#335 Road to Perdition - Finiretur (<- Over)

[rajrhcpfreak]

can we just dayvig these self voters?

[Thesp]

can we just dayvig these self voters?

Yes. I have already done 1/7th of a dayvig.

I actually like the chaotic_diablo vote over the Max vote, though.

[Mackay]

Hi Primate, hi TB, hi everyone!

I would OMGUS Mackay, but the Catch-22 reference was too good, and Dunbar

is

better...

Dunbar > all. My favourite character from my favourite book. =)

As for the situation at hand:

So far we've seen three people all greeting one another conspicuously (you will notice my "You've got to be kidding" followed the second of the three), and two self-voters. I am pro-town, and have no restrictions/impositions upon my behaviour whatsoever. Therefore, I'm suspicious of all of them.

I hope to God the mutual greeters aren't masons - not because I've "exposed" them, but because their very first posts of the game exposed

themselves

necessarily - but the possibility makes me slightly less suspicious than the two self-voters. The first one made me uncomfortable (who the heck doesn't eliminate themselves from a list for random voting?), but the fact that there is a second has creeped me out. Why on earth would there be two people self-voting on the first page?! Additionally, the fact that Max used random.org as an excuse for his self-voting make me feel as though he's got something to hide. I'm going to go for c_d over him though, if only for the slight uncertainty that raj's assertion of "[Max] always does this" has given me. Besides, if it is a scum thing (I hope it isn't for the sake of the game's not being broken, but hey, it's day 1!), one's as good as the other.

unvote: wintergreen

FOS wintergreen, Primate, TB
Large FOS Max

vote: chaotic_diablo

[Primate]

As for the situation at hand:

So far we've seen three people all greeting one another conspicuously (you will notice my "You've got to be kidding" followed the second of the three), and two self-voters.

We were all in the same newbie here (227) as our first game on 'scum.

And yeah, I'm probably being paranoid here, but how did you know what Wintergreen's sig was before she had posted?

[Max]

unvote:max

The chances are still the small but it does happen I've decided to leave myself out next time I use random.org

[Mackay]

Confound you all and your confusing behaviour!

(un-FOSes the Mutual Greetings Newbie Friendship Club or whatever)

And yeah, I'm probably being paranoid here, but how did you know what Wintergreen's sig was before she had posted?

I saw it in another thread (not sure if it was sign-up or discussion elsewhere), but to be honest I'd've made a "prolix" reference upon hearing the name Wintergreen even without seeing the sig, and just hoped that that particular character was who they had in mind when taking on a pseudonym.

Also, go read Catch-22. (If you already have, go read it again.) (Not due to the missed reference, but because it's that friggin' good.)

[chaotic_diablo]

In my defense, the bandwagon is just part of a conspiracy to rid the world of an outspoken minority that can cause no harm to the town at all.

[wintergreen]

Heh. "The Mutual Greetings Newbie Friendship Club"... I can see why that would raise a few eyebrows.

The self-voters do strike me as pretty odd and FOS worthy.
@ c_d: that's a bit vague, how does it tie in to your actions?

[chaotic_diablo]

Heh. "The Mutual Greetings Newbie Friendship Club"... I can see why that would raise a few eyebrows.

The self-voters do strike me as pretty odd and FOS worthy.
@ c_d: that's a bit vague, how does it tie in to your actions?

Simple, nothing. People just use it as an excuse to scapegoat someone for a bandwagon. It's the same as the question "How does a random vote tie in with your actions?". I find it hard to understand why players dislike it and name it "suspicious" when there actually isn't anything suspicious about/behind it.

[Thesp]

Simple, nothing. People just use it as an excuse to scapegoat someone for a bandwagon. It's the same as the question "How does a random vote tie in with your actions?". I find it hard to understand why players dislike it and name it "suspicious" when there actually isn't anything suspicious about/behind it.

Actually, I was more interesed in how you were pre-emptively reflective about it, while Max was not. It wasn't the vote itself, it was how you reacted to your own vote and called attention to it.

[wintergreen]

Off-topic, but I'll be travelling with limited internet for a few days. I'll be able to check in the thread, but probably only once or twice a day. I'll try to make it count though.

[rajrhcpfreak]

Simple, nothing. People just use it as an excuse to scapegoat someone for a bandwagon.

as a member of the town you should be helping us find scum. voteing for yourself is not. scapegoat or not, your not useful.

[Thesp]

Voting for someone being not useful = bad reason. Voting for someone being scum = good reason.

[rajrhcpfreak]

scum usualy arnt usefull

[Coron]

Voting for someone being not useful = bad reason. Voting for someone being scum = good reason.

It is in scum's best intrest to be unuseful, so from this we can deduct that:
intentionally unuseful=scummy

[Primate]

Voting for someone being not useful = bad reason. Voting for someone being scum = good reason.

It is in scum's best intrest to be unuseful, so from this we can deduct that:
intentionally unuseful=scummy

What about someone like Babyjesus, Internet Stranger or yourself, are meta accepted styles of unhelpfulness the exception to this, you think?

[Thesp]

scum usualy arnt usefull

It is in scum's best intrest to be unuseful, so from this we can deduct that:
intentionally unuseful=scummy

Wrong and wrong. Scum usually try to appear as useful as possible. I always try to play townie by day, regardless of my role, and I know of several others that play the same way.

It's also very, very difficult, I think, to distinguish between intentionally unhelpful and stubbornly/stupidly unhelpful, so I try to look for tells instead.

[chaotic_diablo]

Simple, nothing. People just use it as an excuse to scapegoat someone for a bandwagon.

as a member of the town you should be helping us find scum. voteing for yourself is not. scapegoat or not, your not useful.

Neither are you. Randomly voting people because of a signature, s/n, or etc is just as useless. In fact, selfvoting brings something up to the table to talk about.
1. people who are willing to kill off a scapegoat are scumtells
2. A bandwagon comes up and discussion can be reached
3. the opinions of most people can be distinguished

I haven't seen any real arguments on how a selfvote is bad or 'useless'.

Actually, I was more interesed in how you were pre-emptively reflective about it, while Max was not. It wasn't the vote itself, it was how you reacted to your own vote and called attention to it.

Mostly because I found another selfvoter, only to find out that Max just had a bad random streak. Aside from that, I just called attention to it to disprove raj's assumption.

[Thesp]

Mostly because I found another selfvoter, only to find out that Max just had a bad random streak. Aside from that, I just called attention to it to disprove raj's assumption.

Says you. I still think it looks like you were trying to pre-empt the attention you're receiving now.

[chaotic_diablo]

Mostly because I found another selfvoter, only to find out that Max just had a bad random streak. Aside from that, I just called attention to it to disprove raj's assumption.

Says you. I still think it looks like you were trying to pre-empt the attention you're receiving now.

Right, I'm intentionally letting myself get lynched.

[TB]

I don't think random voters are that suspicious. Max might have had some bad luck with random.org, which is, although mathematically not very likely, a plausible explanation.
Since Diablo does it every game, as I've been told, that isn't a reliable source of information either.
And although I find the people who FOS/vote them for this rather.. interesting, I suggest we leave the subject be and start some usefull discussion. I don't think this is contributing any more information than that it already has.

FOS: Raj, Thesp, Mackay, Wintergreen

for making such a big deal over such a minor thing.

Another small thing:

I found one already!

Give me a couple of pages and I'll find the rest.

Forgive me for missing the obvious, but what exactly did you find?

[ibaesha]

Any conversation at the start of a game can be useful. Too many FoSes.

unvote; vote TB

for trying to quash discussion.

[Thesp]

Another small thing:

I found one already!

Give me a couple of pages and I'll find the rest.

Forgive me for missing the obvious, but what exactly did you find?

I found scum, obv.

[Mackay]

I don't think random voters are that suspicious. Max might have had some bad luck with random.org, which is, although mathematically not very likely, a plausible explanation.
Since Diablo does it every game, as I've been told, that isn't a reliable source of information either.
And although I find the people who FOS/vote them for this rather.. interesting, I suggest we leave the subject be and start some usefull discussion. I don't think this is contributing any more information than that it already has.

FOS: Raj, Thesp, Mackay, Wintergreen

for making such a big deal over such a minor thing.

While self-voting is idiotic, it should have been clear from my post that my vote on c_d was not for behaving idiotically, but for the strange fact that both he and Max were self-voters. Links between players make me think that they are evil. If chaotic_diablo was intending this to be some trap for people who were just looking for a scapegoat, I would recommend that next time he a) picks a behaviour which is unique - anything shared is suspicious! and b) picks a behaviour which is not suicidal. If he's town, he's

knowingly voting for a pro-town player

. So if he isn't scum, he's dangerous to the town.

That is why chaotic_diablo is being voted, not because the town is looking for some scapegoat.

Ooh! This is the perfect opportunity to use a phrase which I've noticed is way, way overused on scum: "Your defense of X is noted." X in this case being c_d. =)

You have brought new information to light, though, in that he apparently "does this every game". I didn't know this. Obviously, if I find somebody scummier I'll change my vote. It hasn't happened yet; you could be a possibility, except that it would only be through association to c_d anyway, and therefore I see no point in moving from one to the other... yet.

What

does

make me suspect you is the fact that you referred to the self-voting as "random voting". It seems to me that you are trying to downplay how damaging these kind of votes can be. Then again, it could also be a scum player who is coming to the defense of people they know to be pro-town, to make themselves appear innocent later on.

Hm. I changed my mind about moving my vote.

unvote: chaotic_diablo, vote: TB

[chaotic_diablo]

While self-voting is idiotic, it should have been clear from my post that my vote on c_d was not for behaving idiotically, but for the strange fact that both he and Max were self-voters. Links between players make me think that they are evil.

Max said he coincidentally had himself on random.org and has drawn himself for the past three games or something. I voted because I always do so. Your link is just a false assumption between two bizarre actions that happen independently from each other.

If chaotic_diablo was intending this to be some trap for people who were just looking for a scapegoat, I would recommend that next time he a) picks a behaviour which is unique - anything shared is suspicious! and b) picks a behaviour which is not suicidal. If he's town, he's knowingly voting for a pro-town player. So if he isn't scum, he's dangerous to the town.

If I knowingly vote for a protown player, myself, then it only proves that I know what I'm doing. Players who knowingly vote for a person of unknown allegiance, don't. However, can you really reflect and base a person's judgement and opinion just by one vote? No, so your making a premature assumption.

You have brought new information to light, though, in that he apparently "does this every game". I didn't know this. Obviously, if I find somebody scummier I'll change my vote. It hasn't happened yet; you could be a possibility, except that it would only be through association to c_d anyway, and therefore I see no point in moving from one to the other... yet

If you read, coron posted that piece of information quite a while ago.