Mini 961: Insane Asylum II: GAME OVER :O!

[magnus_orion]

double post (for real this time maybe?)

I did a 180 on Glork myself (also from suspecting to voting alongside him), so why aren't you questioning me?

eh? did I miss that, or are you referring to the same event? Cause there is a different between him voting after you voted, and you voting before he did.

My 180 is a major part of the Glork/StrangerCoug/SocioPath argument.

I would like you to respond to my comments about why your unvote was not rational, though

I think you're referring to #269, so I'll respond based on this thinking; if you're not, then you need to be more specific.

As Glork said, my vote on him is inherently flawed as he could be any number of information roles instead of scum. The two towniest things to do upon realizing this were to come up with a better case on Glork or unvote him; I did the latter.

could you link to where you're referring to?

Glork was WRONG.
Your vote was only inherently flawed because of the word "requires" If you replaced it with "makes it very likely that", Glork's objection would hold almost no weight.

See, we don't care about what's POSSIBLE. We care about what's LIKELY.
It is POSSIBLE, that, this being "insane" themed, every single player other than me is actually already scum, all of the alignments, night actions, and flips are staged, and this is just UK seeing how much she can torture a player.
Its POSSIBLE.
Why don't I bother considering it? Because I find the POSSIBILITY to be HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

So we can talk all day about POSSIBILITIES if you like. However, Glork's objection that "alignment information doesn't necessitate scum" doesn't matter because "alignment information makes scum extremely likely" seems to be a much more realistic position anyway.

You would be hard-pressed to find ANYTHING that NECESSITATES scum, ESPECIALLY in a game where the theme is INSANITY. You can imagine a possibility, easily in fact, where you cannot trust flips or cop investigations. Nothing NECESSITATES scum, at least until game end, but even then it could have been a giant conspiracy, with the result alreadly determined, and everyone in on it but you, but certainly you can figure out what makes people LIKELY scum. And that's what we do. Its the reason scumtells don't make us lynch people immediately. They just make things likely.

Which is why both you and glork are behaving rather weird in regards to this whole matter.
Both Glork and you should be aware of this, I presume you've used scumtells before, and your treatment of it is highly disconcerting. I would very much appreciate it if you put my worries to rest by explaining your actions.

Hey, m_o, I'm accepting pre-/ins for my next game. I can guarantee you a pro town spot

[StrangerCoug]

could you link to where you're referring to?

I vote Glork
I unvote him
I side with him

Glork was WRONG.
Your vote was only inherently flawed because of the word "requires" If you replaced it with "makes it very likely that", Glork's objection would hold almost no weight.

See, we don't care about what's POSSIBLE. We care about what's LIKELY.
It is POSSIBLE, that, this being "insane" themed, every single player other than me is actually already scum, all of the alignments, night actions, and flips are staged, and this is just UK seeing how much she can torture a player.
Its POSSIBLE.
Why don't I bother considering it? Because I find the POSSIBILITY to be HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

So we can talk all day about POSSIBILITIES if you like. However, Glork's objection that "alignment information doesn't necessitate scum" doesn't matter because "alignment information makes scum extremely likely" seems to be a much more realistic position anyway.

You would be hard-pressed to find ANYTHING that NECESSITATES scum, ESPECIALLY in a game where the theme is INSANITY. You can imagine a possibility, easily in fact, where you cannot trust flips or cop investigations. Nothing NECESSITATES scum, at least until game end, but even then it could have been a giant conspiracy, with the result alreadly determined, and everyone in on it but you, but certainly you can figure out what makes people LIKELY scum. And that's what we do. Its the reason scumtells don't make us lynch people immediately. They just make things likely.

Which is why both you and glork are behaving rather weird in regards to this whole matter.
Both Glork and you should be aware of this, I presume you've used scumtells before, and your treatment of it is highly disconcerting. I would very much appreciate it if you put my worries to rest by explaining your actions.

While you make a point with my wording, it's still the driving force of my unvote. It does not, however, render the rest of Glork's defense against me irrelevant. He said that he was using hyperbole on which I failed to pick up, and I was raising no other objection against Glork strongly leaning town on Iecerint. (In fact, I say it's fine for him to do so.) Combined, those left my vote with virtually zero basis.

[UncertainKitten]

The Ninth "Paranoia" Vote Count

"Paranoia is a thought process heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. Historically, this characterization was used to describe any delusional state."

Mod Note: But is it really paranoia when they really ARE out to get you?

0. UncertainKitten (0)
1. magnus_orion (0)
2. StrangerCoug (2): SocioPath, Iecerint
3. SocioPath (4): StrangerCoug, bv310, Leech, Glork
4. farside22 (0)
5. Glork (0)
6. Leech (0)
7. Tarhalindur (2): Slicey, Snow_Bunny
8. bv310 (0)
9. Haylen (0)
10. Iecerint (0)
11. Slicey (0)
12. Snow_Bunny (3): Tarhalindur, farside22, magnus_orion

Not Voting (1): Haylen

Sociopath is at L-3

Prod Clock (New): Off
Players still needing to respond to prod:No one \o/

With 12 alive it takes 7 to lynch
Deadline is in 10 days at 3:00 PM EST, Monday, May 24th, 2010

[magnus_orion]

okay... since you voted sociopath FIRST, and Glork SECOND, it really isn't an issue with you. Glork did a 180 and then voted the same person his top suspect was voting at the time he posted. You did a 180 on glork, true, and we are in fact discussing it. However, when you voted socio, glork was not voting socio, so you weren't really an issue, hence not questioning you on it.

While you make a point with my wording, it's still the driving force of my unvote. It does not, however, render the rest of Glork's defense against me irrelevant. He said that he was using hyperbole on which I failed to pick up, and I was raising no other objection against Glork strongly leaning town on Iecerint. (In fact, I say it's fine for him to do so.) Combined, those left my vote with virtually zero basis.

While I still find the attitude disturbing, especially from glork, who's been touting his experience like it could be used as a legit defense for awhile now, and the way you unvoted does bring issue to this defense, since it seemed really clear that it was that comment alone that caused you to unvote, I have another concern.
Since you seem to think I have a good point, I would like you to consider this, and reread socio, because what I just said, is exactly what SOCIO HAS BEEN ARGUING ALL ALONG WHILE YOU BUILT THIS WAGON ON HIM! Which is why I am now opposed to the socio wagon.

[StrangerCoug]

Unvote: SocioPath

while I do that then.

[StrangerCoug]

OK, a quick reread on SocioPath makes me feel better about him. He doesn't go up to my top town read, but I suppose I'll let him live. He's in the townier half of the players.

I notice a wagon on Snow_Bunny and that's a player I'm not seeing much, so next item on the checklist is to look at that player.

[StrangerCoug]

Eleven posts by Snow_Bunny. That was easy

While the fact that she's voting the mod for a long time is alarming, the do-in seems to be the most recent post, which is essentially OMGUS on Tarhalindur, counterattacking his lurking accusation with "Even a newbie can do that." Yeah, a newbie can do that—because it's clear she's posting infrequently.

Vote: Snow_Bunny

[Glork]

@glork: Why are you not concerned about him dropping the subject? Doesn't it seem rational to suspect someone if they have inside information? The role that most often has other's alignment information on day 1 is scum

I've already explained this, but here it goes again.

Not only did I point out roles which could have inside information as town, but I also

explained that I was using hyperbole, and merely had a protown read on Iece

. The only sensible things to do in that case are to challenge my use of hyperbole or drop the subject. Coug did the latter.

[magnus_orion]

But certainly it seems normal to suspect a connection between you and coug after the way the exchange played out?

[Tarhalindur]

Eleven posts by Snow_Bunny. That was easy

While the fact that she's voting the mod for a long time is alarming, the do-in seems to be the most recent post, which is essentially OMGUS on Tarhalindur, counterattacking his lurking accusation with "Even a newbie can do that." Yeah, a newbie can do that—because it's clear she's posting infrequently.

Vote: Snow_Bunny

BZZT. My case on Snow_Bunny is only incidental to her lack of activity (and only because she hasn't been posting content when she HAS been posting).

In fact, THIS vote reeks of scum motivation - I need to look at your past games now. (Could be a bus or piling on a weak townie - first instinct is the former, but I'll take a closer look.)

MFoS: StrangerCoug

I ALSO need to read CSL/magnus orion more carefully; will get on that ASAP.

In other news, I strongly expect at least one (probably exactly one) of {Haylen, Snow_Bunny} is scum (though a couple of other players have an outside shot, notably Leech though I think he's VI instead), and refuse to elaborate at this time.

Finally, policy says SocioPath still needs to claim.

[magnus_orion]

oh yeah, I've been meaning to ask you, tar, why are you so intent on socio claiming?

[SocioPath]

First off, how the hell am I fishing? I thought he had to be scum due to definite knowledge of town at this point. He has proven it completely false, and I pursued no further.

Firstly, this is false.
Your original reason for voting Glork was this:

Glork's bugging me. Right now I feel he's taking his spat with SocioPath the wrong way, and SocioPath comes off town to me, if frustrated.

Vote: Glork

Then you later got into a debate about something completely different.

Translation: "Your vote is only valid for the reasons you say it's for. If you develop them or shift lines of attack, your vote is no longer warranted." That's not a fair way of playing Mafia. Glork's "taking his spat with [you] the wrong way" is vaguely worded as quoted and admittedly a gut feeling. Yes, I make no explicit mention of Iecerint until later. (Iecerint is the guy you and Glork were arguing over, is that correct?) Does that mean that my vote no longer has a basis? Hell no, it doesn't.

I think this bears quoting again.

[Iecerint]

Ha, I have a new name!

My vote for SC is a reflection of my prior ambivalence about Glork/SP. I wouldn't really dispute that it was bad/weak reasoning. Nothing has really happened to convince me that I was wrong, though, least of all page 12, where he (for the second time) backs down mainly because you tell him to AFAICT.

I'm not crazy about your pontification about possibility/requires tbh. Part of scumRhetoric is overemphasizing certain possibilities over others. Using language like "requires" is one (inelegant) way to do that.

[StrangerCoug]

Eleven posts by Snow_Bunny. That was easy

While the fact that she's voting the mod for a long time is alarming, the do-in seems to be the most recent post, which is essentially OMGUS on Tarhalindur, counterattacking his lurking accusation with "Even a newbie can do that." Yeah, a newbie can do that—because it's clear she's posting infrequently.

Vote: Snow_Bunny

BZZT. My case on Snow_Bunny is only incidental to her lack of activity (and only because she hasn't been posting content when she HAS been posting).

In fact, THIS vote reeks of scum motivation - I need to look at your past games now. (Could be a bus or piling on a weak townie - first instinct is the former, but I'll take a closer look.)

MFoS: StrangerCoug

Her OMGUS on you, not your case, is the primary basis of my vote. Surely she can do better than she has?

My vote for SC is a reflection of my prior ambivalence about Glork/SP. I wouldn't really dispute that it was bad/weak reasoning. Nothing has really happened to convince me that I was wrong, though, least of all page 12, where he (for the second time) backs down mainly because you tell him to AFAICT.

I don't keep votes after it's been shown that their basis is weak.

Also, magnus_orion's specific instruction was to reread SocioPath, not drop the SocioPath case (I still have some nags about him, but they're minor). The unvote was an attempt not to have my bias toward the latter have any bearing on my read. Your case on magnus_orion would have to be that he

ENCOURAGED

me to back off, not

TOLD

me.

[magnus_orion]

I'm not crazy about your pontification about possibility/requires tbh. Part of scumRhetoric is overemphasizing certain possibilities over others. Using language like "requires" is one (inelegant) way to do that.

I'm confused, could you explain both where and how I do this in greater detail?
Cause this sounds like what I'm trying to say glork was doing, and pointing it out doesn't mean I was doing it. But I may be misunderstanding your point here.

[UncertainKitten]

bv310 is 4 hours from being replaced. Leech is being prodded. Slicey will be prodded Sunday morning unless he posts before then. S_B is 4 hours away from prod.

[farside22]

Posting to prevent prod. Will have more tomorrow. Going out tonight.

You declared V/LA for weekends. I basically don't expect you to post on Saturday and Sunday. Though I would prod you on a Tuesday morning

[farside22]

I got a few moments to go over the people that have not posted as much.

Kairyuu/Halen - many will be catching up post but I'm going to assume busy since Kairyuu replaced.
I can't say I understand lynching the mod as a good thing.
The main problem with Kairyuu especially his vote here is I'm not finding sound reason's why he is voting SP or why he thinks one of SP or Coug are scum. His previous post here just reads as gut on SP with more issue on SC. So why vote SP or SC.
Whenever I see someone making points on one player but voting someone it a big flashing scum sign.
This could point to a SC/Kairy pairing.

Slicey - 3 post, confirm, random vote and note of v/la
meh. Will see if he says anything more when he gets back from v/la.

Snow - Not sure why someone would feel the need to claim non-miller. following others had issues and stated prior to bunny's comment.
post 152 what do you mean with the last sentence here bunny?
post 153 others voted for the mod so why the attention on CSL?

I'm sorry, but I've been busy. And, basically, you're going solely after me for lurking? That's lazy scumhunting last time I checked.

this is false my arguement had nothing to do with lurkering and everything to do with the lack of substance.

However, there's something I want to say about another player: Tar. It may be me, but I see Tar as a good player, however, his attacks on me doesn't show that. Basically just attacking me for lurking? Even a newbie can do that. Smells like fakehunting. And thus, I have a really bad feeling about him

Unvote, vote: Tarhalindur

Also in this same quote she mentions that she thinks I'm voting her for lurking but attacks Tar which makes no sense. Especially if you read the case again says nothing about lurking but her post and how little it says.

Still read Snow as scummy

Leech: Why does claiming miller beg being lynched?

Tar claimed an ability again that begs the question whether we should lynch him early again. Both of these happened in the last games I played with you each respectively.

please explain when this happened in pyp4? I don't recall someone claiming an ability early in that game. I recall scum fake claiming at L-1.
I haven't seen anything exciting from Leech. He's flying under the radar fast in my view and I don't have the link to the search engine on this computer to determine his posting elsewhere or not.
He gives me a funny feeling and I think I need to reread pyp4 before I can decide where I sit with him.


I just have glork/SP/Sc left. But I like my vote on bunny for now and until I reread coug one more time to determine if my read of kairy has a connection.

[farside22]

You declared V/LA for weekends. I basically don't expect you to post on Saturday and Sunday. Though I would prod you on a Tuesday morning

Ah I thought it was still up in the air on that. It's more Limited Access because of the little one.

Well, I essentially don't count weekends for you is the result

[Iecerint]

I'm not crazy about your pontification about possibility/requires tbh. Part of scumRhetoric is overemphasizing certain possibilities over others. Using language like "requires" is one (inelegant) way to do that.

I'm confused, could you explain both where and how I do this in greater detail?
Cause this sounds like what I'm trying to say glork was doing, and pointing it out doesn't mean I was doing it. But I may be misunderstanding your point here.

This is the sequence of events IIRC:

1. SC says that Glork must be scum because he was disproportionately sure I was town.
2. Glork points out that some town roles know that people are town, so SC's "must" language is misleading.
3. SC says "my bad" and retracts his argument
*time passes*
4. MO says that Glork was wrong to do "2," because he was relying on an overly literal reading of SC's "must be scum" bit.
5. Iec says that it's not inappropriate to do what Glork did in "2," because scum sometimes deliberately turn "X or Y" situations apparent "X" situations with rhetoric that misrepresents something as certain rather than possible.

Your 275 also gets a little theory-heavy.

(Off-topic: All the text on this site just got really small O.o)

[SocioPath]

(Off-topic: All the text on this site just got really small O.o)

Ctrl+Mouse Wheel

[Iecerint]

^ HOORAY

[magnus_orion]

I'm not crazy about your pontification about possibility/requires tbh. Part of scumRhetoric is overemphasizing certain possibilities over others. Using language like "requires" is one (inelegant) way to do that.

I'm confused, could you explain both where and how I do this in greater detail?
Cause this sounds like what I'm trying to say glork was doing, and pointing it out doesn't mean I was doing it. But I may be misunderstanding your point here.

This is the sequence of events IIRC:

1. SC says that Glork must be scum because he was disproportionately sure I was town.
2. Glork points out that some town roles know that people are town, so SC's "must" language is misleading.
3. SC says "my bad" and retracts his argument
*time passes*
4. MO says that Glork was wrong to do "2," because he was relying on an overly literal reading of SC's "must be scum" bit.
5. Iec says that it's not inappropriate to do what Glork did in "2," because scum sometimes deliberately turn "X or Y" situations apparent "X" situations with rhetoric that misrepresents something as certain rather than possible.

Your 275 also gets a little theory-heavy.

(Off-topic: All the text on this site just got really small O.o)

you're not thinking in-depth enough.
I'm not saying what glork was doing was wrong. Glork is "technically correct" I used the word "wrong" for emphasis because he is only correct because of semantic games...

But that's not the point I'm getting at.

What's odd is that this was enough to drive strangercoug off the case. Strangercoug did present it as an "X" situation.
Glork say "its an X or Y situation"
(note: x is more likely than Y)
Strangercoug says "oh" and drops it.
Sociopath says "Woah, wait, what?" and begins attacking coug and glork for this interaction.
Glork and coug both then attack sociopath... and this eventually leads to the sociopath wagon we have now.

I'm saying that because x is more likely than y, sociopath was rational to find coug's reaction to glork's objection odd, and suspect a connection between them because of it.
As a result, I'm saying that the basis for the socio wagon is flawed.

I'm not terribly concerned with glork's clarification, its the results that bother me.
Specifically,
1. coug dropping his case
2. glork's acceptance of 1
3 the socio wagon that resulted when socio pointed out that 1 and 2 were odd.

Speaking of things that bother me:
snow_bunny did not post between this:

strangercoug bothers me somewhat though, the vast majority of his interactions limit his links to glork and sociopath, but he doesn't seem to have commented on either tar or farside, both active people in the game. (see the chart)

Strangercoug, could you make your positions on the players in this game clear?

I'm leaning town on the two people you mention here. As for scum other than SocioPath, I'd probably draw a couple lurker's names out of a hat (I know, I don't like LALurkers, but I perceive an activity disparity between the players that's making the game drag). I have a neutral or no read on everybody else we don't mention right now.

and these:

OK, a quick reread on SocioPath makes me feel better about him. He doesn't go up to my top town read, but I suppose I'll let him live. He's in the townier half of the players.

I notice a wagon on Snow_Bunny and that's a player I'm not seeing much, so next item on the checklist is to look at that player.

Eleven posts by Snow_Bunny. That was easy

While the fact that she's voting the mod for a long time is alarming, the do-in seems to be the most recent post, which is essentially OMGUS on Tarhalindur, counterattacking his lurking accusation with "Even a newbie can do that." Yeah, a newbie can do that—because it's clear she's posting infrequently.

Vote: Snow_Bunny

That means this is a fresh read on snow_bunny. Snow_Bunny wasn't involved in the socio/glork/coug exchange, and coug changing his position on socio shouldn't affect his snow_bunny read.
It appears he didn't have a read on snow_bunny until he looked at the only competing wagon to sociopath, which means he's not seriously scumhunting, or at the very least hasn't been putting much thought into looking for scum among any of the players who aren't part of the socio/glork/coug exchange.

[StrangerCoug]

I hate to say that it's common for me to focus on the major part of the game while I throw everything else aside, magnus_orion...

[Iecerint]

OK, then; I agree with you about that. I thought you were effectively targeting Glork for rhetorical moves that you were yourself guilty for (though at the opposite extreme), but it looks like your position is more nuanced than that.

The SC->SB thing is similarly fine.