Open 260 - Tit For Tat - Game Over

[smashbro_of_the_SSS]

Ok. I assumed that saying I would be joining the wagon meant that I agreed with the rationale. I said that the wagon was going too fast, which is why I didn't vote right away.

I know that. I can read.

My point is is and has been since the first time I raised this issue that there is an obvious inconsistency in saying that you are ready to vote (minus an artificial time buffer of a few days), but also smearing the other wagoners for joining too quickly.

By voting for a competing wagon, you allowed yourself to avoid putting a vote on the werewolf(town) wagon, and therefore the scrutiny that comes the say after. I'm sayign that your move to mallow was just so that when werewolf (the more likely lynch) would probably flip, you would have hands clean and a suspect for the next day already.

If DJ-town genuinely suspected Mallow over Werewolf should he have voted Werewolf anyway?

I can understand how somebody could both think that a wagon was reasonable but also that it was moving too quickly.

But Smash didn't do that. He indicated that he would join the wagon in a few days time. I can't see in any sense why that has any game relevance; it is, as I indicated above, entirely artificial.

My smearing of the other wagoners was the fact that, with even a few days left, there was no hesitation by them. It was relevant that I would wait, because we had time till deadline, and I wanted to see other people's reactions to the events. If every person voted for Zhero as soon as they saw the Zhero vote, there would have been no chance to discuss whether or not it was a good choice.

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.

if its between me and smash, then my vote obviously goes to smash, but i would really like implo to be looked at here and my post later will explain why, but it seems noone even addressed my earlier point about his soft play on day 1. he gave lew a pass for excessive smilies but condemned consig for joking around and posting off-topic. now, on day 2, we have lew abandoning the smash wagon, and both smash and implo dropping reactionary votes on me. i don't know, it would be bold to call the whole scum team here, and i actually think that smash might be the town among them, but i certainly think the three of them should be the ones under the microscope today. the mallow slot, aside, those three have been making the "oddest" and "oppurtunistic" moves so far. i may have tried to start a voting block, but i was the first one on the wagon. and have since moved to a new suspect.

My "giving a pass" to Lew on day 1 for smilies was because it was early on in the game, as in the second page. THis was still during early RVS, or whatever you would like to call it. As the game went on, Consig's posts stayed the same, whereas Lew moved onto scumhunting and such.

I don't believe my vote is reactionary. If you mean that I only voted because you prodded/voted me, then in a way, yes. You post made me want to go back, and look at your play more closely. If you're suggesting OMGUS, then no. I believe in the case.

Not making a case yourself + getting others to vote = scum.

false.

By voting for a competing wagon, you allowed yourself to avoid putting a vote on the werewolf(town) wagon, and therefore the scrutiny that comes the say after. I'm sayign that your move to mallow was just so that when werewolf (the more likely lynch) would probably flip, you would have hands clean and a suspect for the next day already.

only problem here is that i was on the wolf wagon. so i didn't "avoid the scrutiny".

what do you think of implosion?

What I saw scummy about you suggesting my wagon, was that you brought up no support for it, and said yourself you don't know why. You singled out some of the more vocal players, who members of the town are likely to believe more easily, and suggested they join my wagon, and assumedly make cases. To me, this seems like you're hiding in a place where you could try to pressure me, while not looking too bad when I flipped town.

When you moved to the Werewolf wagon, it was because you wanted a lynch on town, which is inherently helpful to scum. Originally, it looks like you were avoiding the Werewolf wagon even though it was the popular one. It would look pro-town to have competing wagons, as you said. The Werewolf lynch was very likely to happen, and so you not being on the wagon would help you avoid scrutiny the day after. So when you did vote Werewolf, it seemed as though you still wanted a lynch on town, and so with deadline looming voted Werewolf.








As for my paragraph on who I'd prefer, obviously DJ, thought Mallow would be a good choice too.

As mentioned, DJ votes for Mallow to allow for competing wagons on Day 1. I assume that this shows that he also entertains the idea of Mallow being scum, or at least scummy. He does say that he would be interesting in a Mallow wagon. However, today he writes:

its nice to see smash trying, but ultimately his posts are weak. he is still using the events of the rvs to condemn mallow. i don't think mallow's actions at that point in the game were terribly scummy.

I don't particularly like the inconsistencies.

Also, he writes off my case as unconvincing, but has not addressed my most recent rebuttal.

DJ failed to comment on Consig early on, waiting until the wagon died down to give his opinion.
He puts a voting block on me but gives no particular reasons, which indicates to me that he's following the hunches of other players, and trying to rally them behind him without giving more support himself.
During RVS, you make a big deal of Lew's smilies, but now say I am scummy for disliking Consig's actions, which lasted outside of RVS.

Vote Count

don_johnson (3) - Gonzoooo, smashbro_of_the_SSS, implosion
smashbro_of_the_SSS (2) - ThAdmiral, vollkan
implosion (1) - don_johnson

Not Voting (3) - Purple Orange, mallowgeno, lewarcher82

With 9 alive it is 5 to lynch. The deadline is set for the end of December 13th, PST.

[lewarcher82]

I looked only one game of yours, don. I do what I can with the time I have. I do not see how I possibly qualify as being obsessed by meta. Also: I am not blaming yourself more than me regarding the vig's discussion, but you cannot deny that you are at least as guilty as I am.

Smash: I am having the disturbing feeling that you are attacking don more than don is attacking you. Is it because gonzooo gave you the impression that one of you will be lynched? It is not a pro-town behaviour at all. You may be scum, and you have thought "hell, my only hope is pushing a dj lynch"... accordignly, you ignore everyone else, and the only other player you refer to as scummy seems to be mallow, a player that has been away for an eternity and will hopefully be replaced.

[ThAdmiral]

I've played one game with him before that I can recall, and we were scum in that one. So I wouldn't say I have a good handle on his meta.

That was LLL I believe, right? Please look through a few of his recent town games if you get a chance just for a point of reference.

I'll try to have a look if I have time.

Do you admit that there could be plenty of reasons why his play might "feel off" to you in this game that may not have anything to do with him being scum?

I can think of the one I believe you're implying here. Not so sure I'm sold on that angle, but I catch your drift.

I just want to state that I am not implying anything specific here, just that there could be multiple reasons someone is playing a certain way; be that real life issues, the role they have been given, them simply deciding to play a little differently, them reacting to a different situation that they find themself in etc.

You are implying here that one of the two is definitely scum but this is not a foregone conclusion. Please respond to this.

I do feel that one of the two of them is scum. If that were not the case, I don't see why scum wouldn't have piled on one or the other and pushed the lynch through by now. What do you feel is the scum motivation for having two viable wagons on town players and not proceeding to lynch one of them?

Sometimes scum can just be timid. In fact LLL is a great example of this as even in lylo the scumteam (me included) didn't hammer-wagon someone to death even though we have a few chances to do it.
But you raise a good point.

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.

Hmm. This is interesting. I'm going to have to take another look at that.

in the meantime I am less sure of myself.

unvote

[ThAdmiral]

Had a look. Where did dj do what you say he did? I don't see it.

[Gonzoooo]

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?

I actually agree with don that the points lew raises are null. They are too specific to be used as any kind of meta.

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.

do you think smash and implosion are town?

I'm not sold on either one by any means. I've stated so several times.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

@smash - Is this:

I don't particularly like the inconsistencies.

Also, he writes off my case as unconvincing, but has not addressed my most recent rebuttal.

DJ failed to comment on Consig early on, waiting until the wagon died down to give his opinion.
He puts a voting block on me but gives no particular reasons, which indicates to me that he's following the hunches of other players, and trying to rally them behind him without giving more support himself.
During RVS, you make a big deal of Lew's smilies, but now say I am scummy for disliking Consig's actions, which lasted outside of RVS.

Your full bullet point case on dj?

@don - please give me your bullet point case on smash.



We have a lot of walls recently and it's time to cut to the heart of the matter from both camps. I will

Unvote

as a sign of good faith to you don and that I actually am listening to what you have to say. Next time I vote, it's not likely to be moving.

Vollkan, I want to hear from you as soon as possible.

[Gonzoooo]

EBWOP:

I should

not

have had to come in here and tell you to knock it off.

[don_johnson]

Posting from phone at work.

FYI: Gonzo will be shredded this evening. Poor form, my friend, poor form.

[Gonzoooo]

lol, so now you want to play the tough guy after I call you out on being softie this game? Looking forward to your rebuttal.

[Purple Orange]

I actually agree with don that the points lew raises are null. They are too specific to be used as any kind of meta.

And comparing more general habits (free-wheelingness vs. caution/logic, or whatever) across two specific games is any better? DJ's correct about that list of the stuff that can influence playstyle, and about the need for a better statistical sampling if meta is going to be used. You had referenced multiple games played with DJ as town -- are you saying they were all like Open 255?

I do think lew's observation about DJ having a pattern of opposition to discussing roles when town (links/proof??), contrasted with the whole vig conversation this game, is worth considering.

And apart from that, I do feel you've been playing a safe game, which is more likely to come from scum.

Ehhhh...a lot of that is really game-specific, though. My most absurdly brazen game to date was as Godfather.

If you had your way, we would have lynched smash already and that would have been that, for good or ill.

You're assuming he was pulling the voting block together to secure a quicklynch over Smash, and not just to put a suspect to L-1 and pressure him (and POSSIBLY lynch him). DJ's said several times he was only attempting to do the latter.

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.

I went back and found you criticized people for picking on these:
* Smash suspecting one person for majority of game
* Smash calling mallow his top suspect but putting his vote on other people

Are those the points you're referring to, or are there any additional ones?

You also say Smash has "some odd contradictions between his words and his actions" - specifics?

new voting bloc: volkan, thad, PO, dj. but whatever.

Volkan I've never been comfortable with, you I have no bloody clue, and Thad is impenetrable.

[don_johnson]

i'm not concerned with the voting block. thats why i typed "but whatever". so anyway,

gonzo: i haven't been "soft" at all. i've been taking on anyone who wants to tangle. so far, i don't believe anyone has brought a solid case against me. PO just pointed out that lew's meta case sounds okay but lacks the proper evidence. and thats been my main point about my attackers. noone is bringing any evidence. now you don't seem to want to bring evidence. in fact, i don't think i'd be out of bounds to say that you are avoiding it. but i'll post more on that later. i'll be delivering a nice pbp to your earlier post.

also, you seem to be trying to push the town into an either/or direction with both smash and myself. at this point, smash is slowly moving off my scumlist and into the inneffective town category. trying to make it a 1 v 1 when we have plenty of time left(no mallow replacement yet) is just poor form. you should know that. you should also realize i'm going to be ripping you a new one for your misrep and avoidance. but whatever. i have things to do. talk later.

[lewarcher82]

I do think lew's observation about DJ having a pattern of opposition to discussing roles when town (links/proof??), contrasted with the whole vig conversation this game, is worth considering.

As I admitted, I had time to look at one game only. I can try to dig a little further, but of course I won't be able to read 28 games in which dj was town... One must also consider that the circumstances of the different games have a big influence on a player's policy about claiming/discussing roles. In an open game it is different than in a normal; if the player is or is not a pr also makes a difference... all in all, it is definitely an interesting point to investigate, but also a very difficult one.

(btw, the reason why I stopped is that in that game I found what I was looking for: dj used voting block in a game in which he was town. Naturally, this has no statistical relevance, but it made it clear to me that the idea of a voting block is not, or not necessarily, a scumtell, and this is what I was looking for).

[Alduskkel]

Posted again in the replacement thread and PM'd two people asking if they'd replace into my game. Short of spamming mafiascum, there's not a lot else I can do.

[vollkan]

i mean, as it stands, the two most oppurtunistic votes made today(smash and implo on dj) seem to be drawing very little scrutiny. in the meantime, i am being scrutinized for attempting to create a voting block of players i had town reads on at the time.

This is AtE. Also, I don't think you can consider smash's vote on you all that opportunistic considering I was the only one on the wagon.

Gonzo+4

, removal contingent on response.

How do you figure that the above is AtE? Ignoring the question of whether or not Smash's vote was opportunistic, he's pointing out a valid inconsistency.


I'll come back around. Have you played with dj prior to this game? If you already answered this, I apologize.

I'll come back around. Have you played with dj prior to this game? If you already answered this, I apologize.

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.

In unrelated matters, why are you not pressuring lewarcher at all? He was quite high in your points system yesterday and I see nary a word or two in his direction today. Nor are you trying to get him lynched. What gives?

I wasn't in the game yesterday

Anyway, from my initial read, Smash was my #1 and I have already debated at some length the points I had against lew with him.

My smearing of the other wagoners was the fact that, with even a few days left, there was no hesitation by them. It was relevant that I would wait, because we had time till deadline, and I wanted to see other people's reactions to the events. If every person voted for Zhero as soon as they saw the Zhero vote, there would have been no chance to discuss whether or not it was a good choice.

My only issue with that is that it begs me to ask what you thought needed to be discussed that you also didn't think would stop you putting a vote down in a few days.

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.

[Alduskkel]

mykonian replaces mallowgeno.

[mykonian]

Hi. In all likelyhood, I'll start at this tomorrow or in the weekend.

@vollkan, what is my score currently? (and I liked you better before the scores. I think you were better then.)
@DJ. Hi! Did you lurk?

[Gonzoooo]

I dont' have a lot of time today, but I will try to answer what I can that doesn't take a ton of research.

And comparing more general habits (free-wheelingness vs. caution/logic, or whatever) across two specific games is any better?

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.

Ehhhh...a lot of that is really game-specific, though. My most absurdly brazen game to date was as Godfather.

I disagree to some extent. Yes, people have a number of factors that influence their play in a specific game. However, on a whole scum are going to play a safer game because getting wild and lambasting people that are not mutually suspected is likely to draw you at least some heat.

You're assuming he was pulling the voting block together to secure a quicklynch over Smash, and not just to put a suspect to L-1 and pressure him (and POSSIBLY lynch him). DJ's said several times he was only attempting to do the latter.

lol, oh well if dj says it, it must be true!

I went back and found you criticized people for picking on these:
* Smash suspecting one person for majority of game
* Smash calling mallow his top suspect but putting his vote on other people

Are those the points you're referring to, or are there any additional ones?

Those are two that I do recall. I would like dj to give me his bullet point case on smash first, which he avoided.

You also say Smash has "some odd contradictions between his words and his actions" - specifics?

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.

gonzo: i haven't been "soft" at all. i've been taking on anyone who wants to tangle. so far, i don't believe anyone has brought a solid case against me. PO just pointed out that lew's meta case sounds okay but lacks the proper evidence. and thats been my main point about my attackers. noone is bringing any evidence. now you don't seem to want to bring evidence. in fact, i don't think i'd be out of bounds to say that you are avoiding it. but i'll post more on that later. i'll be delivering a nice pbp to your earlier post.

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.

That being said, I feel like my back and forth with you is started to reach a bad point of me tunneling. It's turning into tit for tat indeed and maybe I need to reread this entire game this weekend for a better perspective on the situation. Bleh.

also, you seem to be trying to push the town into an either/or direction with both smash and myself.

I've explained very clearly why I feel this is the case. Do you disagree with my logic? If so, why?

at this point, smash is slowly moving off my scumlist and into the inneffective town category.

Elaborate on this along with your original bullet point case on him.

trying to make it a 1 v 1 when we have plenty of time left(no mallow replacement yet) is just poor form. you should know that.

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.

you should also realize i'm going to be ripping you a new one for your misrep and avoidance. but whatever. i have things to do. talk later.

Yes, daddy.

How do you figure that the above is AtE? Ignoring the question of whether or not Smash's vote was opportunistic, he's pointing out a valid inconsistency.

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'll come back around. Have you played with dj prior to this game? If you already answered this, I apologize.

Yes, several times with my main account. Two games I listed already were Cowboy Bebop Mafia and Last Man Standing. There are other games as well, but I would need to go back through my wiki to find them (WWF mafia?). I'm quite certain I've read games he's been in before as well. I don't believe I've played with dj enough to have a infallible meta of him, but enough that I do feel comfortable judging his play.

I wasn't in the game yesterday

lol, seems like you've been here longer.

Anyway, from my initial read, Smash was my #1 and I have already debated at some length the points I had against lew with him.

This is true, fair enough.

Looking forward to mykonian's reads, particularly when he finds out who I really am . Hopefully you play better this time you bastard.

[don_johnson]

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

@DJ. Hi! Did you lurk?

of course not.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

lol, oh well if dj says it, it must be true!

now you're gettin it!

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.

[Gonzoooo]

Don't have time to respond with another wall, atm. Just quickly.

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.

If scum was setting up for a win, I would have just piled on smash like you asked and not dragged you into it at all. Also, I don't get why you are acting like I haven't explained the 1v1 thing thoroughly. ThAd asked me explicitly for this and I gave it to him clearly. To quote:

You are implying here that one of the two is definitely scum but this is not a foregone conclusion. Please respond to this.

I do feel that one of the two of them is scum. If that were not the case, I don't see why scum wouldn't have piled on one or the other and pushed the lynch through by now. What do you feel is the scum motivation for having two viable wagons on town players and not proceeding to lynch one of them?

Please respond to this and tell me if you think I'm just pulling shit out of thin air to push some scum agenda. You're not thinking about motivation at all.

I still think you should provide a BP case on smash. I don't get your excuse of saying I'm not elaborating on my points on you. I think I've been pretty fucking elaborate actually and I've gone out of my way to explain what I'm thinking. You want more stuff from this thread. That's cool and I understand your motivation for asking that as either alignment, however I have not avoided explaining where I am coming from. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to write 3-5 bullet points explaining what your original case on smash was for the sake of transparency and succinctness.

[Gonzoooo]

Also, please don't confuse me not posting about implosion extensively with 'not looking at him'. I look at everyone as much as possible until I get a strong town read on them or they're dead. Having a war of walls with you doesn't help me in that regard, but oh well. I will dedicate some special time to this game this weekend and directly address your back and forth with him so you can't say I'm putting him on ignore.

[don_johnson]

the 1 v1 is an either or fallacy. the scum motivation to not just jump on one of the lynches and push it through is to a) avoid scrutiny by pushing a "quick" lynch through on a townie, and b) to perpetuate the 1 v1 as fact(instead of fallacy) in order to secure consecutive mislynches resulting in a scum win. it also can help generate enough pressure to draw out two claims on townies thereby possibly exposing the vig or at least narrowing down the nk pool. 1 v 1 is anti-town at this juncture.

[Gonzoooo]

1) I never claimed it was a "fact". I said, 'here is my interpretation of the situation and why I think this is so'. Painting it otherwise is hyperbolic and excessively dismissive. It is hardly a "fallacy" to think this could be the case based on the evidence of the situation. It is most certainly one possibility and worth considering.

2) You can't say I'm trying to secure mislynches and yet I didn't jump for an easy smash wagon if he's town. That's having your cake and eating it too. Presenting the 1v1 possibility was most certainly not the quickest route to victory for a scum-Gonzo

3)

it also can help generate enough pressure to draw out two claims on townies thereby possibly exposing the vig or at least narrowing down the nk pool.

Is ridiculous conjecture. I think you and lew already took care of singling out the vig, anyhow. So, meh.

[don_johnson]

1) I never claimed it was a "fact". I said, 'here is my interpretation of the situation and why I think this is so'. Painting it otherwise is hyperbolic and excessively dismissive. It is hardly a "fallacy" to think this could be the case based on the evidence of the situation. It is most certainly one possibility and worth considering.

worth considering? sure. but you are shutting out all other possibilities. start expanding your search and this statement will have more credibility.

2) You can't say I'm trying to secure mislynches and yet I didn't jump for an easy smash wagon if he's town. That's having your cake and eating it too. Presenting the 1v1 possibility was most certainly not the quickest route to victory for a scum-Gonzo

i don't believe i said that. you didn't jump for an easy smash wagon because jumping for an easy town wagon draws heat. so scum hangs back and waits. then they see an oppurtunity to push a 1 v 1 fallacy. who said anything about "quickness."? one mislynch doesn't earn scum a victory. consecutive ones will. therefore, working for consecutive mislynches > jumping on one quickly.

3)

it also can help generate enough pressure to draw out two claims on townies thereby possibly exposing the vig or at least narrowing down the nk pool.

Is ridiculous conjecture. I think you and lew already took care of singling out the vig, anyhow. So, meh.

um no. its actually a valid point. again. please show where i took part in "singling out the vig". that is a subject you seem to be avoiding wholesale. you keep accusing me of some dastradly behavior, but you fail to show how anything that i did compromised the identity of the vig.

[lewarcher82]

please show where i took part in "singling out the vig"

are you asking this for real? Are we going to start discussing this stuff again?

besides: too many walls: I will catch up, I still have to read everything that followed my last post.

[implosion]

Sorry about inactivity, RL is really demanding right now. If I have time later today I'll post more, if not then I won't.

Also, I'll be V/LA until Sunday.

[don_johnson]

please show where i took part in "singling out the vig"

are you asking this for real? Are we going to start discussing this stuff again?

sorry lew, but if someone is going to accuse me of "rolefishing", then they damn well better explain the accusation. imo, their is a big difference between fruitful discussion of set-up/night choices etc. and "rolefishing". those accusing me of rolefishing need to show how what i said is detrimental and/or consistent with jeapordaizing or exposing a power role. if they cannot do that, then they cannot make the accusation of rolefishing. noone has answered my earlier question. noone has compared yours and my statements and explained which ones they think are detrimental and why. trying to brush off valid talking points is par for the course, though. you and gonzo should just get a room.