waiting for Nacho to claim.

[Elementary Fermion]

Hmmm. . . exactly 48 hours since Day 3 started. Nachomamma8, are you still there? Or do we have yet another replacement on the horizon?

[Elementary Fermion]

Furry, I do understand your plight. I have crazy ridiculous finals bearing down on me as well.

Given his total strikeout yesterday, I am a little less inclined to listen to Acosmist today. Sure Nacho flip flopped on the amount he wants to read, but, well, I did the same thing on the amount I want to write. And I am pretty sure that I stayed town the entire time. So, I am thinking I need a stronger case.

Ellibereth, however, by refusing to provide any of the information requested of him comes off as the scummiest to me at the moment.

Finally, I would like to say that Panacea obviously does cherish this site, as she claimed, given my argument on her (re: wanting a townie modkilled) and her flip town. That is pretty noble, and pretty cool. Rock on, RIP, &c.

[Elementary Fermion]

Well given that it seems that there is zero way you dont vote one of nach/elli which is almost an impossible pairing... yeah you are tunneling.

How is that pair not possible? (Is one of them a pair with you?)

Seriously, Ellibereth needs to come back at some point and explain his number methods and various unsupported conclusory assertions. Not doing so is super suspicious.

Also, I do not get the animosity directed at Acosmist, who is the only one playing this game the way everyone on this site seems to say it is supposed to be played. How can you want someone to look at what someone says, respond to it, analyze it, draw inferences from it, yet do so without using sentences and quotes and words and all that stuff? Nacho, stop deflecting and whining.

[Elementary Fermion]

Hell week of test ends next week. Will be back then.

Um...when?

The deadline is Tuesday, May 11.

Do not worry -- he will swoop in on the 10th, an entire day early, and with his magical numerals have this whole mess solved.

I do hope that the hell test is not statistics.

[Elementary Fermion]

a) Arent the results all that matters

Are you serious? Such bald assertions cannot even be called “results” without providing some sort of methodology. I thought you seemed bright enough to realize that. Also, as he does not even stick to his own “results” I would imagine that should throw a little more doubt on such “results.”

But since you apparently disagree, try this: I have this super secret method that I refuse to share with you. It says you are guilty. BOOM! Do not questions my

results

because they are all that matters.

[Elementary Fermion]

a) Arent the results all that matters

Are you serious? Such bald assertions cannot even be called “results” without providing some sort of methodology. I thought you seemed bright enough to realize that. Also, as he does not even stick to his own “results” I would imagine that should throw a little more doubt on such “results.”

Eventually yes, but early on in a phase, its not always necesary, as you eventually can back up the assertion im fine with doing that. . . .

It's almost like

I

was making this point. I guess "eventually" does not mean "within 5 weeks" in your book. So I guess maybe I should have been more clear. But not really, cause it does not matter, at least not in this game.

Am I correct that a no lynch on this Day will be a scum vistory? Because that would suck. What a stupid way for this game to end.

[Elementary Fermion]

EF still hasnt responded to any of my points.

If I saw I any "points" I gladly would. Do you mean this:

Am I correct that a no lynch on this Day will be a scum vistory? Because that would suck. What a stupid way for this game to end.

You still think Eli is scum? Can you give a few bullet points as why? Maybe respond to past page stuff I said about you.

There you are asking for information, but I do not see you as making any points. I still think, for the reasons mentioned in my previous five (5) posts, that Ellibereth's deflection and lack of transparency regarding his statistical methods are quite suspicious. You do not have to agree; throwing out random stuff and refusing to be held to account for it might be the way you like to play. Have fun with that.

Or did you mean this:

Eventually yes, but early on in a phase, its not always necesary, as you eventually can back up the assertion im fine with doing that. Makes people react somewhat differently when they are not sure if you have a case, cop guilty, etc.

That sort of is a point, but I did respond to it. To wit:

Eventually yes, but early on in a phase, its not always necesary, as you eventually can back up the assertion im fine with doing that. . . .

It's almost like

I

was making this point. I guess "eventually" does not mean "within 5 weeks" in your book. So I guess maybe I should have been more clear. But not really, cause it does not matter, at least not in this game.

So, I guess you could be referring to this:

a) Arent the results all that matters
b) what?
c) Why is changing suspects/thought process scummy
d) Why is this bad? I will throw out entire trains of thought and plans all the time.

I know its not the best case from me, but when I almost expect EF to be voting Eli at any point, its really lacking strength.

Looking through votecounts, it more or less backs up my EF-nacho pairing, although I still prefer the EF lynch.

So, I guess I will respond to it. Again.

(a)

a) Arent the results all that matters

Are you serious? Such bald assertions cannot even be called “results” without providing some sort of methodology. I thought you seemed bright enough to realize that. Also, as he does not even stick to his own “results” I would imagine that should throw a little more doubt on such “results.”

But since you apparently disagree, try this: I have this super secret method that I refuse to share with you. It says you are guilty. BOOM! Do not questions my

results

because they are all that matters.

(b) Use Google. You may have heard of it. It looks things up on the internet. Start your query with "define:" and it will retrieve only definitions for you. That way, when I convey precisely the point I am making, because words (in English no less!) exist to precisely cover the concept, if you are uncertain what they mean you can look them up. I did not explicitly mention this earlier because I thought it was obvious.

(c)

a) Arent the results all that matters

Are you serious? Such bald assertions cannot even be called “results” without providing some sort of methodology. I thought you seemed bright enough to realize that.

Also, as he does not even stick to his own “results”

[after, as you recall, he told us how accurate and certain and everything else they are]

I would imagine that should throw a little more doubt on such “results.”

But since you apparently disagree, try this: I have this super secret method that I refuse to share with you. It says you are guilty. BOOM! Do not questions my

results

because they are all that matters.

Bolded by me for your convenience. The italics are added in to flesh out the concept that you missed the first time you read my response.

(d)

Also, as he does not even stick to his own “results”

[after, as you recall, he told us how accurate and certain and everything else they are]

I would imagine that should throw a little more doubt on such “results.”

Changing trains of thought is fine. That is not what Ellibereth has done--not by a long shot. He burst into a game that was already quite underway and announced publicly that he was not going to bother to actually read what has gone on in the game because he can just look at voting patterns and determine exactly what is going on. He then announced his findings. That sounds great, except he then abandoned all of this alleged work when asked about his methods. That is not " throw[ing] out entire trains of thought and plans[.]" That is getting called on BS and hiding one's head in the sand. Slight difference, there.

I at one point grew suspicious of Panacea for what sounded like her wanting a modkill. My train of thought changed when I realized she had a non-scum justification for her sentiments. That is different from announcing to the world that I have some sort of super magical statistical prowess, announcing its results, but abandoning them rather than explaining my methods when asked.

Also, what exactly are you "planning" in this game? I would imagine that only the individuals with the ability to communicate at night would be able to "plan" or "throw out . . . plans."

. . . I still prefer the EF lynch.

Why do you want the town to lose?

[Elementary Fermion]

Hey Furry, make a case why not? You know, like Acosmist is doing against Nacho and I am doing against Ellibereth. Or, you know, just vote for a town loss. Why are you doing that again? Is it because Ellibereth is your scumbuddy? That would make sense.

[Elementary Fermion]

Oh, and this is rich:

Im going to make this quick and

hopefully

flesh it out after tomorrows final

Well, that sounds reasonable, except it is followed by:

We have about 24 hours left in this day, step it up people.

How does that saying go? Physician, heal thyself? Your case on me is . . . what again? That would be a good thing to discuss with people.

[Elementary Fermion]

Well you are in luck! I crushed my dynamics final so am an hour an a half ahead of schedual. Working on stuff now. Also its not my fault that deadline is on the day of my last final.

Since I am also working on a final (at this exact moment actually) I do feel your pain. However, it is more difficult to excuse your refusal to build a case during the past three weeks. No one put you in this situation but you.

[Elementary Fermion]

c) Whats wrong with changing your mind over a read? Usually in a game I go through several stages of throwing out past theories and ideas that I was sure of to move on to the next one. I would be more concerned if he was pushing wagons in lylo solely on these interactions.

It was not a read. It was a calculation -- a calculation to which he wholeheartedly subscribed until questioned on it. He then abandoned it and acted as if it never happened.

Recap: What he did was not a read. In fact, he bragged about how he would not actually read anything that predated his arrival.

So yes, Furry, obviously you can change your mind over a read. If that were what he did, that would be one thing. But he did not.