Mini 1108 - Mutiny on the High Seas - Game Over

[Shadow1psc]

Well, I figure if I'm going to put a vote on someone, I still don't want to lose town. It was my intention (maybe not stated clearly) that it started as PL with intent to either prove why CK was scum, or an extreme enough detriment to town to warrant losing town, and that I was still trying to find things in other people. Reading back through the thread, I realize there was really only content from about 3-4 people anyway, and I started tunneling CK (not purposely, but a feeling of pressure to stick to my guns I guess).

I'm of the belief that 'tells' follow along the lines of metagaming, and I'd much rather analyse the actions of someone in context to the game their currently playing, and the questions asked/answered therein. I don't care if someone

else

acts a certain way and they were town, or were scum, or even if you have a playstyle, because it's just as easy to consciously act in that manner

knowing

that other people expect that behavior from a certain allignment. It's even more suspect to call it on yourself imo, because then you're just shouting "I'm a saint!" at everyone else.

Mine started as a policy vote, but I think he's deliberately playing dumb. That whole mass claim idea debacle was also pretty scummy. It could probably still be classified as a policy vote, I'm just looking for something else scummy to happen, I don't expect a speed policy lynch.

Defense? I have nothing to defend really. You put a vote on me, but I don't have one foot on the gallows, or even the stirrup of the horse that would lead me to the gallows. I attacked KC for hyperactivity and terrible play. If he genuinely could not understand the logic or implications of my post thereafter (in regards to Umbrage, and other things that could easily be gleemed from my words), then we have a different matter, but if you're going out of your way to pursue playing a game like mafia, I should be able to expect at least some competancy.

All said by me (in reverse order, sorry), all answering that entire post, and some of the others asked post my claim. It's like you people didn't even read the wagon you're on.

[AurorusVox]

Lol@ not reading accusation. I made my mistake earlier. Further lol in that only the very first post came after my case against you, so don't try to say that those three were in response to my accusations, or that they answer me in any way. Let me hit them up one by one:

1) I know you've been saying it started as a PL and you've been looking for reasons he can be scum, but my point is you've been trying to make Chess look like he's scum, probably because the PL obviously doesn't have much support. Looking for scumtells with Chess isn't going to get you very far, regardless of his alignment. Thinking Chess is faking his VI-ness is ludicrous; that's who he is, and I think you really showed your hand when you tried to say that. You're spinning things so that it looks scummy when really it's just Chess. I mean, you're even trying to turn Chess' well established VI gameplay into a calculated move on his part. If that isn't stretching for scumtells, I don't know what is.

2) (This didn't answer my question about distinguishing between tells and scummy/townie because I hadn't asked it yet herp) Why are you content to use "metadefence is scummy" as an argument then? Saying anything outside of context is scummy (as you did there) is calling it a scumtell. You're happy to use scumtells to discredit Chess. But not for any other reason?

3) see 1

4) I don't really see what this has to do with my accusations against you

[Shadow1psc]

I don't feel like quote hunting anymore, but in regards to 2, my point still was that CK was trying to point out his own town-tells, a scummy thing to do. I don't care if someone else wants to point them out in an argument, but shining a beacon on yourself going 'look at me, Im doing town things!' can just as easily be used as a scum defense.

[AurorusVox]

Do you accept that saying "Metadefence is scummy" is contextless and therefore constitutes you saying "Metadefence is a scumtell"?

You're using scumtells, despite saying you don't like doing it, and despite having no faith in towntells. That's what's so odd about that particular exchange.

[Shadow1psc]

people metaing someone = null. someone using meta as a defence (IE, Calling for massclaim is an inherently town tell according to CK) = null. Calling your own actions out as town because meta says town acts that way = null/scum. I dunno how much more clear I can be on that point. In the third example, it's not about the meta itself, but someone trying to paint themselves saint based on the actions of others. It's still null at best, and scummy at worst to have breadcrumbed (essentially what you're doing when you call your own town actions).

[Nero Cain]

Just so Prana doesn't accuse me of flaking. Yes I've received a prod from him yesterday and yes I plan on catching up but I haven't yet so lo siento. Would you guys rather have me replace out or just wait on me to catch up?

[Liar]

Are you saying my posting was not adequate in the periods with which I said I would be (IE, not weekend)? I'm confused.

I find your focus too self centered with the vast majority of you posts defending yourself or trying to pursue a PL that will fail. In other words, I believe you tried to lurk

Disagree. Simple onepost scumtells shouldn't be used. Rather I support analysis.

Actually, thanks for reminding me that Shadow never responded to my question about tells/ies. I'm not saying use tells; I'm saying Shadow hasn't been consistent in his application of them. He's trying to say that scum can purposefully drop towntells, without acknowledging that such meta-knowledge would allow them to avoid dropping scumtells. There IS a difference between scummy and scumtells, but his post "metadefence is scummy" suggests he doesn't think that way. By this I mean that saying point-blank "X-action is scummy" is equivalent to saying it is a scumtell. He therefore accused Chess of purposefully dropping towntells; and accused him of dropping a scumtell. That's inconsistent logic.

Disagree
Lets define scumtell. Scumtell is one post that someone does that points to them being scum. For example, 3rd on wagon, OMGUS, Claiming on L-3 ect ect.

Analysis is how people play. For example, lurking (not drawing attention to self. Different from inactivity), manipulating lynches, bandwagoning. Shadow's argument falls under the area of analysis. It is an attempt to decipher CK's play by explaining it as a way to purposefully drop towntells. A valid argument that isn't contradictory.

CK is not new, he's playing the VI card, and I don't think you can play that many games and still be that dense.

IS has already shown how this isn't the case. How on earth can you claim to be able to distinguish between legitimate VI behaviour and fabricated VI behaviour? This is the sort of stretching behaviour I'm talking about. Overall I don't like it.

Agreed that CK probably could be legitimate VI. But disagree about this meaning Shadow is scum. Shadow is clearly frustrated about CK and he is not alone here. His method of approach is simply to push for a lynch

His lynchpush is misrepresenting Chess as faking his VI-ness. If he was just frustrated he'd say he wanted to lynch Chess for being a VI. As it stands, he's saying "Oh no Chess is faking it because he's scum!" - it fits with my stretching to make his PL seem as though its going after scum.[/quote]
As you have stated. No one really wanted to lynch Chess as VI. I don't see why it is bad for Shadow to try to lynch Chess through a different method.
He confirms it, I'll include the quote below

Also, I don't know how to be more clear; I started in on CK as VI, policy voted, then went back and followed through to find scummy action to both a) prove that he was anti town and worth the PL even if he was town, and b) hopefully even hit real scum behavior because it'd be even better if he were scum. I said that too btw.

[AurorusVox]

@Liar, I think we disagree on definitions...

A scumtell is a contextless action
A scummy action is something in context

Example:
"You voted third on the wagon. That is a scumtells"
vs
"You've voted third on the wagon. This is consistent with you trying to be middle of the road, and posting only minimal content, whilst actively lurking for most of your time in the game so far. I find your actions scummy."

Saying "metadefence is scummy" is contextless and therefore Shadow was using it as a scumtell
If he'd expanded on it and applied it directly to Chess from the start, it wouldn't be so bad.

---

His alternative method for getting Chess lynched is misrepping his VI behaviour. You don't find that scummy?

[Shadow1psc]

Wait, I don't understand how you think I was lurky. I was either gone for the weekend (where I posted twice to state thus), or I came back, gunz blazing while trying to catch up.

[Liar]

@Liar, I think we disagree on definitions...

A scumtell is a contextless action
A scummy action is something in context

Example:
"You voted third on the wagon. That is a scumtells"
vs
"You've voted third on the wagon. This is consistent with you trying to be middle of the road, and posting only minimal content, whilst actively lurking for most of your time in the game so far. I find your actions scummy."

Saying "metadefence is scummy" is contextless and therefore Shadow was using it as a scumtell
If he'd expanded on it and applied it directly to Chess from the start, it wouldn't be so bad.

I'll accept your definition.
Why isn't his analysis in context? I see his analysis of Chess as a way to make sense of what Chess is doing.

His alternative method for getting Chess lynched is misrepping his VI behaviour. You don't find that scummy?

I understand his frustration with CK, and do not hold it against him.

[Shadow1psc]

ITT: Liar and smargret are town.

[Liar]

Wait, I don't understand how you think I was lurky. I was either gone for the weekend (where I posted twice to state thus), or I came back, gunz blazing while trying to catch up.

A question then. Assuming that we don't lynch you or CK. Who should we lynch then?

[Shadow1psc]

Internet Stranger. So hard. I wouldn't be opposed to questioning Umbrage either.

[Liar]

Internet Stranger. So hard. I wouldn't be opposed to questioning Umbrage either.

Besides how he presents himself (his play style), and his hypocrisy in pursuing lurkers. Is there any other reason why you think he is mafia?

[Shadow1psc]

Extreme tunneling, hypocrisy, terrible arguments and reasoning. His attitude in general. His content to try and twist the couple of my posts he did, or intentionally misread them. Dude's just not town.

[Doombunny9]

So let me ask a question to everyone on my wagon. What do you do when I flip town?

Didn't chess ask you basically the same thing once and you called it WIFOM 0.o

Anyway, if you flip town, I would have to take a serious look at IS+chess (Since his latest posts have just been saying "Hey look everyone! This is me preparing to get town-cred for not being on a mislynch! Give me all you townie points!

LOOK AT ME AND CALL ME TOWN!

)

I'll hammer myself.

Bad shadow bad! Town or scum, this should never happen. It just hurts whatever faction you are (except jester) period.

Also @shadow-You're at L-1. I think its full claim time (Although no one should hammer yet until we get posts from Nero and Joan)

[Shadow1psc]

I've said all I'm going to about my claim. You can find out with my body if you'd like, everyone needs to take a real good look at what happened today though if you do. And it's not WIFOM, I asked a single scenario, with plenty of given information (not with one or two votes, I'm at L-1 and it's very likely that I'm going down now). Either way, you answered.

[Umbrage]

I've said all I'm going to about my claim. You can find out with my body if you'd like, everyone needs to take a real good look at what happened today though if you do. And it's not WIFOM, I asked a single scenario, with plenty of given information (not with one or two votes, I'm at L-1 and it's very likely that I'm going down now). Either way, you answered.

Every time I have doubts about lynching you, you go and reaffirm why I'm on your wagon.

[Shadow1psc]

Aye Umbridge. If I be walkin' the plank, you be not far behind...

[Umbrage]

I wrote a response to this, then lost it. Here's attempt #2.

You got me, that was my evil plan: taking advantage of the narrow window of opportunity to successfully OMGUS. And I would've gotten away with it too! Or............... it was coincidence. It was RVS. I didn't care who was third on that joke wagon. For me to OMGUS, that implies that I must have taken Nexus' vote on me as a threat. To which I say again: RVS.

I know you didn't care who was third, but Nexus did. You then voted him for voting the third player on the wagon. I don't know how much closer to OMGUS you can get.

OMGUS in RVS is not a scumtell. And honestly, I didn't know I was third on the joke wagon. I didn't care, either.

Show where I misquoted then.

Hasn't this already been done before? Fine. Here is your post:

@ Aurorus Vox:

Are you voting for me simply because I based my support for a mass claim on the reactions of other players?

That's just stupid.

The entire point of an early mass claim is to catch scum off guard.

Terrible.

No, Chesskid.

You don't think that's just a TAD scummy? Not even stopping to consider the benefits?

You did quote one of Shadow's post correctly, but he clarified it

in the very next post

.

And to clarify that, it'd be hard to organize everyone at once, and without that there's no way for anyone to tell what the flavor split is, as scum are just gonna follow the first couple claims' examples.

This is my first theme on this particular site, but do scum get a safelist? And is it common for there to be flavor attached or written by the host for that list? I know different sites have different opinions on this.

And here is the fullness of Nexus' post.

No, Chesskid.

I've played in Prana games before, and his flavour has nothing to do with alignment.

Nexus can certainly clarify this for himself, but I bet what he is saying (since God knows I can't know what other players are thinking) is that it would be unhelpful because we wouldn't know the alignment just by flavour (which he later equates to names). In fact, he's the one who posted this:

I know PranaDevil's theme games. I've played them before. I know that names have no bearing on anything.

Elizabeth Swann was a traitor in the last game he ran. Generally, names make jack difference.

I took the parts of the posts on which I based my suspicions. I was concerned with their original reactions to an MC proposal, not their given reasoning behind said reactions.

Look! This happens to be the post I was referring to in my last post to which you replied:

?

Well, for one thing: "I still don't know what he attempted to achieve with an MC.". There's reasoning that doesn't hold up under pressure, and there's reasoning that just makes no sense. For example, you can argue the world is flat, which is not true, but you can see how it might seem true, and it will take a lot of work to disprove it. On the other hand, you can argue the entire world is pink, which makes no sense.

He attempted to make it difficult for scum later in the game when they would have to stick to their claim. The goal was tripping up scum. I'm sure you know that as well as anybody else. The problem with his whole suggestion is that it wouldn't work as beautifully as he wanted it to and end up being more of a burden for the town. That's why most people were opposed to it. (Except you, of course. Wait, were you for it or against it? I can't remember.[/sarcasm]) It's just bad reasoning on chesskid's part. Good strawman, by the way.

I don't see the strawman. Please clarify.

You saying I misrepresented something is not proof of me misrepresenting something. I don't even know what it is I'm supposed to have misrepresented.

Of course you don't. How could I expect cognizance from you at this point in the game? You certainly can't seem to follow along with people's arguments.

Ad Hominem. Have you really sunk that low?

I'll try once more. Your post:

Fer de record, as far as fourth page reads go, me tinks chesskid3 is scum.

1) He pushes de mass name claim wit no good reason. Scum makin' up fake claims we can't prove are fake claims is not a good reason to be a'claimin.

2) He calls me town 'cause I agreed wit him. Not good logic dere.

(

Highlighted so we know exactly what we are talking about.

)
3) He says dat he'd like ta say NC[sic] is scum 'cause he didn't agree wit 'im. There's no udder reason he gives for dat.
4) He won't answer NC's questions.
5) He lets the MC issue drop witout mooch complaint. Dis is scummy 'cause it shows he don't care mooch aboot it.

I was only fer de mass claim 'cause I was suspicious o' Shadow 'n MC[sic] actin' like dey did. But now, chess is way worse den dem.

He doesn't, in fact, call you town

because

you agreed with him. He actually doesn't specify why that post (where you

incidentally

agree with him) makes you town, just that something in that post signifies your townieness. Here.

I be fer a name claim jus coz Nexus 'n Shadow are so against it. But me not picky.

This is why you're town.

Therefore, your claim of him not having good logic (and therefore of being scum) is based on a faulty claim of your own. (I myself don't think there can be any good reason why that post signifies you as town, but that's beside the point. It wouldn't make him scum either way.) Does that do a good enough job of showing how you misrepresented him? If not, you can look at the next section.

In that post, I agreed with him. He took that post, and said it made me town. It's not hard proof, but it's still solid reasoning. And it's further backed up by the fact that when I turned on him, he lost his town read on me. You're saying it's just coincidence?

[Umbrage]

'Aggravating' him? What does that mean? It was my fault he used OMGUS?

I think you know perfectly well what it means.

Um... no. That's why I asked.

From IS's posts, I believe he knows what it means. I bet a few other people also know what it means. If you can't figure it out, that's not my problem.

*facepalm*

Also, on whom did he use OMGUS? If I've followed correctly (which is hard to do with all of your side-stepping), you are referring to your posts #96 and #97 which are followed by this post:

afafuiajfaodsfjaijdfoasjdfaodsjfafd

MC on D1 forces scum to PICK A CLAIM
then
when we have flips
if a claim looks REALLY REALLY OUT OF LINE WITH ALL THE FLIPS
BYE BYE SCUM
JESUS
HOW IS THIS HARD

no townread but not scumread---->nullread duh.

Also I really don't care if you think I'm scum or not, because you're a goddamn VI

That's not OMGUS. In fact, he doesn't vote you and say you are scum until about two pages later. I put a case on you and vote you, you then vote me right back. This is what chess has to say after that:

hahahahahah after accusing me of omgus
hahahahahahahh
aaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahah
fuck this
Unvote
Vote: umbrage
Goddamnit I don't care about my gut
this is not ok

The reference to his gut is from a previous post in which he says his brain thinks you are scum, but his gut doesn't agree. Meaning he still felt you were town even if the evidence was stacking against. It's about the same thing as he had with Liar. Still, no OMGUS from chess here. Misrepresentation by Umbrage? Yes.

Sigh... I already explained my reasons for voting you. That post of yours sucked, it was scummy, and I voted you for it. And I already pointed out that this is part of scum-CK3's style: he never directly says anyone's scum or town. He waits for a wagon to build. He waited for AV before he voted me.

It doesn't matter what your thought process was, the post clearly suggested that one of us was scum.

Not one of you, just you. Now you're misrepresenting me.

LOL! You explicitly said that if I flipped town, you'd look at CK3!

You admit that if you didn't already see me as scummy you wouldn't have picked up on that. That is flawed and biased logic.

Again, not what is going on.

Then EXPLAIN.

Your post:

OK, we're getting to the end of page 5 now, so I guess it's time for me to post reads. I think chesskid3 and Nexus are scummy. The rest could go either way, I have gut reads on them, but nothing solid so I'll let it pass for now.

chesskid3: Comes up with a mass name claim idea out of the blue, and can't follow up with good reasoning for it. Lashes out at players who question him. His reads are determined by who agrees with him.

Nexus: Has contributed nothing useful thus far. Attempted to shoot down the MC idea quickly. Doesn't like 'distractions'. Votes for AV when he meant to vote for me. The impression I get is of someone trying to control the game without getting too involved. By saying 'that's distracting, stop it' and little else, he can easily pass for town without sticking his neck out too far.

I still like my vote on chesskid3. We need more people in here. IS, Jedo, smargaret, this means you. Get back in here and post.

More examples of your misrepresenting people in order to make them look like scum. That seems scummy to me. That's what the addendum was about. It's kind of like I already have enough evidence to demonstrate your scumminess, but in case I needed more, this is another example. You might call it "piling on" or "running up the score" depending on which you like, but not "flawed and biased logic."

Oh. My. God. Look: just because you SAY something is misrepresentation, it doesn't mean it is misrepresentation. You have to SHOW how it is misrepresentation. Welcome to Mafia 101.

Just about everything in this post I've said before. You're good at empty mudslinging, but if you want some sort of apology or admittance of scummy behaviour from me, you're going to have to do better.

[Internet Stranger]

Of course he HAS to say to come after me. Thats the only tactic he has left. It would look useless and even scummier if he went after anyone else.
He even tried playing the martyr card already too.

I dont know what more evidence you need on someone to get them lynched.

[Shadow1psc]

Of course he HAS to say to come after me. Thats the only tactic he has left. It would look useless and even scummier if he went after anyone else.
He even tried playing the martyr card already too.

I dont know what more evidence you need on someone to get them lynched.

And what will you say when I actually turn up town? "Oops, my bad?"

[Doombunny9]

I've said all I'm going to about my claim. You can find out with my body if you'd like, everyone needs to take a real good look at what happened today though if you do.

I feel like I'm coaching now but what the hell:

Not claiming at L-1 is a terrible idea town or scum...Unless you can't think of a good fakeclaim.

And it's not WIFOM, I asked a single scenario, with plenty of given information (not with one or two votes, I'm at L-1 and it's very likely that I'm going down now). Either way, you answered.

How does the number of votes make the scenario any different? If chess asks you what you'd do if he flips town when there are only a few votes on him its WIFOM, but if he had a lot of votes it would be fine? Huh?

[Shadow1psc]

it was about the inevitability of an actual plausible scenario, coupled with the difference in content and information from when he asked (I had none) and when I asked everyone else, who are ready to lynch me.