Secret Society Mafia - Game Over

[Baby Spice]

/shhh. It's a secret

[Baby Spice]

Vote Ludi

Too many posts I don't like, spamming, strangeness.

[Baby Spice]

Vote Ludi

Too many posts I don't like, spamming, strangeness.

Ok. What don't you like about his posts?

Spamming and strangeness, like I said.

More specifically he denied that he was spamming, though he is at times (Multiple one liner posts and outright fluff posts), and I find it weird that he asked Stefan to define strange whereas I would have thought asking Stefan to show or explain what he found strange would be normal.

[Baby Spice]

Tell me Yos, why do you need to ask questions in a post where you quote the answers to those questions?

[Baby Spice]

I love it whem scum decide to misrepresent stuff that's still on this page.

But if you really want to pretend to be stupid:

Something kike 25% of the posts in the game are by Ludi.
Even on tbis page there are three consecutive posts, all real short, within a six minute timespam, as well as two consecutive posts with the same time stamp.

What point is there to asking if someone likes the Spice Girls? What point is there to asking MoI to list (all?) games where scum self voted in RVS? Or continuing to push it?

I already covered strange, thiugh the above with MoI that I cited is another good example of it.

[Baby Spice]

Yos I especially love how you immediately misrepresent what I've said to defend yourself against me accusing you of misrepresenting what I've said.

People may argue about whether strangeness and spamming are scum tells, may discourse on whether self voting in RVS is a scum tell, but really you must agree that only scum need to misrepresent what people say as they need to do so as part of causing mislynches.

Firstly, I never called you stupid. I said " if you insisted on pretending to be stupid". Not the same thing at all, indeed to pretend to be stupid would rather imply that you're not. Yet another nice misrep there.

You didn't question me about my vote, you questioned me about my reasons for that vote whilst simultaniously quoting and ignoring them. (Strawman arguement on your part right?)

Oh, MoI wasn't pressed for details:

Magna, link me all the games scum self voted in RVS. And that you caught. Second part optional.

Isn't that just a tad unreasonable? Isn't that slightly more than asking for proof? Ins't that strange?

Btw, thanks for prooving my point for me re: Ludi's spamming. You made it kinda obvious there though I noticed you left out how consecutive or close timewise those posts for, you know the bit that made them spam in my opinion. Oh wait, that would be misrepresentation again.

Btw ii, nice OMGUS chainsaw attack.

[Baby Spice]

Ged more strawman attacks. I did explain and show, but of course you ignore thwt to press yet more misrepresensation.

You did not ask reasonable questions, you ignored what I actually said and asked questions for which I had already answered, implying I hadn't answered them. That would be misrepresentation.


Finally a reasonable question, after I called you on it. Though yet again it is on something I already (partly) answered.
Spamming hides things. It makes it hard to find particular points or things a person has said. Especially in late/long games. It leads to people, well town, skimming and missing important clues.

Spamming is not necesarily just fluff posting, it's aldo making so many small posts that really xhluld be fewer longer posts that it makes it hard to follow the game or keep things in context ie: what post answers what.

[Baby Spice]

PeregrineV: definately emotional. It's been a problem for me in the past. Also why I walked away for a day.

StefanB:
I'll just do the first couple of posts because the rest are similar really if you accept the first one or two.

Vote Ludi

Too many posts I don't like, spamming, strangeness.

Ok. What don't you like about his posts?

Spamming and strangeness, like I said.

More specifically he denied that he was spamming, though he is at times (

Multiple one liner posts and outright fluff posts

^1,2,4), and

I find it weird that he asked Stefan to define strange whereas I would have thought asking Stefan to show or explain what he found strange would be normal

³.

I don't think he was "spamming" at all,

assuming you mean "spamming" to be posting without content

₁, he's probably posted more real content then anyone else in the game.

I don't get how you can call his posts fluff, either.

²

Anyway,

can you explain what was strange/scummy about his posts specifically

³, or

what made you think he was "spamming the thread"

⁴ and why you think that is a scumtell? It really feels like you're just echoing Otolia's posts to place a vote, and I don't like that.

Ok, (1): I gave why I thought Ludi was spamming, but Yos throws out his own "I don't think [Ludi] was spamming", then defines spamming differently to how I did in the post he quoted. He tries to give the impression that I meant spamming in the same sense that he did by completely ignoring what I said on the topic. (Actually, he does this again a few posts later) Then he implies that I called all of Ludi's posts fluff (2) when I clearly said multiple fluff posts, not entirely fluff posts. Then at the end of his post, Yos gets to (4), asking what made me think [Ludi] was spamming the thread, but again that was something I said in the post that Yos quoted.

(3) should be self evident as more of the same. Quote what I said was strange, ignore it then ask why I found it strange.

That is the misrepresentation in a nutshell. By asking the questions as he did, and quoting and ignoring what I said on the subject, Yos was trying to give the impression that I hadn't addressed the issues when clearly I had.

I should note that he later claimed that he was asking for clarification, and indeed he later did ask (kinda), and it was given. But look at those questions of his. That's not asking for clarification on something.

Tell me Yos, why do you need to ask questions in a post where you quote the answers to those questions?

Because either I feel like you haven't answered the question, or I don't like your answer, obviously.

⁵

You voted him because you said his posts were "spammy and strange";

I asked you why they were strange, and all you could say was "They were spammy and he said they weren't spammy"

⁶. And now I'm asking you why they're spammy,

assuming "spammy" means "a lot of posts without content"

⁷, and why that spammy posting is scummy.⁸

I want you to explain why you're voting for him. I don't think that you have, yet.

⁹

This post is more of the same.

(5)That was not the sense that the questions were asked in. Not "I don't think you've amswered properly" but "you haven't answered this at all" If Yos actually thought these things then the way his question was phrased should have reflected it.

(6) is a beauty, as it was specifically adressed in (3), and I did not say that the reason that [the post] was strange was because it was spammy and that [Ludi] said they weren't spammy.

(7) is a repeat of (1)

(9) is strange. Normally I'd say it was a reasonable question, but "Strange and Spammy" (per the definitions/reasons given by me in #90) is a perfectly good reason for a page 4 or first vote.

(8) is actually reasonable. But I suspect that Yos knows the answer if we use his definition.

so more misrepresentation by mangling or ignoring what I've said.

Summary, TL/DR, whatever.

1 through 7, and 9, are all misreprensentations of what I've said to some degree or another. Mainly through ignoring what I've said and asking questions in such a way as to imply that the answers were never there, with a smattering of redefining terms to suit his own questions when I've given the definition I was using. The quote smashing (6) is also much of the same.


Frosty, difference between this and MoCo is I knew you were scum in MoCo, and it was much later in the game.

I'm not so sure of Yos. Besides, I like you, though if you want a sign of me being upset at the time, I stopped calling you by a nickname until after the game.

Dryfit: I'm not sure. Frsoty (I thik it was) reminded me of the secret society's, and part of what I see as scum linkage could be that they had strong town reads on each other from a QT.

Damn, this post is so long that we've gone through half a bottle of Drambuie

[Baby Spice]

Yos.
I'll get to the other bits when I get back to a laptop (ie: can quote easily) but for the posting thing.

Spamming hides things. It makes it hard to find particular points or things a person has said. Especially in late/long games. It leads to people, well town, skimming and missing important clues.

Spamming is not necesarily just fluff posting, it's also making so many small posts that really should be fewer longer posts that it makes it hard to follow the game or keep things in context ie: what post answers what.

Basically it was looking like he was trying to hide things in outright overposting. There's also the tendency for the lowest posters to contain more scum than the higher posters. Posting one line then making a second one line post a minute later looks like he was trying to stay out of that zone. Ok in this case with so many posts it might be different, but then again the short, rapid posts have stopped too. Ludi's post percentage is down too.

Unvote

MoI: The only reason I can think of not to vote Otalia right now is the "Too scum for scum"/"dumb town" thing. That and maybe this:

Otalia: What would you consider a serious wagon?

[Baby Spice]

Someone asked why I had no vote atm, can't find who now.

Was going to vote Otolia, then held off while I asked him a question forgetting that he was away for a couple of days

[Baby Spice]

Bogre, I was waiting for this answer;

[quote=Otolia]@BabySpice : A serious wagon is a wagon designed to lynch someone you think is scum. In order to get your target lynched, you need to work on asking him questions, analyzing his play and cornering his answers trying to provoke a mistake.[/quote]

Ok, back to strange. That answer strikes me more as a reason to not vote than a reason to vote.

Vote Otolia

[Baby Spice]

Spoiler: My answer to yosarian's questionning

KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!

Your superior argumentation convinced me to vote for someone I do not want to see by tomorrow.

VOTE: MagnaofIllusion

This post was sarcastic. I know that in MS sarcasm is frowned upon in games, but I like to use it as a rhetorical tool. It wasn't a serious post because it was a direct reaction to MoI's one-liner which was a provocation. The vote is anti-town in the sense that it could be used on someone who I thought was scum, but it should be understand as a way to answer to MoI's witch hunt.

---

Granted, I should have voted when I ased the question, but I don't think that changes much. It still strikes me as a reason to stay off of wagons, or even park your vote on a wagon that is not likely to go anywhere.

Not scummy exactly, but actions I don't think are likely to come from town.

1. Refusal to scum-hunt.
2. Active lurking.
3. Voting on policy reasons after explicitly saying he was waiting for a valid wagon

What I really want is to see you shut your annoying mouth. That's what I want. I know you feel entitled to lead the town to a marvelous victory because you are so full of yourself you can't possibly imagine yourself not being right, but you might want to tone it a bit. Just for the sake of your head, I worry about your health.

The second post strongly implies that you think (and/or know?) that MoI is town. And yet you are voting for him. This is obviously deeply disturbing, as well as a possible scum slip (not that scum actually know who is town in a multi-group game, but they still tend to think that way, so the "seeming to know someone is town" scum tell works anyway.)

MoI was primarally attacking you for not voting, which seems a reasoanble reason to attack someone. You may agree or disagree about that being a scum tell, I don't care, but I don't get why you are voting him based on that.

Your excuse that "this is a you are annoying vote" and that it was somehow "extended RVS" or something is just bad, and anti-town. You don't vote someone because they annoy you, you vote them if you think they're scum. If that's not what you were doing, then that throws doubt on what win condition you are playing towards.

I was not implying that MoI is town. It was sarcastic, again. The sentence '

Just for the sake of your head, I worry about your health.

' is a wordplay on a french joke that when someone is arrogant, one's head is growing. I think that MoI's scumhunting should leave him with enough towncred to be considered town for the next few days.

I have a history of being targeted D1 for joking and not being pro-town during the first stages of the game. However it's very difficult to defend against that because you can choose not to trust me.

---

This next part, which basically felt like you were offering to actually play the game but only if he stopped attacking you and voting for you, was just horribly anti-town.

Here is what we are going to do :

You stop screaming 'MORE OTOLIA VOTES PLEASE !!!!!' every post and I'll answer every questions you and anyone ask me.
You unvote me and I'll invest more time into this game.


PS : I fear this might be interpreted as scum trying to negotiate but at this point, it's better than heading in the wall.

All of this combined really looks like you're more worried about not wanting to be attacked then you are worried about trying to find and lynch scum, and that's generally a scum tell.

In this post, I was fishing. I am a straightforward way of scumhunting : pick a target, question him. But I'm not very good at discerning scumtells, thus I have to get another kind of hints and for me it is motivation. I have a good sense for what people could and couldn't do in a given situation, and though it's not enough in itself, I find it useful.

My motivation for doing this 'gambit' was these arrogant statements of him :

So despite never having played with me before (which you acknowledged earlier) you’ve suddenly made the bolded sweeping judgement about me. Lovely. I’ve never said I’m never wrong. Even the best scum-hunters aren’t 100% accurate. That said I’m on a pretty good hot-streak lynching scum (BTTF Mafia, [REDACTED]) as of late so excuse me

if I don’t go second-guessing myself based on AtE.

As for the ‘worry about your health’ I’m not sure whether to take that as a “My scum team is definitely NKing you tonight’ threat or not.

Regardless you should gander and my title and realize it probably doesn’t much matter in a multi-scum game if I ‘lay back’ or not

.

I basically proposed an agreement to MoI. It showed willingness to participate - what I was accused of not doing - but was not acceptable because I wanted him to unvote me (as you nicely pointed out). But instead of engaging discussions and questions me like I think a good scumhunter would, he refused categorically and denied any discussions possible for the town - discussions that might help everyone else. In this situation, if I'm scum then he should be able to make it clear to anyone.

This is possibly a indication that he feared he might not win the rhetorical fight and that shows a weakness which is in direct contradiction with his arrogance of before. It could indicate that he doesn't want to draw too much attention towards himself as town (possibly a PR), that he is in a precarious position where he might not directly benefit from lynching me - regardless of my alignment in this multiscum group (scum or third party), that he didn't felt confident enough too prove the town I am the scum he thinks I am or, the complete opposite, that he is too confident of his reads and is not willing to change his mind.

The last sentence was designed to show a weakness on my side (fear of being lynched) to incite him to react. I disagree with your position on scum being open about their fear of being lynched but it's generally a massive WIFOM nest :/

Bogre, I was waiting for this answer.

@BabySpice : A serious wagon is a wagon designed to lynch someone you think is scum. In order to get your target lynched, you need to work on asking him questions, analyzing his play and cornering his answers trying to provoke a mistake.

Ok, back to strange. That answer strikes me more as a reason to not vote than a reason to vote.

Vote Otolia

I know you are not particularly inclined to making sense all the time, but I feel you should back up a vote with more informations. What in my posts was scummy ? You could say that to my own definition, I wasn't scumhunting - which I already agreed to admit - but in this case, your vote is way too late.