Mini 1073: Autumn Mafia - Game Over!

[Llamarble]

See, I knew that the number three would get the main focus. Would have happened no matter what position was actually used.

Main point of the first half of my votepost on Llama wasn't that the vote/suspicion was the third spot but rather he felt using voting or casting suspicion at at certain point was off enough to add to a case on another player and indicates that player might be scum. Yet he doesn't apply that same standard to himself.

Did you even read my previous post?
I'll reiterate for you.
As I said there, I don't believe town players should never vote in the middle of the wagon.
I also believe scum can enter a bandwagon at any point.
Hence I look at context to distinguish whether a player's motives are scummy.
The question to answer is whether the action the player took makes more sense if they are scum than it does if they are town.
When a scum votes third, they are often doing so because of opportunism and a wish not to be seen as opportunistic;
They want to take advantage of a building wagon with reduced risk of suspicion should the wagon succeed.
When Zinive did it, he piled a weak additional reason onto an existing reason, which is why I thought his vote looked opportunistic and thus scummy.
If you think my mid-wagon (the one on Ice was actually 4th; I missed Equinox's vote when I was counting) votes look opportunistic,
as apparently Ice does, then that's one matter (which we've already discussed),
but thinking that my mid-wagon votes are scummy because I think scum sometimes make mid-wagon votes is not reasonable.

[Oso]

I did read your post, every letter.

It doesn't matter if it was the first or the hammer or any between. That is happened to be mid-wagon is completely irrelevant and coincidental.

You applied a standard to another player you don't apply to yourself. The supporting reasons you give for voting Zinive lost all credibility because you start the case by listing, as your first reason, position=opportunistic when you had already occupied that same position on another player before the accusation and you thought you were in the same position on a player after making the case against Zivine.

That is the contradiction I was showing where what you say vs. what you do doesn't match up. The actual position on the wagon we are using wasn't my choice, it was yours and, ultimately, irrelevant to the point I'm trying to get across.

[AGar]

@ICEninja

Yes.

Votecount incoming.

[AGar]

While high noon came and went, some of you began wondering where a member had disappeared to, calling his name out loud.

Votecount 1.5

cruelty (2)

- Me=Weird, Xine

FeRnAnDo (0)

-

ICEninja (1)

- Llamarble

Llamarble (2)

- cruelty, Oso

Me=Weird (0)

-

Netlava (1)

- ICEninja

Oso (0)

-

PerArdua (1)

- Equinox

Shattered Viewpoint (1)

- FeRnAnDo

Equinox (0)

-

Xine (0)

-

Zinive (1)

- Llamarble

Not Voting (4)

- netlava, PerArdua, Shattered Viewpoint, Zinive

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch.

Two players

are the current wagon leader(s), at

L-5

Deadline is October 29th, 2010 @ 11:59 PM EDT

[Llamarble]

@Oso:
Okay, I think this is what has you confused:
"Zinive is the third player to go after me. (Opportunism)"
This isn't a statement that being the third player onto a bandwagon is intrinsically scummy.
It's a statement that Zinive's third vote (well, in this case expression of suspicion) in this situation looked like opportunism to me.
The rest of that paragraph explains why it looked to me more like opportunism than legitimate suspicion.

It's actually Zinive who said:
"I also thought that the 3rd vote was scummy since this is most of the times the point where random voting can turn into a bandwagon."
So if anything your reasoning works better against him than it does against me, except he didn't actually vote.

[Llamarble]

There are a lot of people looking pretty scummy to me right now.

In no particular order:
Perardua has been online but hasn't posted.
Cruelty hasn't done much at all except make a very weakly reasoned accusation against me.
Zinive looked scummy to me earlier, and Equinox's discussion of him seems pretty well reasoned.
I also dislike the general lack of aggressive and insightful scumhunting in Zinives posts,
and there's an uncomfortable amount of unwillingness to commit to anything.
Shattered for contradictions and general lashing out / anti-town behavior.
His interactions with Ice continue to bother me.
Particularly his recent claim that his post voting against ice was intended to "caution Ice" not to get in a fight with him.
That post was very provoking toward Ice, making a reachy accusation and then claiming reasonable certainty that Ice was scum.
Hardly sounds like cautioning. Also "cautioning" is kind of a scummy word and something one scumpartner would do to another.
Fernando has also not contributed much, made a hedgy vote, and in his second post did some fence-sitting on a few issues while being defensive about others.

Ice is still on my radar, but after explanation of the paragraph that bothered me, he doesn't seem scummier than those I listed above.
If Shattered flips scum though, he'll shoot back up to the top.

Unvote; Vote Perardua

[Netlava]

Ice, I already explained how I came up with antsy and responded to everything. Your case on me consists of the following:

1. I voted someone for being antsy
Response: That's just what I thought.
2. I conceded a point
Response: I only conceded the fact that your activity was fine. The only reason why I cared about your "excuse" in the first place was because I thought you might be preparing to post less (as scum).
3. I kept my vote on fernando when he "stopped" lurking
Response: I can let my vote sit for a bit, okay? And fernando apparently has not stopped lurking.

[Netlava]

I need to reread a bit first and then I will give my thoughts later tonight.

[Me=Weird]

Okay, so there's 4 people who hadn't posted more than once yet. Why pick him? Looks like bandwagoning to me.

Do you feel Netlava's action is more likely to be done as scum or as town? Bandwagoning is done by both factions.

Yeah, but I feel bandwagoning is marginally more likely to be done by scum than town. But it's not a big tell.

Taken from post 41, Llama "I do want to hear more opinions of Zinive." I find it strange that he would single out zinive, and not mention me, or perardua. If llama dies and flips scum, zinive may be a buddy.

(Link addition is mine.)

It wasn't that strange of Llamarble to single out Zinive at that point, given the situation. You, however, singling out yourself and PerArdua is odd. Why?

And dude, links are a godsend. Use them.

Me and PA were the first to people I thought of who'd barely posted. I don't get why it's odd.

i think that it's reasonable to have 2-3 suspects. confirming that you believe somebody to be town (without a good reason, such as a wagon building against them, a weak case against them etc) isn't really beneficial at any point.

First off, how does wagon against someone, weak case on them, make them likely town? More importantly, why are you being the most disconnected(except for PA) person in the game? You've failed to give any insight, except that you dislike lists.

Llama, I believe the point is that you seem to be thinking 3rd votes are opportunistic and scummy, when you made a third vote.

V/LA tomorrow(Oct. 23rd) as indicated in my sig.

[Llamarble]

Llama, I believe the point is that you seem to be thinking 3rd votes are opportunistic and scummy, when you made a third vote.

Haha, this is getting really repetitive.
I understand that Oso believes I think third votes are scummy and yet made 3rd votes, contradicting myself (or at least implying my own actions were scummy).
I don't think 3rd votes are intrinsically scummy, so it's not a contradiction for me to make third votes.
I do think that sometimes scum opportunistically make 3rd votes, avoiding getting on a wagon later and thereby earning more suspicion.
But town can also make 3rd votes if they suspect somebody who has two votes on them.
Figuring out which is where the science comes in.
(I call it science because the process of scumhunting basically amounts to figuring out whether the scum or town hypothesis better explains the available data)
Zinive's statement looked like the former case (or something equivalent, giving him an excuse to vote later and say he felt suspicious earlier)
So I pointed out that it looked like Zinive was making an opportunistic third vote and explained why I thought so.
My votes weren't opportunistic since I'm not scum, but obviously it's up to everyone else to analyze and figure out whether they think that's truth.

This is the 3rd or 4th time I've had to explain exactly the same thing; is it really that hard to understand?

[Netlava]

Oso's case on llama is interesting. I don't think much of the contradiction part. The main part that intrigues me is this:

Ice and I sort of "dove into the trenches" earlier with some reachy accusations to get the ball rolling,

The main thing I find interesting is that llama speaks on Ice's behalf.

Ice, what do you think of llama's "reachy" comment?

[Llamarble]

I already addressed that too when I said:
"The entire paragraph from my post 100 containing the statement about me and Ice is a discussion of playstyle in answer to a question from M=W.
Obviously, if a person always uses the same playstyle the fact that they're using that playstyle is a null tell, so I don't imply Ice is town in that post."

[Equinox]

Sorry about doing yet another wall. Apparently, I have regressed in more ways than one.

MOD: What is your policy on allowing players to search for replacements for flakers?

I'm thinking of Mini 1027, where Super Smash Bros. Fan personally PMed several players to replace two slots about to be modkilled.

He hadn't; I was cautioning him not to glom onto me and pursue something that, in the long run, would be unproductive.

...and you thought a vote on ICEninja would accomplish this how?

The Perardua situation is really strange.
Maybe he didn't think we'd notice he's logged in recently?
I see no reason for town to act like that.

To be fair, his post on Wednesday was from a phone, so his access on Thursday may have been similarly limited. What irks me more, though, is that he replaced into a game, which implies that he has the time to dedicate to this game. Given that we're on a BaM ruleset, there's no reason to skimp on activity here, and I'm not letting scum coast by just because the days are "too short."

In fact, most reasonable actions can have a scum motive or a town motive.

Would you elaborate on this, please?

Zinive, you don't have your vote on anyone yet you've made a few statements suggesting you suspect people. Are you waiting for an opportunistic time to vote?

Interesting question and if you mean if I would vote for them when a bandwagon starts then yes if the deadline draws close.

Three questions:

1. If there is no bandwagon, but you find the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?
2. If the deadline is not drawing close, but you find the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?
3. If there was neither bandwagon nor looming deadline, but you found the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?

I find your response to ICEninja more interesting than the question itself.

Forming quote pyramid for convenience:

I think we still don't have a good reason to start moving a bandwagon to already make a lynch but assuming the short deadline and the low amount of content we have right now I don't think your vote on me is too suspicious Llamarble.

The wording in this post really, really bothers me. Why aren't you even trying to refute Llamarble's vote? You've just validated it instead, which... really irks me.

The logic Llama used was partly one I have stated previously against him. This simply means I can understand why it appeared this way.

I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around this. Just because Llamarble happened to use the same logic you'd used against him before doesn't necessarily make his logic correct, and if you're town, you know for a fact he's just wrong, regardless of appearances. Why did you accept Llamarble's vote just like that?

In fact, why did you feel the need to validate Llamarble at all? Simply conveying that you "understand why it appeared this way" was an unnecessary step. Smells like buddying to me.

I could vote for him based on a policy to vote for players that actively try to confuse/annoy the town.

Why would this be a policy lynch?

Me and PA were the first to people I thought of who'd barely posted. I don't get why it's odd.

Odd because the reason Llamarble singled out Zinive was not the same reason you brought up yourself and PerArdua.

I thought the pairing was strange, but your explanation seems reasonable.

---

I still have a rain check out for my commentary on ICEninja's case against Netlava and Netlava's rebuttal. I'm renewing said rain check for tomorrow, as I'd like to take care of some IRL issues now.

Re: Oso's case against Llamarble - Uninteresting. Well, it was interesting, but the points in which I was interested were refuted by Llamarble to my satisfaction. Having double standards is a null tell.

I think I've covered everything.

[Netlava]

I still don't get fernando's comment on Zinive.

About Zinive's case, sure is suspicious, but wouldn't it be very silly of him to jump on a wagon that needs 4 more votes? I don't see a big deal there, yet.

I mean it's such an awkward stance. I bought his explanation initially but there are still a couple things amiss:

1) He says Zinive is suspicious, but it's not a big deal

yet

I get the feeling that he's vacillating back and forth on his stance on Zinive.
2) He says he doesn't believe that Zinive was going for a lynch with his vote
If this is the case, why does he find Zinive suspicious?
3) He implies it's scummy to join a bandwagon too quickly
Yet no mention of llama who did in fact join a wagon "too quickly." In fact, Zinive never wagoned anyone.

The thing is, I feel like fernando has perhaps dropped knowledge of Zinive's alignment (which would be guilty, in this case). If this is correct, then fernando and Zinive would be likely scumbuddies.

VOTE: Fernando

[Llamarble]

In fact, most reasonable actions can have a scum motive or a town motive.

Would you elaborate on this, please?

It seems pretty self explanatory to me.
One way to analyze a play such as a making a vote or a case is to ask
"why would a scum do this" and "why would town do this"
Usually both questions have reasonable answers (hence the statement you asked me to elaborate on).
If the specifics make one answer look more believable than the other, then the statement is a tell.

Right now I want to hear from the players I think are scummy.
I think Net's case against Fernando is reasonable; it focuses on the fence-sitting I mentioned I found scummy earlier today.

[Zinive]

1. If there is no bandwagon, but you find the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?
2. If the deadline is not drawing close, but you find the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?
3. If there was neither bandwagon nor looming deadline, but you found the person suspicious anyway, would you vote?

To make it short yes to all these questions.

I believe its good to discuss as long as possible and going as close as possible to the deadline. There are exceptions however for example a major mistake, a chain of many small mistakes or a cop points out someone guilty. Having my vote on someone just for the sake of having my vote on someone seems pointless to me and could potentially help scum to end the day before it should be done.

I'm having a little trouble wrapping my head around this. Just because Llamarble happened to use the same logic you'd used against him before doesn't necessarily make his logic correct, and if you're town, you know for a fact he's just wrong, regardless of appearances. Why did you accept Llamarble's vote just like that?

I said this already I saw no threat in this vote and his argument on this case did not seem to be made up by scum but a genuine try to scum hunt.

Why would this be a policy lynch?

In the games I have played I found myself most of the times against someone playing a 'crazy' way. Its generally hard to get a good read of such players until the end. Further more I found that they easily appeal to emotions making there scummy behavior less significant. In my last game before this one I played with someone who was obviously scum to me. But the rest of the town brushed all this way with sentences like: Hes just ridicules not scum. Based on these experience I'm willing to vote on someone for there playstyle and voting based on playstyle is policy to me.

[ICEninja]

Main point of the first half of my votepost on Llama wasn't that the vote/suspicion was the third spot but rather he felt using voting or casting suspicion at at certain point was off enough to add to a case on another player and indicates that player might be scum. Yet he doesn't apply that same standard to himself.

I don't see it. I don't see where he stated that his reason for voting someone was that it was the third vote, I believed he voted someone because they had a suspicious vote that looked opportunistic.

Me and PA were the first to people I thought of who'd barely posted. I don't get why it's odd.

As someone else stated, the reasons for being suspicious had nothing to do with you and Per, so it did seem odd.

Oso's case on llama is interesting. I don't think much of the contradiction part. The main part that intrigues me is this:

I agree that that contradiction part is underwhelming, but that was by far his most significant point in the case. What you quoted didn't seem all that interesting at all, it simply states what we did. Both of us jumped in to this game with the intention of getting discussing going ASAP, and did so. I don't, actually, feel like either of what we did was even that "reachy" because they were probably the strongest cases we could have composed with the information available to us.

Alright, Equinox picked up on what I was concerned about with Zinive. He really seems to be waiting for the right time to jump on a safe wagon, and he more or less even admitted it. He wants to go right up until the deadline, which scum loves to do. If scum is caught but gets to delay their wagon until the deadline, they can claim power role and send town in to a panicked frenzy to CC or reposition their wagon.

In looking through Zinive's posts, I see a lack of positions, votes, or real analysis. This looks like a player who is trying to slide by, post when needed, and jump on a bandwagon when theres some steam on it.

I'm not hugely satisfied with Net's responses, but my case against him wasn't the best. I have a gut feeling that he is scum, but I feel like I have stronger evidence pointing towards scum Zinive. Cruelty is my other biggest suspicion. While I see no connection between any of the players, I feel pretty good about at least one of them being scum, and find it likely that even multiple of them are. For now:

Unvote, Vote Zinive

.

[AGar]

As the day grew on, people grew tired. One of you had passed off on to a deep sleep, others had grown weary and less talkative.

Votecount 1.6

cruelty (2)

- Me=Weird, Xine

FeRnAnDo (1)

- netlava

ICEninja (0)

-

Llamarble (2)

- cruelty, Oso

Me=Weird (0)

-

Netlava (0)

-

Oso (0)

-

PerArdua (2)

- Equinox, Llamarble

Shattered Viewpoint (1)

- FeRnAnDo

Equinox (0)

-

Xine (0)

-

Zinive (1)

- ICEninja

Not Voting (3)

- PerArdua, Shattered Viewpoint, Zinive

With

12

alive, it takes

7

to lynch.

Three players

are the current wagon leader(s), at

L-5

Deadline is October 29th, 2010 @ 11:59 PM EDT

@Equinox

The player slot needs to request replacement for any changes to take place.

[ICEninja]

Shattered, you need to take a stance on who you feel is scum. The only player you've voted is me, and you've since declared me probably town. Is that all you have?

Fernando, while you may not have a lot of votes on you, quite a few players feel like you're fairly suspicious. While I wouldn't say you're as scummy as Zinive or cruelty, you're up there. Care to respond to some of the points made against you?

Cruelty, as it has been pointed out, the only thing you've contributed to this game is that you don't approve of town-scum lists. Do you have any suspicions based on something that isn't a null tell?

Net, I approve of your most recent vote so I'll be off your case for the time being. Try to keep the scum hunting up, though.

PerArdua, seriously either play or get out of the game.

[Xine]

How do I do links?
@Oso:
I don't specifically care about the number three.
...
The entire paragraph from my post 100 containing the statement about me and Ice is a discussion of playstyle in answer to a question from M=W.
Obviously, if a person always uses the same playstyle the fact that they're using that playstyle is a null tell, so I don't imply Ice is town in that post.

I think that resolves both of the situations where you thought I contradicted myself.

I think this part of Llam's response got glazed over in the huge discussion of the third vote...
Llam implies here that, at this time, he believed Ice to be scum (as evidenced by his vote) and was simply mentioning a null tell.
Firstly, I cannot see any reason he would mention Ice at all in response to said 'question about playstyle'

Where has zinive "logically jumped on someone"? And how does that make it harder to read us?

‘us’ here is in reference to Llam’s post in #91

Oso, Xine, M=W and to a lesser extent Zinive have all stayed fairly aloof and logically jumped on a few players.
It's hard to read that sort of playstyle, but so far the cases made have been worth making.

His response to M=W’s question, in post #100 is almost the same wording:

@M=W:
Zinive hasn't really jumped on anyone, and Xine hasn't done so to the extent of you and Oso,
but like you and Oso they have mostly been aloof and reasonable.
It's hard to read because you've all acted in a basically pro-town fashion
but in a way that I don't think it would be difficult for a scum to emulate.
Essentially you're all playing pretty well but your playstyles mask alignment easily.
Ice and I sort of "dove into the trenches" earlier with some reachy accusations to get the ball rolling,
Which provides additional opportunity to read us.

Which is pro-town, right? Other then to point that out, why would you even mention it?

Also in post 91:

@Ice:
Your attitude toward Shattered makes more sense to me after a night of sleep;
If you never found him scummy, but merely irritating, then it makes more sense to leave him alone.
My impression was that you thought his actions scummy but were avoiding a hunt anyway.
The tone of that paragraph still bothers me though.
Making a decision whether to pursue someone based on anything other than the evidence against them feels like a scum thought process.

This implies that he has changed his mind about his suspicion already ^^^ confirmed in post #100

Also in post #91:

@Shattered:
If you think he's town then why is your vote still on him

Here we go with contradictions again
VOTE: Llarmarble

[Netlava]

Request prod on fernando

Just to clarify, if fernando ends up being scum I'll look carefully at Zinive, but I don't put as much weight into the connection as fernando's stance itself.

[Netlava]

Xine, your post is kind of hard to understand.

[Llamarble]

I strongly agree with Ice's post 143.
We need to hear more from these players who several of us believe are scummy to figure out who actually merits the lynch.

Arrgh, apologies for how long this next part turned out, but I want to leave none of this nonsense unrefuted.

In response to Xine:
First of all, I'll clarify a couple of things:
Shattered being late to unvote Ice despite Ice being at L-3 isn't exactly a titanic pillar of my case against him.
The timing of unvoting somebody isn't usually a big deal for me unless a wagon actually threatens to lynch, but in this case I thought it worth mentioning
because Shattered had outright said he thought Ice was town so it was one more in a pattern of contradictions.
Basically I do agree that having your vote on somebody you believe is town is indeed a way of contradicting yourself,
but something I can easily imagine a town player doing if they simply haven't picked some other choice for their vote yet.

My position on Ice has gradually moved towards "less scummy" since my vote on him.
For example, in my post 91 I say his post still bothers me but I can see better how it could have been written by town.
This is not saying "I think Ice is town;" it's saying that my suspicions are decreasing.
Post 100 has nothing to do with my opinion of Ice, it's simply an answer to M=W's question that uses him as another example of the "dive-in" playstyle.
I changed my vote when I organized my thoughts and came to a decision about which of the remaining players I believed it belonged on.
At that point Ice was still "scummier than average" for me, but there were several players distinctly scummier than him so I thought it was time to change.
(I picked Perardua because I demand an explanation for being online but not posting so much as a "sorry guys, I'm busy")

Now on to the specifics of Xine's post:
"Firstly, I cannot see any reason he would mention Ice at all in response to said 'question about playstyle'"
Ice used one of the playstyles I was comparing, so I gave him as an example to help explain what the playstyle was.

"Which is pro-town, right? Other then to point that out, why would you even mention it?"
Yeah, it's pro town, but it's a pro-town playstyle which I already explained is a null tell if consistently used.
The reason I mentioned it is because it helped me answer a question of M=W. I've said that already too.

"This implies that he has changed his mind about his suspicion already ^^^ confirmed in post #100"
False.
It implies that my suspicions are not as strong as they were but still exist.
Hence my statement in that post:
"The tone of that paragraph still bothers me though.
Making a decision whether to pursue someone based on anything other than the evidence against them feels like a scum thought process."
Please read more carefully.
And my attitude toward Ice is irrelevant to post 100, as you acknowledged when you said
"Llam implies here that, at this time, he believed Ice to be scum (as evidenced by his vote) and was simply mentioning a null tell."
Now you're the one contradicting yourself. (You understand my post 100 discussed a null tell yet say it confirms I changed my mind about my suspicion)


"Here we go with contradictions again"
None of the "contradictions" mentioned so far have really been contradictions...
I don't like that you are acting like any of them actually stuck.
Please read more carefully; I don't like repeating myself.
It's truly exasperating to spend my game-time going through and refuting the same poorly thought out accusations over and over instead of scumhunting.

[Equinox]

Guys, I'm really sorry about this, but I don't have the time to catch up at the moment... I might be able to this evening, but I can't guarantee anything.

FeRnAnDo, you logged in yesterday. Stop lurking.

[Oso]

Quick pop in to say I'm still here. Weekend turned out to be busy.

@ICE. Quick skim of your vote post raised some interesting points. I'll read more in depth later on today.

@Llamarble. "Poorly thought out..."? Granted, that may be true but going the theory you are town for the moment (not to be taken that I am backing off of him), if one person says you are contradicting yourself, that could be poorly thought out. Four people (myself, Xine and ICeninja[Says he doesn't see it early, undewhelming later on in post - 141] and one other who I can't find at the moment, mentioned double standards not always being scummy) means you might actually be doing it. Might want to take a look at it.