/Invitational 11: Pick your Poison 5 (Game Over)

[mith]

Rhinox: Your point doesn't have validity to it because it's false; I have weighed in on Seraphim/VV, as recently as three days ago. I was vacilating on Seraphim last night (because at times their argument felt like two town getting too caught up in each other to catch scum; and partly because of DGB's vote), but otherwise I have had (and expressed) a pretty consistent "Seraphim acting scummy, VV probably town" lean.

Anyway... obviously you suggesting we ignore VV would cause me to ignore VV (whatever my alignment). I brought it up because of the inconsistency - it's a weird argument for anyone to make (see: rest of that paragraph of 1039), but especially you.

DGB: "The F??? You ask me a question that can only be answered with a WIFOM-BBQ..." - No. I ask you a question with a context that should have been clear from question one. I am trying to find a pattern to your votes, in the context of your pronouncement that "100% of my reads are self-meta projections". You've now backed off that statement a bit ("how I've acted as scum in the past,

and how I've seen my buddies act and interact

"), and I have no doubt you could justify every one of your votes on that basis; that doesn't make the initial statement any less interesting.

[Note that I'm not saying that it was

scummy

to focus on WIFOM-defense. I think the natural inclination of any player, regardless of alignment, is to notice things they have done or haven't done that they (think they) wouldn't/would do as scum - I could no doubt list a dozen myself.]

My last paragraph is disingenuous? How, exactly? Am I fabricating your reaction to the Kmd softclaim, or Elmo's post? There is definitely a disconnect there, and the following is a perfectly plausible explanation: DGB sees that Kmd tracked an innocent Elmo to a corpse, gets giddy that two power roles are outed and one will be lynched, bandwagon-ho without analyzing the situation, uh oh mith pointed out the correct play, DGB backs off Elmo hard at the next convenient time and forgets she shouldn't know tajo was the scum kill. I don't

know

that that's what happened, but it's my current best guess. (Ladies and gentlemen of the town, does her paragraph here not reek of ad hominem?)

The next paragraph is just silly. I'm a pretty slow and methodical poster usually - between lunch, shooting hoops, and watching TV, I probably started that post a good two hours before I hit submit; I added the last line (the one agreeing with you - even as scum, you make some good points occasionally) on preview, but the questions were in the post well before I saw your case on zoraster. (Never mind that it would be borderline idiotic for scum-mith to try to discredit a case on a scumbuddy because of a single vote from an erratic player.) But hey, now that you brought up the conspiracy/paranoid thing I guess you've got to stick to your guns.

(FYI: Michelle in town for the long weekend; will be around and posting at least once a day as usual, but probably not spending two hours on any posts.)

[Patrick]

Votecount

ekiM (1) -- Ellibereth
VasudeVa (4) -- Seraphim, ooba, SpyreX, Kmd4390
ooba (4) -- Papa Zito, Plumegranate, Rhinox, ekiM
DrippingGoofball (2) -- mith, Elmo
Seraphim (2) -- SaintKerrigan, VasudeVa
zoraster (1) -- DrippingGoofball

Not voting: Zorblag, Herodotus, zoraster
17 alive, 9 to lynch.

Deadline: 11th of September, 6 am GMT.

[Herodotus]

Possible slip in that she is now assuming that tajo was the scum kill

While I partially agree, I think it's best not to get into this unless we're willing to out the possibly-existent real vig.
On a related note, if there are two vigs in this game, and we only had two deaths by coincidence, the consequences of that may be bad if Elmo is one of them (but okay if he's scum.) I don't think that means that anyone should counterclaim, or even that we should change course from what mith suggested at the beginning of the day, I'm just mentioning that it's possible, since it just occured to me.

@Rhinox:
Post 1014: serious? (y/n)

Serious, but not a strong consideration. Its interesting, but circumstantial only. Something I'd be curious if it was valid, in the post game discussion.

The way I'm reading it, what you said was "the scum chose a tracker, therefore someone who supported rolecop+roleblocker is more likely than usual to be scum." That makes absolutely no sense to me, to the degree that it's making me suspect you.

[Rhinox]

@hero:

I presume if a second vig exists, they're smart enough to figure out not to target elmo unless they killed tajo?

...was what I was thinking earlier before I was promptly told to shut up.

@mith: I sort of thought your post 3 days ago was solidly on the fence about VV, although you clearly called seraph scum. You also mixed in a bunch of other reads, and your vote and focus is clearly on DGB, who IMO is not really likely to get lynched anyways, while aside from the one line in #895, you've done nothing more to argue the seraph is scum angle.

Also,

but otherwise I have had (and expressed) a pretty consistent "Seraphim acting scummy, VV probably town" lean.

This statement doesn't seem entirely accurate. #895 does seem like seraph = scummy, but it seems more like your on the fence about VV and on the verge of leaning scum. Then we have #994 where you claim to be going back and forth on it and that you feel you should have a better read (but don't). Then, #1039 you say you don't think VV is scum, but you seem more on the fence about seraph. Something akin to "not town, but not necessarily scum." So it hasn't come across as "consistent Seraphim acting scummy, VV probably town".

Last little bit:

Anyway... obviously you suggesting we ignore VV would cause me to ignore VV (whatever my alignment).

I don't really get this. Obviously some players have given the symbolic middle finger to the suggestion to ignore VV, and some even go as far as suggesting that ignoring VV is scummy. My question was if you were staying away from the seraph/VV discussion due to my suggestion, then the point I tried to make is obviously invalid and withdrawn. But your responses instead say that you don't think you are staying away from the conversation at all, in which my rebuttle is that may be true but it doesn't seem like you've come to any concrete conclusions, and your focus has been more on lynching DGB and not asking any questions trying to come up with a more solid position on seraph vs. VV.


But actually what I really want is more spyrex in this game. I mean, yesterday he was making an argument where I was doing pretty much nothing. I would argue that today, especially over the last week, spyrex is now guilty of that accusation.

[Elmo]

Mith + zoraster
YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST
mith really needs to die

wat

[mith]

Rhinox: I suppose I can see how you might read that as on the fence. It's more "I'm wary about feeling this, but I'm leaning town" for VV. I am not the type of player (unlike many in this game, apparently), to declare definitively that someone is town (or scum), and am constantly reevaluating my reads as more posts are made. The progression here has been something like:

a. VV wagon day 1. At time, looks like obvious Hoopla-counterwagon, VV probably innocent, those on it questionable.
b. Seraphim's case is a bit overblown; don't feel VV has played all that unreasonably, and the VI label doesn't fit.
c. VV's zoraster vote, where he may be playing into the VI vote, slight uptick on the scumdar.
d. End of day 1, Seraphim's reaction to Hoopla is questionable. Going into day 2 he's a top suspect for reasons stated in 895.
e. By 895, not much has changed. Seraphim listed at two, VV at nine. I have more doubts about VV than those listed below, but the "easy lynch" feel trumps those doubts. Otherwise, I haven't discussed either much because I have been focused on the Kmd/Elmo situation, and am more interested in getting DGB lynched.
f. At 994, Seraphim/VV has taken over the thread a bit. When I say I'm going back and forth I'm talking about "tonight" - in my current state (too much maths), at times while reading I feel Seraphim might be tunnel'd town, yet posts like 959 are quite scummy (he immediately retracts when PlumPom points this out, but hard to see town with genuine VV suspicion reaching that degree of stretch in the first place).
g. 1039, it's a new day, and I've had a chance to read the first paragraph of 1000 and it doesn't ring true. My summary of my read is broken down into three parts: Scummy things (those given in 895, and e.g. 959); doubts (could be tunnel'd town, but could be also be scum drawn to lynchbait); and "don't see anything pointing to his being town" = "the doubts I have are of the

could be

variety rather than the

likely is

, and I currently have no reason to prefer the tunnel'd town idea over the scum->lynchbait idea, whereas given the scummy things listed earlier I do have a reason to think he's scum). [Given the context of my statement - Rhinox declaring him town - it should be clear that when I say "I've had doubts,

but

..." what follows is me still thinking he's scum, not me being on the fence.]

Bleh, the third quote should have read: "Anyway... obviously you suggesting we ignore VV

wouldn't

cause me to ignore VV (whatever my alignment)." (I am really bad about skipping past a "n't".)

As for the rest, of course my focus is on lynching DGB - she's my top suspect (and while she currently only has one other vote, I'm not interested in either of the lead wagons, and there is quite a bit of time left - if I decide in a few days that DGB won't be lynched, I will be switching to Seraphim unless something major affects my reads). I haven't asked (many) questions of Seraphim/VV because they are generating a lot of information as is, and few questions have come to mind.

Herodotus: "Possible", but point taken.

[Kmd4390]

Why is vas still alive?

[zoraster]

So maybe it got lost in the shuffle, but are we completely leaving the elmo tajo thing alone? It seems like in our quest for information, this might be a good place to start, especially since we know they have a roleblocker.

[Ellibereth]

unvote, vote zoraster

[zoraster]

That's not really an answer, Elli. Care to elaborate? Actually scummy or Punishment for being absent? Is that a good way to encourage people to start posting again?

[DrippingGoofball]

So maybe it got lost in the shuffle, but are we completely leaving the elmo tajo thing alone? It seems like in our quest for information, this might be a good place to start, especially since we know they have a roleblocker.

unvote, vote zoraster

It doesn't happen often, but some votes really don't need an explanation.

[zoraster]

So maybe it got lost in the shuffle, but are we completely leaving the elmo tajo thing alone? It seems like in our quest for information, this might be a good place to start, especially since we know they have a roleblocker.

unvote, vote zoraster

It doesn't happen often, but some votes really don't need an explanation.

That may be true, but more often they do need one. This is one of those times where it does.

[DrippingGoofball]

Are you even reading the game? I just posted a case against you.

Also, obv you're not scum hunting at all. Lazy scum much?

[Ellibereth]

That's not really an answer, Elli. Care to elaborate? Actually scummy or Punishment for being absent? Is that a good way to encourage people to start posting again?

Yes to All of the above?
Yeah. That.

[zoraster]

Are you even reading the game? I just posted a case against you.

Also, obv you're not scum hunting at all. Lazy scum much?

I assume you refer to this post.

First, I was referring to elli's post. I see nothing to connect his to yours, but that's okay.

Second, I haven't been "active" lurking. I've been pretty passive about it, unfortunately. My attempts to catch up have, admittedly, been not great. But what I

was

trying to accomplish in each was to get a dialog going, much like this one. It's very hard to get back into the swing of a game with just a bunch of essays. It requires actual "conversation." If that's targeted at me, so be it.

But I have a feeling this is a lot more about what I did before than what I did since I've been off-and-on. You didn't feel confident enough to bring any heat on me when I was pressing for your lynch before, but now that I'm "vulnerable" so to speak, you've been going after me.

[DrippingGoofball]

You didn't feel confident enough to bring any heat on me when I was pressing for your lynch before

, but now that I'm "vulnerable" so to speak, you've been going after me.

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME GAME?

EVIDENCE

(1)

... but DGB has my vote for the foreseeable future.

Nice, now you don't have to hunt scum, you can avoid the risk of taking positions that might compromise you or your buddies, and you can't get caught by vote analysis.

Kinda like lurking to victory, the fake-tunneling version.

(2)

She would. In fact, the "gambit" to show your town seems very DGB to me. In fact, it seems engineered to do just that. There was little to no town gain in what she did, even theoretically. Yet it came at an obvious price. But by doing the fake gambit, she gets town points because she's pretty confident people will take it the way you do.

anyway, my question was still about your criteria to your actual selections. They seem to be not so related.

Not only are you dispensing from scum hunting announcing right out of the gate that you'll be tunneling on me, but you're also trying to make sure I don't hunt scum.

FAIL

Caught you

DIE SCUM DIE

vote: zoraster

(3)

I think the possible slip on zoraster is decent and (rare D1) concrete evidence---he seems to assume she's town when explaining why she's scum.

VOTE: zoraster

ZOMG my dreams are coming true

A zoraster wagon is forming

Zoraster wagon > VV wagon

VOTE: zoraster

[VasudeVa]

Apparently, arguing with Seraphim isn't good for my health(I got sick today.). I'll go back to that argument when I feel better.

Vote: Zoraster

Lending wagon support for now.

[zoraster]

hmm it seems i'm mistaken then, although by the third post I think I was having trouble getting on.

However, my larger point remains: what's motivating you seems to be in response to my reaction to your "gambit." You accuse me of focusing on you, but it seems to me that's the correct method. I never claimed I would never change my vote from you, but rather that you had earned my vote for the foreseeable future. Which was correct. Because you made an incredibly anti-town play, and that deserved some serious insight. Just because other people were able to pass it off as you being unpredictable and whatever, doesn't mean it wasn't actually scummy.

Regardless, I've strayed here. I still am curious about the elmo tajo dynamic.

[mith]

zoraster: We are leaving the Elmo thing alone because either he's the Vig (and we shouldn't lynch him, obviously), or he's lying scum and the real Vig will shoot him in the face (so we shouldn't lynch him and risk being wrong, since he's dead anyway).

Can you point to any "insight" you have provided in this game? My suspicions of you have little to do with the quantity of your posting (annoying, but I don't really have any reason to believe you're lying about your access), but with the

quality

. Day 0, lots of sheeping Troll, not a lot of original thought. Day 1, "OMG DGB ANTI-TOWN GAMBIT DIE", but the

why

is lacking (your theory of "she was trying to earn town-points which she knew would work" fails because the reason why such a play might work as scum is precisely because she

would

do that gambit as town), and the little you contributed regarding other players was vague/obvious/repeats of what others had already said.

---

The two-Vig scenarios basically work the same way as the one-Vig scenarios. But to summarize the plan:

If you're a Vig and you shot tajo, shoot Elmo tonight.
If you're a Vig and you didn't shoot tajo, shoot someone other than Elmo tonight.

[Ellibereth]

I don't get what you keep saying about getting info the elmo-tajo thing.
You being zor.

[Ellibereth]

Wait.
When you said passive lurking earlier.
You meant you were here reading, but just not posting rite?
Be honest.

[zoraster]

Wait.
When you said passive lurking earlier.
You meant you were here reading, but just not posting rite?
Be honest.

No. The opposite. This is my only game right now, but you can probably go through MD, which I am normally very active in, to see whether I've been active on the site as a whole. Obviously that's not determinative, but I would have had to be pretty dedicated to lurking as a strategy to lurk site wide.

Can you point to any "insight" you have provided in this game?

Insight? not really. My only major point has been that DGB has been anti-town and if you don't act on that, then I'm not sure how you plan on evaluating DGB on the whole. Beyond that, no. I can't say I've provided "insight."

[mith]

...I guess I don't understand what you were trying to say above, then: "Because you made an incredibly anti-town play, and that deserved some serious insight."

[zoraster]

...I guess I don't understand what you were trying to say above, then: "Because you made an incredibly anti-town play, and that deserved some serious insight."

Sorry, let me try to clarify. I think "insight" may have been a poor choice of words made in a hurry. I meant to say that it deserves some

inspection

. But to further explain what I mean by this:

I'll speak from my own perspective. We can talk about whether DGB is wacky enough that hers will vary from mine, but as a starting point, perhaps that'll give more to grasp.

Let's say I'm sitting there and there are five people left to claim whether or not they're hiders. I get the idea to fake claim hider. I'll do a cost and benefit (pro and con if you prefer) analysis of it. It's clear there's a cost. It may cause confusion among players, it may make players make a suboptimal choice in terms of our selections. Add to that the general proposition that confusion, unless done for specific reasons (e.g. protecting a cop) in specific situations, is generally a negative for the town.

I say, "okay. But maybe there's a great reason to fake claim!" so I try to come up with the positives. And what are they? They may provide a small tool in getting a read on a player? That's what was advanced by DGB if my recollection serves me. What else is there? Remember that the scum have a much better idea of whether that claim is actually real or not. If, as DGB says she suspected at that point, there were no hiders in the game, scum knows it. But town doesn't.

So I look at this, and if I'm town I have to think, "gee. It sure seems like a bad idea because it's going to hurt the town without much in return." And so I don't do it. Because it's not in favor of the town. It's ANTI-TOWN.

I think there are legitimate arguments to be made that maybe DGB wasn't making such a calculated approach to it. Maybe that falls under her meta of being wild and crazy. That may make it less likely she is scum because of it, but it doesn't make it less anti-town.

That said, to me it seems like the actions of a scum who plays bold and assumes she won't be called on it enough to take real heat. And let's be honest here: if she thought that, she was right. And yet she still managed to sabotage that part of the game.

---

[Patrick]

AdumbroDeus replaces Zorblag.