Gonzoooo wrote:dj wrote:For a meta case to have merit, one must assume a certainty of continuity in ones play from one game to the next. There are too many variables involved for it to be logical.
You're saying you do not have continuity between your games?
correct.
gonzo wrote:I actually agree with don that the points lew raises are null. They are too specific to be used as any kind of meta.
good/
gonzo wrote:dj wrote:why did you make a "probably stupid statement"? please do not shift the blame to me when you clearly posted about the issue first. and exactly what about the "discussion" was scummy(if thats what you are implying)?
"you did it first" is not an acceptable excuse, particularly when you know better. As far as what was scummy, poking at 'who da vig be' is pretty fucking scummy and you both deserve scum points for it. I should have had to come in here and tell you to knock it off.
its not "you did it first." this is misrep. please quote where i "poked at 'who da vig'". also, please answer my earlier question: which of the two initial statements do you feel had the most potential to out a vig, lew stating "vig has no brains", or dj stating "i think the shot was warranted." then we'll talk.
gonzo wrote:dj wrote:do you think smash and implosion are town?
I'm not sold on either one by any means. I've stated so several times.
then why are you not looking into implosion? you state that a 1v1 between smash and dj is pro-town. can you please exaplin why again? maybe the reason the wagons haven't taken off is because scum doesn't want to push too hard for a town lynch. there is no discernible evidence to suggest that townsmash and towndj do not coexist.
gonzo wrote:dj wrote:how exactly am i not rocking the boat?
You haven't been pushing original cases or angle for most of the game. I don't see you trying to look at things from multiple angles and genuinely figure stuff out.
If you had your way, we would have lynched smash already and that would have been that, for good or ill.
I do have an expectation from your play and if I see well short of that expectation, it's going to raise red flags for me.
i've switched my town reads around, i've switched my scum reads around. i have engaged every active player with questions and answers. also, how can you state the bolded? mine was the first vote on the wagon and i suggested creating a voting block to create pressure on him and move the game forward. the resulting discussion has flooded the thread with ionteractions and created galvanizing reads(which will most likely be dependent on todays outcome.) i never suggested we lynch smash straight off, i advocated getting a claim first, and i have since moved to another couple suspects. this is complete misrep of my play.
gonzo wrote:dj wrote:if this is our last mislynch before lylo, why are you so willing to vote on a case that isn't "solid" and seems to be based mostly on gut by your own admission?
Because I feel it's the strongest case. I think some of the points against smash have been trumped up beyond their value. No offense to him, but he doesn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to the mafia playing. I do see scum motivations in some of what he's done, but I also see VI-town play.
again, please provide the evidence to back up these statements. where is this "scum motivation" you see in smash's play? if you see him as VI, why is it odd when i say the same thing?
gonzo wrote:dj wrote:hows about you go back through my iso and attribute that "scum motivation"?
I think you know as well as I do that this is easy to do. It's easy to argue semantics with someone and bend their play to fit your preconceived mold. Believe it or not don, I still have an open mind about today's lynch. I am pressuring you to better suss out the situation.
"semantics"? again: please go back through the thread and produce what you believe to be "scum motivations" for my actions. you are basically saying that you can produce a case against me, and when i call you out on it, you try and frame it as a semantics argument. produce your case, so far all you have is a "gut" feeling based on horribly incomplete meta.
gonzo wrote:dj wrote:smash's vote was omgus with a weak case behind it. hows about you address his case on me?
So? Doesn't mean it's opportunistic, just that it's a shit case. I already did address it and I said I didn't think it was all that great. Town make bad cases too. If you're town, I understand your perspective of 'he must be scum pushing garbage', but from my perspective of not knowing your alignment, it's not as open and shut as that.
that's fine. i think we agree that smash may be VI. the vote is still oppurtunistic. instead of coming up with an original case, he dropped omgus with a "shit case"(your words). how is that not "oppurtunistic"? meh, this may be getting into the range of a semantics argument. i may not have described it correctly, or may have incorrectly lumped it into a comparison with implo's vote. either way, his vote on me is bad. the case was bad. we agree on that.
gonzo wrote:dj wrote:if you want to make a meta case, you need to read through at least 60%(28) of my games before i think you would have anything remotely statistically reliable.
This is a bullshit argument. We're not applying the scientific method here. We're talking about one player's ability to read another player's psychology. Is it foolproof? Hell no. Can it still be a reliable tool? Hell yes. I'm not expecting other players to be sold on it because I'm just speaking from my personal experience with you. In fact, they definitely should not be sold on that. However, that does not mean it should be any less true for me. And apart from that, I do feel you've been playing a safe game, which is more likely to come from scum. Do you deny that?
i have not been playing safe at all. dropping an unexplained vote early on day 2 and asking for a voting block is not "safe". i get what you are saying about meta, but your conclusions make no sense to me. i was pretty freewheeling in bebop, and i have done some crazy shit as town and scum. what i would prefer, is if you look at this game. read this game. tell me why you think i am scum based on this game.
gonzo wrote:@don - please give me your bullet point case on smash.
no. my suspicions are documented. i never claimed to have a bp case on him. the original vote was mostly gut based on his day 1 play, and his response was terrible imo. i currently am not interested in his lynch. if you have a specific question i'd be happy to answer, but i am not wasting time on this request. you can call it avoidance, but as far as i am concerned, you asking this question is an example of you avoiding a good portion of this game. i.e. the last several pages where other issues have been brought up. your "other" suspects, etc.
volkan wrote:smash wrote:That's the thing. I don't see Dj town. He had been telling me to present a good case on Mallow all day, and didn't seem to believe in it. But once the Werewolf wagon gained votes, he suddenly thinks that it would be good to have two wagons, and goes onto none other than Mallow. He had been vocal about his other reads, but didn't seem to be sold on Mallow. Once someone else joined the Mallow wagon, he joined it too, rather than Werewolf. That's the point. I didn't think that DJ suspected Mallow over Werewolf.
This makes sense to me.
only thing is that it really only makes sense if i am scum with mallow. and even then, what is my scum motivation? the scum motivation is there(avoid townie wagon, ecpress suspicion of known scum to buy townie points), but at that point in time the mallow lynch was a real possibility, and my vote made it more so. thats a risky bus on day 1. scum could have just laid a vote on wolf, or someone else for that matter. i evened out the wagons which created more discussion and(had mallow not dissappeared) could possibly have given us much more insight into both players alignments/connections etc. i don't see how the mallow vote can be perceived as overtly scummy. if mallow were to flip scum, then maybe in retrospect it would draw scrutiny, but even then, its not a good move for scumdj. and you certainly can't accuse dj of avoiding the townwolf wagon.
volkan wrote:I was about to answer in the negative, but then I googled. It turns out that we were in a game together way back in 2008. I was town Doctor and was lynched D1. He was mafia and won.
I can't remember anything about him from that game, though.
i can. mykonian was my scum partner. it was my first game on MS. myk cc'd you on day 1 after spyrex nailed me as scum. i lurked for the win. it was a screwy set-up though, and i don't think town could have won.
myk wrote:@DJ. Hi! Did you lurk?
of course not.
gonzo wrote:
inconsistency in what? the entire town? Everyone can read smash's and implo's votes for themselves and adjudge whether it was opportunistic or not for themselves. DJ pointing it out and essentially stating 'not fair that people are criticizing me and not them' is very much appealing to emotion.
If and when the town wants to judge smash and implo's votes, they will
...and without dj stamping his feet about it. Seems like a weak attempt to redirect attention away from him.
i don't appreciate being painted in such a light. i consider this borderline ad hom. i have asked politely several times for players to look at smash and implo's cases on me. "stamping his feet" is a poor way to put it. also, i have refuted their cases myself, so its not like i'm asking anyone to do my work for me. anytime you want to address implosion, feel free.
gonzo wrote:Meh. Again, reason has been stated and I'd like to hear your logical explanation against it. 1v1 is a great situation for town to be in, not so much for the scum because it makes wagon analysis on subsequent days much easier.
uh no. if we are both town you are setting scum up for the win. if both smash and i are town, it is in scum's best interest to make this a 1 v. 1.
gonzo wrote:
Elaborate on this along with your original bullet point case on him.
again: no. i will elaborate when you do. i have as much incentive to lynch him now as anyone. his play has been distracting and continuing to shine the light on him when there are several players who have been coasting through this day is scummy.
gonzo wrote:Bullshit, you have been soft and "tangling" with people only in a reactionary way. You've been a meek little kitten until I got up your ass about it. Like I said, don't try to play tough guy scumhunter with me now just because I attacked you. I find you calling me scummy now that I'm pushing on you a little laughable. If you're town, it's quite shortsighted considering 1) you were all but calling me townish as hell at the start of the day and 2) if I was scum looking for an easy mislynch, surely there are easier targets than you to go after. I've been explaining my stance this entire time, so I don't see how I'm "avoiding" explaining my case on you. I've pointed out areas that I think are meta related and I've given my feelings about your play this game.
more ad hom. my reread on day 1 had you as town, correct. that doesn't mean it can't change. if anyone is playing "soft" it is you. you are "softly" trying to keep town in a 1 v 1 situation with smash and dj. you are "softly" avoiding analyzing other players in this game. you are "softly" pushing an unreliable meta case and avoiding posting any evidence from this thread to condemn either of your two suspects. please produce the "scum motivations" you believe exist for my play this game.
gonzo wrote:For example, he waffles on the Consig thinking andrew is in the game issue. He said he could be scummy or he could be confused town and he's awaiting reaction to judge. I'm cool with that, but then Consig posts a very reasonable explanation as to why he thought andrew as in the game and Smashbro simply says 'not buying it, Vote:Consig'. That doesn't really seem like someone that is genuinely weighing the evidence of the situation, but is rather looking for an easy issue to condemn someone over.
^^ this is an example of what i would like to see from you.
gonzo wrote:lol, oh well if dj says it, it must be true!
now you're gettin it!
gonzo wrote:In my opinion, yes. Let me start off by saying that meta-cases are not great, but sometimes when you get a bad feeling about a player, that is really all you have to go on. So, I'm not making excuses. When considering meta, I do think it's much better to look at the general shape of a playstyle than it is too look at "tells". Tells are easy to learn and compensate for. The psychology of how you post as different alignments is not. I don't believe those are the only two games where don has posted like that. I just picked the first two random town and scum games I found in his site iso to prove my point had some merit. I do encourage you to look at his town and scum games side by side and draw your own conclusions. If you feel there is not much disparity (freewheeling vs. logical play), then you can take that stance and say so. However, dismissing my point out of hand because I did not (and do not have the time to) read 60% of his games is an easy write off. What I think you and everyone else should do is randomly pick a scum game and a town game from his iso that are different from the ones I chose and see if my original premise holds up or not. I've made my opinion clear, but I'm not going to spend days on end building a meta case because I simply do not have that kind of time. You either do some of the leg work yourself or dismiss my point out of hand and judge his play based soley on this game. My only word of caution is that dj is no chump and isn't likely to be caught on shit tells. Hunting him that way will never catch him as scum, and is why his record is so good. You can bank on that. That's not a reason to suspect him unduly, mind you, but it should be noted.
random investigation will yield random results. you cannot meta me. its going to be a waste of time because i will be able to find something to refute every conclusion. i play all my games differently. please look at the implosion case against me and my response. please read volkan's response as well. if you are town, this shouldn't be much to ask. if the "smash" bp case bothers you enough, i can summarize some points, but i don't think revisiting it is necessary. i think both lew and implosion should be under scrutiny and i will add you to that list if you keep up the ad hom and misrep.