Scummies Invitational (OVER!!!)

[vollkan]

Good luck to everyone. I have a brief survey I'd like you to fill out;

1. Have you played in a Lights Out game before?
2. I give you $200 to place a bet on the first Day 1 lynch, with return odds of 15/1 for each player. Who do you bet on?
3. What do you think is the optimum number of lynches for Day 1?
4. What is your favourite animal?
5. Sum up your playstyle in one sentence.

What do you hope this survey will achieve?

Because, if you're scum, your survey seems like a nice little tactic to clog the thread with noise. I've seen Adel use something similar in at least two of his past scum games, I know he's a player you respect, and so I didn't want to go along the route you wanted me to take just in case this was that kind of tactic.

I think you were in one of them, tajo. That Tofu Mafia game. Adel created a list of questions that everyone went through great effort to answer, and it ended up just clogging the thread and wasting D1 time, which benefited the scum. There was some Newbie Game that he did it in too, but I forget the game number. And as for Hoopla mentioning she's an Adel fan, I can't recall where I read it. Maybe a GTKAS thread or something.

Either way, I'm not really building a meta-case against Hoopla. I'm just saying that I'm immediately distrustful of her intentions with respect to these questions since they're going to take awhile for everyone to answer, they most likely have to be answered in a WoW format which makes people not wanna read the thread anymore, and they could potentially slow the game down, which would benefit her if she's scum.

I understand where you are coming from, but I can't see how any of the questions are going to need to be answered in WoW format. There is a risk of them leading to distracting discussion about people's answers (particularly thinking of a theory debate arising from the playstyle question 5 if I were to give me view on gut-voting or something), but I think the biggest problem is really just that they don't seem to have any point.

@CKD: OMGUS

Vote: CKD

.

[vollkan]

vollkan might be scum.

A statement of "X might be scum" or "Y might be town" has to rank among the most useless things that can be said in this game. If what you meant is that you actually have reason for thinking I am scum, then I can't see why you wouldn't elaborate to convince other people.

That said Volk you raise some interesting points and then follow up with a throwaway vote? What up

None of the points I raised in relation to Hoopla resulted in me having suspicion such as might justify a serious early vote (at least until Hoopla answers my question), so I figured I may as well RV as normal. (I don't like RVS, but it's the worst way of starting a game except for all the others, and

sometimes

it works as a springboard.)

[vollkan]

Except for that whole not thinking Hoop is scum for that maneuver.

How would me not thinking Hoop is scum alter a decision to RV?

[vollkan]

What do you think your random vote will achieve? I find it strange people object on the basis of it needing to explicitely achieve something, when it is debatable how much the witty back and forth banter of a RVS achieves.

RV is generally useless, but always harmless. Since it is the norm (I'm assuming you don't often begin with questions or other unorthodox openings), then it's not unreasonable to ask why you decided to take a different approach.

The point of these questions was to kickstart some discussion, hopefully about the set-up, which is why I included two questions that related directly to that. The example Incognito cites is an example of noise, because it was done later on page 2 after relevant information and stances had been produced. This was the first post in the game, so I disagree quite strongly that I was trying to distract or create noise.

I've seen the survey technique used a few times, by Vi in particular, which is where the majority of my inspiration came from, contrary to what Incognito claims. There always seems to be a couple of people anti-survey, parading the noise/waste of time argument and want to get on with their random voting - this is what question 4 was used for, to tip some people into this mode of thought. Conflicting positions on a non-variable event creates fractures in the usually whole and fluid RVS, and fractures are something necessary to derive debate and hopefully alignment tells. Of course, this will happen naturally, but I deem it slower and less efficient which again runs contrary to Incognito's claims of noise, because the act of filling out the survey is a decision in itself.

That's similar to the reason I used to self-vote at the start of games (I stopped only because I noticed that the shock value seemed to wear off over time, to the point where it only affected newbies and thus had no point). You don't get a serious vote.

I'd like to lynch just one player today, and treat it like a normal game, for now. Nobody really expects to lynch scum on Day 1, so I find it weird that we would want to lynch more than one player without confirmed information in the game. From Day 2 onward, players expect to lynch scum, so depending on our confidence, I would prefer higher numbers on D2 and D3, which means we are mass-lynching based on more information, and can possibly chew up that icky 1-shot-role relatively early in the game, so we have more options in endgame.

I basically agree. It's impossible to say in advance how many we should lynch, since it entirely depends on the overall level of information; it certainly seems unlikely that we will reach the level sufficient to justify two D1 lynches.

V/LA until Monday

[vollkan]

I do not know why you would counter Incognito's argument of using the surveys as a distraction topic by countering with this comedic roleplay that you, as scum, would tell your scum buddies about your plan just to make Incognito's idea less plausible. I do not think this counter-argument from you makes his point less plausible.

Incognito's argument raised a legitimate issue, but one that was ultimately impossible to rule one way or the other on (ie. it's obvious that a survey could be used maliciously by scum, but it makes no sense to assume that). Hoopla cannot make Incognito's argument significantly less plausible, because Incognito raised an unfalsifiable possibility. But what Hoopla did do was show that the scum-logic that Incognito's argument required is fairly tortuous - "Mwahaha, I will confound them with five simple questions" could only come from fairly incompetent scum. The argument was expressed unorthodoxly (ie roleplay), but if you were examining it properly rather than deriding it because of its form, the point is clear and, I think, strong.

That said Volk you raise some interesting points and then follow up with a throwaway vote? What up

None of the points I raised in relation to Hoopla resulted in me having suspicion such as might justify a serious early vote (at least until Hoopla answers my question), so I figured I may as well RV as normal. (I don't like RVS, but it's the worst way of starting a game except for all the others, and

sometimes

it works as a springboard.)

Now you are talking yourself into it.

You dislike RVS
Hoopla clearly creates a way to escape RVS
You

comment

on it.

and random vote anyway? Esspecially the incredibily effective (and discussion generating) OMGUS random vote!

I can't see your point at all.

You seem to be assuming, without any apparent basis, that because I commented on something non-RV-related, it thereby became illegitimate to RV. But, at a point in time when I hadn't any actual suspicion formed and when there was nothing preventing me from RVing (ie. Hoopla's survey occurring was not incompatible with RVS also occuring), it was perfectly legitimate for me to RV as well as engage with Hoopla's survey. Sure, my RV will be (and, in hindsight,

was

since RV stage has now passed,

Unvote

, ) ineffective, but you've failed to explain at all why that is relevant.

Or, to condense everything down into a simple question: In one sentence, what did I do that was scummy?

Town read question? Check.

What's wrong with questioning town reads?

Survey, humourous roleplay rather than defence

See above on Tenchi on this point.

Will continue catching up soon...

[vollkan]

Further, vollkan's random vote was odd, knowing that Vollkan doesn't like the RVS stage and wants to get out as fast as possible. He could have, by reacting in any way to hoopla's survey.

I've addressed this issue already.

It is clear CKD intents to play a reactive game. This post contains no new information, but states that he wants everybody else 1. to fight for his vote, and 2. ask him about his stances on anyone (this while his "hackles aren't up") and him having shown absolutely no stances on anyone till then.

Now, if CKD was town, on this moment he'd try to form an opinion of himself (not asking others to convince him), and develop stances that way. Being a good towny, he would help the town by discussing how he came to those stances.

But we see nothing of all that here. The only reason why he'd post this, would be because as scum, he doesn't really have to form stances on anyone, and he'd only have to be "convinced" to vote a towny. Further lurking would remove most of the threat town is to him. We have a lurking scum here. vote CKD

At the point in time when CKD made the post you are attacking, do you think it would be reasonable for him not to have his "hackles up"?

The reason I ask is that, with him apparently joining my wagon just for pressure and then finding no real point to it, it doesn't seem unacceptable that he wouldn't have opinions this early on.

The asking other people for cases point is less defensible, but it's more of a "lazy player" tell than a scumtell (it can become a scumtell depending on how one deals with the cases)

CKD is definitely doing some misrepresentation with regards to Myk

Misrepresentations? Quote me two of them.

You said "I change playstyles".
I gave the extremes of one relevant parameter that defines play markedly, within which I fluctuate a lot and explained the inner process clearly as I perceive it. Imo there's a difference.

There's a difference, but it's not a significant one. Giving Tenchi the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't have a consistent playstyle (and/or isn't the type to try and identify even the 'parameters' of his own style), there's no reason for just assuming that he isn't stating a playstyle out of evasiveness.

Empking: More of a distraction in any game I've played. Scum leaves him around if he's town, and if he's scum he uses that meta to stay alive longer. Since we have multiple lynches I feel he should be removed from the game so he doesn't become a distraction as town or slip by as scum. Vote:Empking

This is just stupid. For starters, it's policy lynching somebody based on what they might do; he's assuming Empking wil become a distraction. Second, in this particular game there is very likely a reduced likelihood of Empking's playstyle being distracting, because there aren't newbies to get confused by it.

[...]Could you explain why my thought process is scummy to you? I'm interested in getting more familiar with your way of thinking so that I can decide whether I'm interested in lynching you for myself, thank you very much.

Not all your thinking, just your rationalization in this particular argument. I find that when players start overreaching on their facts (in this case you even admit to it, which is a town tell). Its one of the little tells that I note that people make when they're trying to make a case stronger without actually having the facts back up how strong they feel the case is.

The entirety of Oj's argument was:

When I look at it I can see how I was exaggerating in some aspects. But I was thinking of your description of an approach that seemed to apply almost purely meta on D1 (before this post). You explained you want to remove weak players first and didn't find it wise to disturb bandwagons that otherwise form. (post 111, last paragraph)
Could you explain why my thought process is scummy to you? I'm interested in getting more familiar with your way of thinking so that I can decide whether I'm interested in lynching you for myself, thank you very much.

You only answered the last sentence. This is significant because the points that Oj raise at least give rise to a reasonable argument that you were treating D1 as one massive RVS. Instead of addressing the case against you, you only responded to the part that was most Oj's most defensive. It's simply evasive.

Unvote, Vote: Kinetic

Any argument can be refuted by a humourous roleplay. Its the last resort of the people that are in the wrong. The facts of the matter is that it doesn't require any tortuous scum-logic. All it requires is that scum want to do something that benefits them with no real lasting disadvantages.

First, it's not actually true that any argument can be refuted by a humourous roleplay. In this case, though, the roleplay got at the heart of the problem with Incog's argument - which is that the notion of a survey as a scumplot requires pretty bizarre thinking from scum. It's obviously true that there is a conceivable scum advantage from the survey, but the pattern of thinking that leads to it is stretched. Whereas, "I want to try a survey as an ice-breaker info tool" (a null tell as far as reasoning goes) is much more intuitively direct. Nobody has provided any reason as to why we should just assume that the more crazy scum reasoning is better.

I find this to be an unnaturally overt and definite statement for this early in the game, therefore, to test it a little I'm going to:

Vote Mykonian

And see what sort of response that evokes. I've chosen Myko because I feel his ckd case is a little overdone, possibly him trying too hard to paint scum where its not.

He casts a vote for Myk that is ostensibly predicated on tajo being scum (thus making the vote extremely bad), but then supplements it with an extremely vague reason for Myk being independently scum "the CKD case being a little overdone".

Actually, Myk, that post wasn't to test pop's response. You're right, if it was I did it badly - completely gave the game away. It was to test yours. I had a slight scum read on you for the ckd case that I disagree with (as stated with my vote) and was looking for a way to either strengthen or weaken that. The knee-jerk OMGUS vote strengthens it.

Yup. Myk is obv-scum for voting you because you cast a terrible vote.

What made me call your vote OMGUS was not just the post in which you voted but also the supposed explanation that followed. See, unlike most, you didn't give your reasons for voting me when you voted me, you gave your reasons for voting me when you unvoted me. The impression that gives me is that your vote was a genuine reaction which you try to justify after the fact in 139, so you can say that you had a reason, just before jumping your vote back onto a wagon you feel safe on.

When I say this, keep in mind that I'm probably the biggest Nazi around in terms of requiring reasons with votes: it was perfectly acceptable for Myk to vote without reasons. You cast what was a terrible vote for him, vague and apparently largely predicated on somebody else being scum. Your vote was self-evidently bad, to the point that that turning around to attack Myk for OMGUSing is frankly just silly.

[vollkan]

Since 3 outsiders have commented disagreeing with there being a meaningful distinction, I acknowledge to the outside the difference does apparently not seem significant. I'll confess that while writing my first post it came even to my mind that I was having some trouble writing something actually meaningful about my playstyle in one sentence. I copied Hoopla's questions to my post first, commented on rest of the early stuff after it and then came back to answer before sending. So whether I was being hypocritical to Tenchi came to my mind too. But I thought at the time that his no introspection at all was on the extreme side. My problem was related to things being too complex to describe in one sentence rather than thinking there's little rhyme and reason to how I roll.

For the record, I have liked Tenchi's later posting as more townish.

I have a few issues with this.

Firstly, let's go back to your original post on Tenchi:

Overtly self-unaware answer. Everyone has plenty of persona to spill over.

You now say that "it came even to my mind that I was having some trouble writing something actually meaningful about my playstyle in one sentence". Either you are lying now or you were lying then, because there is no way that, if you genuinely found the self-meta exercise difficult, you could reasonably be so bombast in your attack on Tenchi as to claim that "Everyone has plenty of persona to spill over". The strong tone of your original attack on him is completely at odds with your current argument.

Secondly, your most recent post quoted above is dealing with the issue in an evasive manner. Your position on Tenchi has come under serious attack. In that situation, you have two reasonable options: defend or retract. Instead, you've basically thrown up a cloud of smoke by shifting your position so as to minimise the significance of your attack (though, one which raises the inconsistency issue I addressed above), without actually having to take a stand for or against the criticisms that have been made.

If other people want to protect him and stop that from happening (like you), go ahead, I'm not going to think its too scummy. But if he does end up being scum when we eventually lynch him (because I do think its inevitable that he will be lynched even if its not today) then I'm going to look very hard on you.

This doesn't make sense. Breaking down your post into its two sentences:

If other people want to protect him and stop that from happening (like you), go ahead, I'm not going to think its too scummy.

From the above, you clearly don't think it is scummy for somebody to oppose an Empking policy lynch. It follows that you can see legitimate town reasons why somebody would oppose your position.

But if he does end up being scum when we eventually lynch him (because I do think its inevitable that he will be lynched even if its not today) then I'm going to look very hard on you.

Despite the above (ie that a townie could reasonably defend Empking), you are strongly suggesting that should Empking flip scum you would consider that a mark against any opponent of an Empking policy lynch.

You can't have it both ways. If defending Empking is objectively legitimate (and you admit that it is), then it is not a scumtell irrespective of which way Empking ultimately flips.

Its policy lynching based on my experience with this player. All this great defense of Empking makes me start to wonder why. Show me a game where he has been a great benefit to the town. Maybe I've missed something, but I don't remember him being such a good player as to warrant this. I'm going to do some meta checking, be right back.

The question is not whether Empking is a great benefit to the town; it's whether he is likely to be such a detriment to the town that it is better that he be lynched. The difference between the two is that the way you framed it puts the onus on the rest of us to show why Empking should stay, when good policy dictates the burden of proof should fall onto you.

Empking lynches townie in endgame as town. July 27

I read Empking's last post in that game. His reasons for voting seemed satisfactory. I've seen (and done myself) far stupider things.

Empking lynches townie in endgame as town. July 26

Reasons seemed weak. Again, though, being a sub-par player hardly justifies policy lynching. (And the beauty of this setup is that the traditional argument for policy lynching early on doesn't apply so much; if Empking really does turn out to be a human trainwreck, we can lynch him later on and not sacrifice a day)

Empking lynched Day 3. Not exactly sure why, so I've drawn no conclusions from this. July 10
Empking wins, near endgame (5 players) by lynching BattleMage(lol). June 30
Empking slips by as scum. Wins. June 11
Lynched Day 4 after, (lol) miller13 D1, zwet D2, CJMiller D3. Don't know the reasons, but I'll admit those are players I'd lynch before Empking as a policy too, lolol. Don't know if his lynch was policy in this game, but wouldn't doubt it. Lynched Oct 13, 09

I checked the last of these, and it was a suspicion lynch.

Nothing you've provided proves any more, even taking it at its highest, than that Empking is mediocre. That's hardly a sound argument for a policy lynch.

Have you never played with Vollkan before, Kinetic? Anyway, if I had to gamble here, I'd think he is scum. I would expect him to be more "important" in the game (sorry, can't find the right english word.) Esspecially with the recent activity, there was every room for Vollkan to make his points, to scumhunt, and for some reason, he didn't.

Myk, I've only recently come back from a V/LA (which I announced in my ISO 3). Since then, I've been active in making my points on everything.

Also, you're assuming that my meta is to be less active as scum. I know from self-meta that that is not the case.

I suppose this may be a valid argument, however, it would be a lot stronger if for some reason my argument was flawed or that you could weaken my argument some.

The

argument

assertion you made was that Empking was a massive liability and literally better off dead. It's hard to 'refute' that without doing an entire meta on Empking. Drawing on my point above, you should be the one to present evidence for him being scummy, which you hadn't done in your initial point (and the subsequent 'evidence' you did present was, as I said above, very weak)

CKD: Explain to me how it wastes a lynch and your argument makes sense. Otherwise it falls on its face. This type of game is unique in that losing a lynch is not as big a set back as in a normal game.

That's not the point. Lynching a player without good reason is just bad policy, for obvious reasons.

[vollkan]

I bolded the word that is most important in my first sentence. I'm not looking for it both ways, I said I don't think its is TOO scummy, however I do think it is at least slightly scummy.

Okay. Since the second sentence in your post was specifically addressing the scenario where Emp is scum, am I right in my understanding that your first sentence is saying that you find defending Emp slightly scummy irrespective of his alignment?

If my interpretation is correct, why?

And yes, should Empking flip scum I will take renewed interest in all those who opposed his lynch so heavily.

X opposes Emp's lynch. Emp flips scum. Do you think X is scummy/er?

These are his last 5 or so games on the site (the last being a game that recently ended but which he was removed from early), all happening within a very close period to each other. If I pulled deeper I'm sure the trend would continue based on my own experience with him. He is more than mediocre in his own ability, he compounds that by being very unresponsive, inability to listen to reason, generally lurky, and an overall hindrance. Is he the worst player I've ever played with? No. Is it enough that if possible, on a game where lynches are relatively cheap that if could get rid of him day 1 I would. Yes.

There are plenty of lousy players on site. That rarely means that it is better risking a potential decrease in the town's numbers.

Now, I remember the specific instance as to a game I played with Empking, (the B5 one). In that game we were masons together, had an absurd amount of information on the set up, and I was able to break the game privately with him within 1 week of game time. His character was immortal as long as mine was alive. For nearly a week I tried to talk to him, get anything from him, and it was like pulling teeth. Additionally I wanted HIM to present the information since he would not be subject to the retaliation that I KNEW would come from the scum for breaking the game so heavily and he would soak up NKs.

Instead with deadline approaching and no response from him I was forced to come forward with my information. The LAST ditch effort to try and salvage something was I suggested we swap roles and I claim to be the immortal one and if pressured he claim to be my "Achilles Heel", so he could soak NKs and allow us to survive at least one additional day. What does he do? He pretty much full claims in thread.

It wasn't mediocre play in that instance, it was completely horrible play where if he would have listened, or participated we could have crushed the game. However, at best despite all I did to break the game I wa only able to succeed at a partial win.

Now this was nearly 2 years ago, but I have not seen in any game that he has become a better player.

I am NOT the only player in this game saying that. I am the only one willing to put my vote behind it.

Have you seen anything equally or worse in his play since?

So far the most common defense is that "policy lynching" is bad, which is more of a general defense then specifically "policy lynching Empking is bad".

The general presumption is that policy lynching is bad.

It's incumbent on you to show us that "policy lynching Empking is good". You've shown us that Empking is a bad player, and frankly you have at least made a case reasonable enough that I don't think you are scummy for pushing the policy lynch; I'm just not convinced that he currently is so bad as to justify his lynch and the associated risk.

Vollkan asked what Hoopla wanted to accomplish with the survey. He didn't answer the survey, but he didn't give his thoughts on the fact that Hoopla posted it. While it doesn't look cautious at first glance, it really is. If he is scum, he isn't answering the survey because he doesn't know what Hoopla is looking for.

1) Asking what Hoopla hoped to achieve with the survey was perfectly legitimate. If he is going to push a new opening strategy, it's completely legitimate to ask what he sees the benefit to be.
2) It's pretty ridiculous that you would interpret my actions as scum-motivated cautiousness because I didn't "know what Hoopla was looking for". Every single one of his questions was clear in what it meant and my actions are entirely explicable as a genuine inquiry as to the point of Hoopla's survey. You've provided absolutely no explanation as to why it is better to interpret my actions as scum-motivated.

The next thing he does is attempt to discredit me when I say he may be scum. He doesn't ask why like a normal person would. He just says I'm useless and he doesn't understand why I didn't elaborate. No request to elaborate, just a mention of the fact that I didn't.

What on earth is your point? I said:

vollkan might be scum.

A statement of "X might be scum" or "Y might be town" has to rank among the most useless things that can be said in this game. If what you meant is that you actually have reason for thinking I am scum, then I can't see why you wouldn't elaborate to convince other people.

Ignoring for starters the fact that, if you had any decent reasons for thinking that I "may be scum" (which, objectively, applies to everybody, thus making it useless), you should have said them yourself rather than waiting for a "request", it's nothing short of ridiculous that you would now attack me because I didn't "ask" you to explain yourself with a question-mark, rather than doing as I did which was attacking a seemingly redundant statement by you.

Day 2+ are not the time for policy lynches. If it is not done today, I will not support it on policy grounds.

As I have already said, that doesn't matter in this game. We don't waste a day's lynch on a policy lynch, so if Empking really is a problem, we CAN lynch him later on.

At that point I voted for vollkan because he had the most votes at that time.

What did you hope to achieve my increasing the number of votes on me?

"Everyone has plenty of persona to spill over" is, to me, a simple and evident statement. There is a distinct scent of their specific type of consciousness in every post everyone writes. Playing mafia (even playing something more abstract in regards to personality such as tennis) is something that exposes character. You can take a role but anything involving for example confrontation will make you want to instinctively act in a way that is natural to you. Playstyle has a strong correlation to personality, and even if you consciously try to completely manipulate it, it's likely you will change mostly the surface. So that part is not an attack but a simple fact to me.

"Overtly self-unaware answer" was the offensive part. And Tenchi's answer is still alienly self-unaware to me. But looking at his later posting after RVS: this, and this and this, basically every post has several things that just seem to me like he is putting very little thought into what he's writing (least of everyone in the game including Empking [PREVIEW EDIT: well, this latest post is not really in that same category, haven't read it carefully yet though]), like he's commenting quickly and impulsively and doesn't think through, doesn't value pondering. And in that context his answer no longer seems unnatural as it seemed early on. Like Hoopla elaborated, someone with an unusually naive style.

I don't see how that tone comes across so strong to you that it would be at odds with what I said now. I wrote the original line before I considered my own exact response as I explained and then left it there despite having to think about my own answer, maybe that comes across in the tone or something, but I don't really see that myself.

Your original post said:

Overtly self-unaware answer. Everyone has plenty of persona to spill over.

In that context, I interpreted "Everyone has plenty of persona to spill over" as you saying that "everybody has so much personality that Tenchi should have been able to explain his own", but I can now see that you could also have meant, if I am following you now, "everybody has a distinct personality, so Tenchi should be able to explain his own" (the latter being much less strong than the former)

However, once we pass Day 1 we have a lot more information to work with, more urgent concerns, and the ability to question players based more on game knowledge then anything else. At that point using Meta to do anything but support a case is extraordinarily scummy in my book.

That's rubbish. If Empking is clearly a problem, it takes less than a page to string him up no matter what day it is. There's absolutely no reason why a later policy lynch is impracticable. Similarly, there's absolutely no reason why we should rush into a policy lynch on somebody who

may

be problematic when we are in a game where, uniquely, we actually have the option of keeping them around and seeing if they are crap or scummy.

[vollkan]

Using the same terminology without referencing it is sneaky and dirty pool.

This makes no sense to me; and since it is coming from you that surprises me. I don't have any evidence to back me up on this, but I would be very surprised if "I haven't liked anything X has said", and variations thereon, are not commonly said in this game. Why is what Slicey did scummy?

SpyreX, you think Incog is town correct? So how is it that I posted one line that was similar to what he posted make me scummy? Your case makes no sense.

Why is SpyreX thinking Incog town relevant? I agree that he has failed to make it clear why your pseudo-repetition was scummy, but I'm not sure why the fact he thinks Incog is town has any bearing on that.

Vollkan, yes, it's legitimate to ask what the survey will accomplish IF you actually fill out the survey or IF you suspect Hoopla for posting the survey. Neither appeared to be the case.

I can't see at all why completing the survey (which I have said from the outset that I thought to be pointless) is a precondition for it being legitimate to question Hoopla's motivation.

2) It's pretty ridiculous that you would interpret my actions as scum-motivated cautiousness because I didn't "know what Hoopla was looking for". Every single one of his questions was clear in what it meant and my actions are entirely explicable as a genuine inquiry as to the point of Hoopla's survey. You've provided absolutely no explanation as to why it is better to interpret my actions as scum-motivated.

If this is true, why did you ask the question in the first place?

You accused me of being cautious and questioning Hoopla to try and work out what he was looking for. I rebutted that in the quote above by pointing out that the questions were plain in meaning so there would be no need for scum-vollkan to do that. It was obvious what Hoopla was "looking for", in the sense that I could see what the 'information' (in quotation marks because I don't want to imply that any of it would be useful) that would come from the survey would be.

What wasn't obvious, and what I was trying to get at with my questioning of Hoopla, was why he thought the survey would be useful.

Ignoring for starters the fact that, if you had any decent reasons for thinking that I "may be scum" (which, objectively, applies to everybody, thus making it useless), you should have said them yourself rather than waiting for a "request", it's nothing short of ridiculous that you would now attack me because I didn't "ask" you to explain yourself with a question-mark, rather than doing as I did which was attacking a seemingly redundant statement by you.

The point is that you were quick to pull the trigger on me without really inquiring what it was that I had on you. It's like shooting me with a pistol because you see me holding what may be another pistol or may be a squirt gun.

As I just said, if you had any decent reasons you should have raised them yourself. It's not unreasonable that if you make an attack on me without any reasons, particularly when expressed in the meaningless form of "Vollkan might be scum", that I would dismiss you outright.

[vollkan]

vollkan, what's your read of Kmd?

Neutral to somewhat scummy. I give a range because while I think his case on me is crap, I'm frankly undecided as to whether it is scummy-crap or tunnel-vision-townie-crap.

For those of you who didn't catch it, or *gasp* didn't read it. My Role is: 2-shot protown vig.

Claim is believable; but one question: why the massive wall of flavour?

unvote vote vollkan

Sorry Q21. That post was made to get a lynch soon (though it asked for you to post something to change things, like a claim, well before deadline), but I don't want to lynch you now. The role would make sense, I think, as the mod can't really determine how many nights there are, and a 2 shot vig gives him some control over that.

it is quite late now, and the above vote is purely gut, but my vote is certainly not going to support a lynch on: spyrex, empking, tenchi.

By rough lookover, you've had two main gripes with me:
1. RVS thing (by no means you exclusively)
2. The "me not being important enough" thing

I've been over the RVS issue again and again now. To get somewhat theoretical, this hits on one of the reasons I hate gut. I can see why, at a psychological/emotional level my RVS stance appears at first blush strange (Vollkan says he doesn't like RVS, but also RVs?), but I've explained my thinking and there is no inconsistency. I'm concerned that that may not be able to overcome an instinctual reaction.

On the second of the points above, I have already said that the period of my inactivity was one of V/LA (which I referenced in thread). I've given my opinion on every major development. And as an aside, your argument seems to assume that I have a meta for being "more important" as town, which I think is at the very latest untrue and, I suspect, may even be the inverse of reality.

Disinterested Spyrex is Scum Spyrex

I've only played with SpyreX once before. He was town then and I remember coming out of the game with a really positive impression of him. Do you have meta-evidence to support this?

Don't have much time, q21 lost steam and don't have much of a back up lynch at this time. I can't read right now to find something until at least the 11th, but I'm getting mixed feelings about Pop and Imagine right now. However, neither have votes on them right now. I'm going to place mine on imaginality right now just to see if there is anyone else seeing what I see, but I'll try to be around to change it to get a lynch if needed.

unvote; vote: imaginality

I also agree with this vote and reasoning....

What reasoning? Nothing in that explains why imaginality is a good lynch

[vollkan]

unvote vote incognito. Lets get the obvious lynches done fast. There is no use in waiting for the deadline. More lynches=more chance you are right.

Why is Incog an obvious lynch?

Vote Vollkan

As I recall, the only one of your points left standing (if you can call it that) against me was that I wasn't very nice to you when I said your post was useless. You're voting me on that?

To start off: I'd like every person voting me currently to state their reasons. Likewise, I'd like every person who says they're NOT seeing me as scum to say WHY they say that also.

I don't find you as scummy because I haven't seen anything in your play so far that I consider a scumtell? I'm not sure what you're after in terms of an explanation as to why I don't suspect you; that's just the default position. It's like asking why food goes to room temperature if you leave it out of the fridge.

[vollkan]

Fucking hell. That was seriously a bad lynch.

No it wasnt. Even if Kin is town I needed his flip. The townies that were in his wagon needed that too.

Lynching Incog is stupid regardless of Kin's alignment.

Spyrex is an awesone lynch BTW.

VOTE: SPYREX.

GOGOGOGO SIZE 200 WAGON

VOTE: incognito

Lets get that piece of information for tomorrow. Hoopla, lets see if your theory was right. In case both wagons were on town, you will still lynch more accurately tomorrow (as you don't have to assume anything about the Incognito) . If one proves to be on scum you have a lot of information (scum having to pick between both lynches).

Otherwise, I would support a whole series of lynches tomorrow. There are a few townreads that are quite uncontested: these are valuable. Multiple lynches will protect them for endgame.

No.

Stop being silly. We need the Kinetic flip first.

First, I think Incog softclaimed PR. Let him do (or fake) his work tonight.

Second, making a hasty lynch that depends on the flip of the other wagon will only give erroneus reads on the long term.

We should lynch obvscum Spyrex. God. Please.

Am I reading this right? Because if I am there is a glaring contradiction going on. First post he's saying that regardless of Kinetic's flip an Incog lynch is stupid... second post he seems to be saying that before we decide whether we're lynching Incognito we need Kinetic's flip... which he's just said should have no baring on whether or not we lynch Incog. Says an Incognito lynch doesn't depend on Kinetic's flip, then says it does. Yeah. Contradiction.

Lets spot the contradiction here. You don't want a Incog lynch, as we need the Kinetic flip, but you need a spyrex lynch? Come on, who are you fooling?

The Incog lynch is entirely dependant of the Kinetic flip.

If Kin flips scum would you lynch Incog? Spyrex lynch is not based on the Kinetic flip. Its based on the fact that he is obvscum.

Further, I absolutely HATE that you are claiming a PR for him here. 1. you shouldn't be powerrole hunting. Scum only does 2. If he is a powerrole, he clearly doesn't want to be outed. 3. if he wants everybody to know, he'll claim

Why do I feel am I the only one reading the thread?

Are you saying I am scum, Hoopz?

Yeah.

Am I reading this right?

Lynching Incog today is stupid because we dont have the Kin flip. It entirely dependes on the flip and the information it gives us about the players on the wagons. My position should be clear in the last post. I can understand why you think there is a contradiction there.

"Lynching Incog is stupid regardless of Kin's alignment" means that I think Incog is town and that his lynch is stupid imo.

You did it again. Incog lynch is "entirely dependent" on the Kinetic flip and then you say you think Incog is town, seemingly independent of the Kinetic flip.

Pointed these out at the end of Day 1, but there was no chance I was getting a tajo lynch through then. Now though, its worth the pursuing, I think. His play has felt different to the town-tajo I've played with before and he's had some other minor scumminess, but this to me is the stand out point.

Vote Populartajo

Also, not voting for Spyrex today.

I think you've missed Tajo's point.

Objectively, Incog being scum was logically predicated on the result of the Q21 lynch. Subjectively, however, Tajo was against Incog's lynch regardless.

this isnt a flake move...really it isnt. I just feel like we shouldnt linger on me today anymore than you need to...

unvote, vote CKD.

You say this as though your lynch is inevitable, but that time will be wasted on pursuing it. I can't see any basis upon which you'd think that it was inevitable, so that leads me to wonder why you'd pull such a self-vote. The tone of the rest of your post has elements of AtE, so this worries me.

(Also, have you done something like this before? I had a 'here he goes again' moment in my head, but I can't think of where you've done this before)

Volkan is an special case. He is one of the heavy Kin attackers and they both waste a lot of space in the Emp debate but I cant decide if Volk is indeed defending Emp or attacking him. VOLKAN, can you precise your position (with quotes preferebly) in the Emp department?

In a nutshell, I found Empking mildly scummy but was vehemently against his lynch.

Why I found scummy

Survey, humourous roleplay rather than defence

See above on Tenchi on this point.

CKD is definitely doing some misrepresentation with regards to Myk

Misrepresentations? Quote me two of them.

Any argument can be refuted by a humourous roleplay. Its the last resort of the people that are in the wrong. The facts of the matter is that it doesn't require any tortuous scum-logic. All it requires is that scum want to do something that benefits them with no real lasting disadvantages.

First, it's not actually true that any argument can be refuted by a humourous roleplay. In this case, though, the roleplay got at the heart of the problem with Incog's argument - which is that the notion of a survey as a scumplot requires pretty bizarre thinking from scum. It's obviously true that there is a conceivable scum advantage from the survey, but the pattern of thinking that leads to it is stretched. Whereas, "I want to try a survey as an ice-breaker info tool" (a null tell as far as reasoning goes) is much more intuitively direct. Nobody has provided any reason as to why we should just assume that the more crazy scum reasoning is better.

Me against policy lynch

Empking: More of a distraction in any game I've played. Scum leaves him around if he's town, and if he's scum he uses that meta to stay alive longer. Since we have multiple lynches I feel he should be removed from the game so he doesn't become a distraction as town or slip by as scum. Vote:Empking

This is just stupid. For starters, it's policy lynching somebody based on what they might do; he's assuming Empking wil become a distraction. Second, in this particular game there is very likely a reduced likelihood of Empking's playstyle being distracting, because there aren't newbies to get confused by it.

But if he does end up being scum when we eventually lynch him (because I do think its inevitable that he will be lynched even if its not today) then I'm going to look very hard on you.

Despite the above (ie that a townie could reasonably defend Empking), you are strongly suggesting that should Empking flip scum you would consider that a mark against any opponent of an Empking policy lynch.

You can't have it both ways. If defending Empking is objectively legitimate (and you admit that it is), then it is not a scumtell irrespective of which way Empking ultimately flips.

Its policy lynching based on my experience with this player. All this great defense of Empking makes me start to wonder why. Show me a game where he has been a great benefit to the town. Maybe I've missed something, but I don't remember him being such a good player as to warrant this. I'm going to do some meta checking, be right back.

The question is not whether Empking is a great benefit to the town; it's whether he is likely to be such a detriment to the town that it is better that he be lynched. The difference between the two is that the way you framed it puts the onus on the rest of us to show why Empking should stay, when good policy dictates the burden of proof should fall onto you.

There are other quotes, but I think those establish where I was well enough.

Tenchi needs to be lynched today after that amazing piece of contribution.

The CKD vote?

More generally, and I think a consequence of RL committments, I've lost my bearings in this game. I'm preparing a 0-100 summary of everyone.

[vollkan]

I think you've missed Tajo's point.

Objectively, Incog being scum was logically predicated on the result of the Q21 lynch. Subjectively, however, Tajo was against Incog's lynch regardless.

I think you mean Kinetic lynch, not the q21 lynch, but that's neither here nor there. If what you're saying here is the case then Pop's objective and subjective reasoning contradict each other - this is not in itself scummy. However, he proceeds to cite both of those contradicting viewpoints in order to respond to others' points, which is scummy.

For reference, I assume what you are referring to are the quotes below:

Lets spot the contradiction here. You don't want a Incog lynch, as we need the Kinetic flip, but you need a spyrex lynch? Come on, who are you fooling?

The Incog lynch is entirely dependant of the Kinetic flip. If Kin flips scum would you lynch Incog? Spyrex lynch is not based on the Kinetic flip. Its based on the fact that he is obvscum.

Am I reading this right?

Lynching Incog today is stupid because we dont have the Kin flip. It entirely dependes on the flip and the information it gives us about the players on the wagons. My position should be clear in the last post. I can understand why you think there is a contradiction there. "Lynching Incog is stupid regardless of Kin's alignment" means that I think Incog is town and that his lynch is stupid imo.

I can't see any basis upon which you can reasonably argue there is contradiction or inconsistency, especially after his second post clarified it.

The first quote states the obvious: that objectively, Incog being scum was predicated on the result of the Kinetic lynch (making it stupid, on the argument that people were making for lynching Incog, not to lynch kinetic first). The first part of the second post just reiterates this, then he goes on to give his personal opinion.

[vollkan]

As promised:

Hoopla:

0-5: As I said, survey was pointless, but not scummy.
6: Defence of q21 is weak and wifomy (Q21 voting Emp is a towntell because scum wouldn't be dumb enough to vote for such an obvious candidate). +1
8-9: Would have liked more information for these votes.
15: says he is doubtful Q21 is scum, which is interesting because:
21: "I'm not totally opposed to q21's lynch, despite it not being one of my first choices", going on to spruik the information value of q21's lynch. This rather neatly joins on to a nearing consensus candidate and points attention to his wagoners whilst also not actually committing to the wagon (still being contrary to earlier position, though). +1
22: Says that q21 is the only practical lynch. I note this only because that saying so much would be sufficient; the previous post where he actually expressed vague agreement was not.
49: I'm confused here. The only attack on Incog here relates to him turning it into a two-horse race, but then Hoopla basically qualifies that entire point. She then goes on to give a purely policy/tactical reason for voting Incog relating to information value. @Hoopla: is there a case in this post against Incog (a case for him being SCUM, not a case for his lynch) that I am missing?

Score: 52

Kmd4390

0: "Incog and q21 are town." "vollkan might be scum"
1: Says Hoopla's survey leads to distraction (unrealistic, easy attack) +1
3: votes me, no explanation
4: "Myko is obvtown"
8: "Tenchi looks town to me."
10: "I may end up voting Hoopla after we lynch Vollkan just so ya know."
11: "I find Hoopla scummy, but would prefer to lynch Vollkan first because he is scummier" This is kind of the icing on the cake of what the previous pure quoting has been getting at. Thus far, despite throwing around labels, Kmd has had absolutely no analysis. Then his justification for lynching me over Hoopla is because, wait for it, I am scummier. "Q21 and CKD are two players who I could see myself voting too though."
12: Now he votes CKD, no explanation
14: Finally gives some explanation. His first point against me is that I was being cautious scum in not answering Hoopla's survey. As I have said in argument, this ignores that I had been clear that I thought the survey was pointless, and relies on reading motivations in to my behaviour without any basis. +1. The attack on my resopnse to his post ISO0 is just bleating. The Hoopla attack is also very weak and, as with mine, relies on attributing a scum motivation (ie that Hoopla was trying to appear town by asking questions). +2. Meta says Emp is town; no explanation.
17: "Not seeing Incog as scum."

Score: 54

SpyreX

15: The attack on Slicey for using the same language as Incog doesn't seem to have any logic to it. And, as I said before, that doesn't make sense from Spyrex. +2
@Spyrex: Yesterday you said that the Slicey case was basically gut? Is that still the case?

Score: 52

TBC....

[vollkan]

I find your summary to be odd, and basically saying nothing. I'm sure it is helpful to you, but you don't calculate in the amount of information you are looking at. Spyrex and Hoopla having the same score, while you said 1 ( ! ) thing about spyrex is a good example. Concentration of tells is important.

Your part about spyrex is odd anyway. Don't set him up as your buddy.

The point of the summaries is to set out what posts from ISO reading I find scummy/town-y. In Spyrex's case, that post was the only one that I had a confident read from.

And, yes, concentration is something that needs considering. But having said that, I don't see why it has relevance in this case. As a measure of my level of suspicion, I can say confidently that "52 out of 100" accurately reflects my level of suspicion for them.

imaginality

7: Q21 case is legit
11: Swaps to Kinetic from Q21, but had made points earlier, so no evident opportunism
13: votes Incog based on information value and not suspicion
14: QFTs a post supporting multiple lynches on basis of information, and revotes Incog (next day)
15: Unvotes Incog for a genuine resopse, claiming the vote was a test of Incog and others. I give this a +2 because I can't see anything in Incog's response that warrants saying it was genuine, nor does Imagin say anything about what he gleaned from the responses of others. A "test vote" ought to have some sort of strategy behind it, whereas there doesn't seem to be anything of the sort here.

Score: 52