Newbie 310: It's All Over -- WOO-HOO!

[Seol]

vote: Thesp

as I haven't had an opportunity to do so for, ooh, ages.

[Seol]

I know! You must be insanely jealous of me, as I have opportunities to vote for me all the time.

It's that jealousy, worming away at me, that bred the resentment that lead to the vote, in fact. It ruined my marriage. I'd cordially request that you don't mention it again.

[Seol]

Unvote: Thesp,
Vote: Seol

I don't think you've been married at all.

You're very astute. That entire last post of mine was a scurrilous fabrication.

[Seol]

OK, I'm going to have to apologise. I've been skimming this game but not posting, as something I do occasionally when I'm in several games and in interesting conversations in some but not others is that I end up putting all the effort into those games. Bad habit.

Fircoal is quite right about 298, I replaced into it and even though I was scum and rode it to victory I was

really

pissed off at the IC in question. Suffice to say it should never have happened, but I can understand why Fircoal would be a bit twitchy about it.

The Azkar/Fircoal thing is, I think, a mountain out of a molehill.

In any case, the connection seems so obvious that I find it difficult to come up with another explanation. There is a tendency for suspicions to polarise a group of players, but, even if that is the case, a great deal of useful information can be gleaned from encouraging that process.

I tend to think that the polarisation has come

from

VitaminR, calling the original post a "connection" was stretching but fair game for page 1, but since then it's only "obvious" because it's been talked about so much. Looks to me more like he's trying to convince us of the idea than explore it.

I don't like this comment either:

Erm... I didn't actually say anywhere that I thought it was suspicious, just that it could be seen as suspicious.

Explaining why an action "could be seen as suspicious" is as good as calling those actions suspicious in terms of its effect on other readers. It's as if you want to establish the idea and reasoning that the act was suspicious, but then distance yourself from that position. Any sort of disclaiming past statements of that sort raises my heckles.

Based on that,

unvote, vote: VitaminR

.

[Seol]

I don't have a good handle on theopor_COD yet. He's wagon-happy, and says he's confident in his position, but I don't think his reasoning as I understand it is compelling. I'd say he looks scummy in a vacuum, but it's not in the least atypical for newbies nowadays.

theopor_COD, let me make sure I'm not misunderstanding you: you said you think Azkar is scum because he's overly defensive, which you then followed up with:

I foolishly in some ways thought Azkar's over defence to the random org vote was scummy, however my assessment of Fircoal and Azkar still fits, I'm pretty happy the way things are. Things at least are developing.

Firstly - why do you say that your "[thinking] Azkar's over defence to the random org vote was scummy" was "foolish"?

Secondly, I must have missed your arguments against the two of them other than that, why do you feel your assessment still fits if you're disregarding the first point?

VitaminR, I haven't had a chance to respond to your response yet, I only get 15-minute slots every so often (I'm in Geneva at the moment), just to let you know I haven't forgotten you.

[Seol]

Looking at the general scheme of things we've now had Azkar at -1 and myself at -1. I've been there for a few days aswell so I'm thinking either the two scum are already on me in Thesp, Fircoal or Azkar. Or as yet they're not voting me, the following post from Vitamin got me thinking maybe he's scum and doesn't want to hammer to draw the attention to himself. Seems pretty definate to me.

So essentially, you're saying the scum either are voting for you or aren't voting for you? Seems pretty tautological.

I think he's saying either both are on, or both are off - if he is, then that's not tautological at all. Do I understand you right there theopor?

[Seol]

Explaining why an action "could be seen as suspicious" is as good as calling those actions suspicious in terms of its effect on other readers. It's as if you want to establish the idea and reasoning that the act was suspicious, but then distance yourself from that position. Any sort of disclaiming past statements of that sort raises my heckles.

It was just a response to Fircoal's question about Thesp's vote. I was trying to be responsible as an IC, because I felt like I'd just been attacking the new players rather than helping them. In hindsight, I should have indicated that I did not think it significant in that post.

Compare and contrast what you think needs emphasising:

I think it is to do

with the fact that your defense is "the only reason I defended him, was because it didn't seem like a scum post." That is what you can assume about every townie.

Your defense comes down to reasserting the fact that you're pro-town. That doesn't mean much as a defense, which is why

it can be seen

to reveal a need to re-affirm the underlying assumption that everyone is pro-town. Basically, stating that you're pro-town reveals a guilty conscience, and the possibility in your mind of it being untrue.

With what came across as the key point to me:

I think it is to do with the fact that your defense is "the only reason I defended him, was because it didn't seem like a scum post." That is what you can assume about every townie.

Your defense comes down to reasserting the fact that you're pro-town.

That doesn't mean much as a defense, which is why it can be seen to reveal a need to re-affirm the underlying assumption that everyone is pro-town.

Basically, stating that you're pro-town reveals a guilty conscience, and the possibility in your mind of it being untrue.

Which is how I read it - as arguing that he was demonstrating behaviour, and then describing why that behaviour was scummy. There's a fairly direct chain of reasoning apparent in that post. So either you believe it's valid reasoning, or you don't.

If you think it's valid reasoning, why don't you follow it to the conclusion that the act was suspicious?

If you don't think it's valid reasoning, why are you propagating it?

Furthermore, using phrases like "I think" or "it seems" whilst describing a stance and later citing that as a justification that you really didn't subscribe to that stance is a more egregious manifestation of the disclaimer tell.

[Seol]

If you think it's valid reasoning, why don't you follow it to the conclusion that the act was suspicious?

If you don't think it's valid reasoning, why are you propagating it?

I was not propagating it, I was explaining it.

Explaining it

is

propagating it. Of course, if you think the reasoning is sound, there's nothing wrong with propagating it.

I do think, however, that it is valid reasoning. Whether or not it applies, though, relies on how you interpret the sincerity of the post.

No, it doesn't. The reasoning you present directly concludes that Fircoal is scum. That's part why it drew my attention - the intent of that argument seemed

very

clear to me to be an attack on Fircoal.

That is all irrelevant, though. I have already said that I should have elaborated on that then.

Well, just to clarify, my original point was that I didn't like you changing your position, and I didn't like the way you did it. If you're saying I'm misinterpreting your original post, then that means you weren't changing your position, which is fair enough.

But if your position hasn't changed, that means you were presenting an argument you didn't subscribe to, which is just as scummy. Yes, if you didn't think it was suspicious you should have elaborated back then. Not doing so is why I'm suspicious. Saying now that you were wrong not to be clearer

after you've been called on it

doesn't really do much for me.

Furthermore, using phrases like "I think" or "it seems" whilst describing a stance and later citing that as a justification that you really didn't subscribe to that stance is a more egregious manifestation of the disclaimer tell.

I did not attempt to use the phrases "I think" or "it can be seen" as justification, merely as an illustration that I truly did not intend to propagate the reasoning at the time.

I meant "justify" in the sense of "this is evidence supporting my current position". "Illustrate" and "justify" mean much the same in the context.

[Seol]

But if your position hasn't changed, that means you were presenting an argument you didn't subscribe to, which is just as scummy. Yes, if you didn't think it was suspicious you should have elaborated back then. Not doing so is why I'm suspicious. Saying now that you were wrong not to be clearer

after you've been called on it

doesn't really do much for me.

I clarified that I didn't find it suspicious two posts after the original post!

Which was right after you'd been called on, and earned a vote for, bad reasoning in the original post - and at that point you clarified your position in an accusatory manner ("that's not what I said" as opposed to "that's not what I meant").

But when I say "you should have elaborated back then", I mean in the original post. You were presenting a chain of reasoning that you didn't agree with, without mentioning you didn't agree with it. You're not disputing that.

There are a reasons why scum would want to present a chain of reasoning against a player that they don't agree with - because as they're attacking an innocent, they don't have any genuine reasons to suspect anyone, so any arguments have to be fabricated. If they're called on poor logic, they have to decide how they're going to respond to that. On the other hand, I can't see any reason why a townie would ever want to spell out logic that they think is incorrect, flawed, or inapplicable - except possibly to illustrate that the logic is incorrect, flawed or inapplicable.

[Seol]

I'm going to invert the order of your responses here because I think your first paragraph sort of answers my response to your second paragraph.

On the other hand, I can't see any reason why a townie would ever want to spell out logic that they think is incorrect, flawed, or inapplicable - except possibly to illustrate that the logic is incorrect, flawed or inapplicable.

It is not incorrect, flawed or inapplicable, though. It is not poor logic. I could have very well attacked Fircoal on that. In fact, it would have made more sense, since I was pressuring Azkar over something similar.

If you thought it was good logic, and applicable to the situation, why

didn't

you attack Fircoal?

But when I say "you should have elaborated back then", I mean in the original post. You were presenting a chain of reasoning that you didn't agree with, without mentioning you didn't agree with it. You're not disputing that.

I do agree with the chain of reasoning, but Fircoal's post didn't seem insincere to me. Looking back, 'I don't see it as a significant tell' should have been 'In this case, I don't see it as a significant tell.'

Are you saying the logic only holds if Fircoal is (appearing) insincere?

Isn't that pretty much tautological - if he's lying about his motivation, he's scum anyway and the rest of the reasoning is redundant?

Furthermore, if you think his being sincere means that it isn't a tell, isn't that a reason to make the chain of reasoning not applicable in this situation?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

[Seol]

I don't quite understand you here, and rather than getting into a semantic debate I think it'd be more helpful to clarify my position and you point out where we disagree:

Furthermore, if you think his being sincere means that it isn't a tell, isn't that a reason to make the chain of reasoning not applicable in this situation?

Or am I misunderstanding you?

It's not a tell to me because of that, but that is based on subjectivity. For Thesp, it could very well apply. Also, in a general sense, the logic always applies.

Let me clarify what I mean by the reasoning not being applicable. I'm assuming that you believe the premise leads to the conclusion (otherwise, the logic would be flawed). The logic wouldn't apply if this was a case where the

premise

was flawed - for example, in this case, if you didn't think Fircoal was asserting he was pro-town.

Were you taking a different meaning?

If you believe the premise is correct, and the reasoning applied to the premise is correct, then you have to believe the conclusion that leads to, don't you? ...Unless you're disregarding or de-emphasising logic based on non-logical factors, such as instinct and judgement?

[Seol]

To summarise from my point of view- yes, VitaminR, I think your summary of the debate in post 99 is fair. I also think that we've been talking at cross-purposes for a portion of this debate.

On the other hand, Seol seems to be taking a sort of logical absolutist stance.

Indeed I have, but not in the manner you mean. I have almost total faith in the scientific method, by which I mean that if you establish A is true and B necessarily follows from A then that means B is true. There's a reason my custom title is as it is.

That doesn't mean I think things are always black or white, as many actions can be interpreted different ways and the conclusions that can be drawn from those actions are often not so simple.

However, if you believe A is true, and B follows from A, that means you should believe B. That's what I was having trouble with - VitaminR said he believed the logic was good, and the logic said Fircoal was scummy, and yet he didn't find Fircoal scummy. There's something missing there. But sometimes I forget that not everyone has such faith in logic as I do.

...Unless you're disregarding or de-emphasising logic based on non-logical factors, such as instinct and judgement?

That is exactly what I'm doing.

Edited quote, which I hope succinctly captures the issue here. VitaminR could be consistent in believing the logic that implies Fircoal is scum is solid, and yet not believing Fircoal is scum,

if

he doesn't hold much truck with logic itself as a decision-making tool in this context.

Now, I don't

like

this resolution a great deal, but it

does

resolve the sticking-point I had. Time to re-read I think.

[Seol]

I don't buy the VitaminR wagon at all. I'm also a little surprised at you, Seol, for seemingly trying to equivocate likelihoods to the firmness of logic. The argument isn't that someone is necessarily scum under the "doth protest too much" tell, it's that scum are more likely to exhibit that behavior. It appears that VitaminR does not think scum are significantly more likely to exhibit that behavior. It looks like a mountain out of a molehill there to me.

I think you were misunderstanding my point. All I was saying was that VitaminR's reasoning and his conclusions and position should be related. I'm not trying to equivocate anything to anything else, I was simply saying that he wasn't being consistent. If he doesn't believe it applies, I don't have a problem with that,

unless he's representing that he does think it applies

.

The lack of an unvote is unusual to me as well, after "it does resolve the sticking-point I had".

FOS: Seol.

It resolves the sticking-point I was having with understanding what VitaminR was trying to say - now I feel I at least understand the position VitaminR is representing. I also said I didn't like the resolution. Just because my opinion of VitaminR is improved over what it was doesn't mean he's all the way back to square 1 again, but I'm due to re-read and see if there's anything more significant that's worth following.

[Seol]

Something that stands out is how his vote for me has been absolute. He doesn't FOS or indicate any change of direction or in suspicions. Firstly, that movement is crucial in the opening phases of a game.

Crucial, you say? As in, it's suspicious if I keep my vote on the person I suspect most, instead of moving it about?

Secondly, it moves the debate above a level of direct relevance. Without any apparent consequences to his official position in the game, whether or not a point of his is acknowledged or refuted becomes irrelevant.

My core argument - that you were arguing a point which you disagreed with - still stands. It hasn't been refuted. If at the end of the debate, my core argument still stands, why on earth would you expect my position to change?

Do I think it's a massive strike against VitaminR? No, not really, but it's still a strike against him. I didn't

intend

to get into a massive debate on it with VitaminR, I've just been clarifying my original point and explaining the rationale behind it.

Re: being focussed on you - yes, that happens sometimes when I'm in a big argument, I concentrate on resolving that issue. Like I said, I need to re-read - I haven't yet taken the time to do so.

[Seol]

I'd expect to hear that your position hasn't changed.

Now, I don't like this resolution a great deal, but it does resolve the sticking-point I had.

It resolves the sticking-point I was having with understanding what VitaminR was trying to say - now I feel I at least understand the position VitaminR is representing. I also said I didn't like the resolution. Just because my opinion of VitaminR is improved over what it was doesn't mean he's all the way back to square 1 again

I'd expect some sort of attempt to put it into perspective with regards to the rest of the game. point is only worth as much as how it relates to your suspicions of other people.

but I'm due to re-read and see if there's anything more significant that's worth following.

[Seol]

I did see those. I don't know, it seems to me to very much relate to the situation inside the debate.

I'm confused - what are you asking here?

I thought you were saying here:

I'd expect to hear that your position hasn't changed.

That at the end of the discussion, you'd expect me to state what my position was. I was merely pointing out that I did that, and to suggest otherwise is misrepresentation.

I get the feeling that through the rhetoric of the discussion your vote moved into a position where it appeared out of consideration, and, therefore, exempt from scrutiny.

Again, I'm not sure I totally understand you here. Are you saying that I wasn't scrutinising my own vote, or that it was exempt from scrutiny by others? Ultimately, I voted you for something that you did, that I consider suspicious. If you want to challenge the reasons why I consider it suspicious, then I'll scrutinise my vote. If you want to challenge whether or not you actually did it, then I'll scrutinise my vote. But if you accept that you did it, and you tacitly accept my argument as to why I consider it suspicious, then why would you expect me to scrutinise my vote, at least as a consequence of the debate?

I don't find the fact that you say you need a re-read to give an opinion on other players in any way redeeming. That suggests to me that you need to construe an acceptable impression of their behaviour.

It's not meant to be redeeming in and of itself, simply to say that I recognise the need to put it into perspective. I've been following the game, and I've commented on anything that's caught my attention. Not much has, or where it has it's been raised already. That means that just following the game is not giving me a sufficiently strong read on most of the players.

[Seol]

Enough procrastination, time to talk about everyone

else

.

theopor_COD - Inconsistency re: "foolish", as Azkar points out:

I still find theopor's actions bizarre. Earlier he said:

I foolishly in some ways thought Azkar's over defence to the random org vote was scummy, however my assessment of Fircoal and Azkar still fits, I'm pretty happy the way things are. Things at least are developing.

When Seol asked him to elaborate on why he thought his suspicion of my defence was scummy, he said:

First question re- the foolish vote on Azkar, it was pretty foolish because the 2 mafia could have come along and hammered him, unless one was already voting him and the other didn't want to raise suspicion, looking back I shouldn't have jumped on the bandwagon especially with Fircoal's first vote being a random one and the argument hardly concrete.

Doesn't really seem like he answered the question at all. Instead, he's changed his tune yet again. It was no longer foolish to find my defence scummy, now it was foolish to place a lynch -1 vote on.

That falls under the same loose category of what I was on VitaminR for, as the reply which doesn't actually address the question suggests theopor doesn't actually know what he meant by "foolish", which in turn means he didn't actually mean it in the first place.

I'm also not terribly keen on this:

Seperately Avinyl's input isn't overly helpful, for a start I'm pretty sure I put Azkar at lynch -1 not Fircoal and I think he needs to explain his reasoning for voting VR a bit more. Plus his vote below suggests he wants to hammer me but is afraid to do so because he'll become suspect number one tomorrow.

I am sorry about my disappearance, i have been ill, but now i am here.
From what i have read, i think theopor_COD, Fircoal and VitaminR seems suspicious. Fircoal defended Azkar with great fervor, and then got very upset over putting Azkar at Lynch -1. Theopor_COD just seems supicious, and VitaminR does not stand for what he says.
I would vote theopor_COD if he was not at lynch -1, so i will

vote VitaminR.

I can see that avinyl says he would vote you would it not lynch you. That suggests to me he's suspicious of you but

doesn't

want to hammer you, not that he does. Your attributed motivation - part of the reason for your vote - is pure speculation, and furthermore speculation that doesn't follow very well from what was said.

At this point I'm more suspicious of theopor_COD than VitaminR. Given that I'm not the only person not voting him to consider him suspicious, and he's on three votes - or to put it another way, would it not lead to a lynch, five of the six other players would be voting him right now - I think a claim is probably in order.

unvote

Fircoal I'm having difficulty understanding. No offence meant, but is English not your first language?

If I'm understanding the Seol and VitaminR debate then I'm gets suspicion. VitiminR, made a good point in the last post, which made him see suspicious.

What do you mean here? I read it as:

"If I'm understanding the Seol/VitaminR debate, then it makes me suspicious. VitaminR made a good point in the last post which makes [Seol] seem suspicious".

If I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. If not, it would be helpful if you highlight the point you agree with.

Avinyl is remaining pretty tight-lipped, and hasn't really contributed anything new to the thread. I'm a little concerned about his lack of citing any new reasoning and simply citing my own arguments against VitaminR, without ever supplying any thoughts of his own - this could constitute an Appeal to Authority, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily scummy (it's also typical newbie behaviour). Particularly, re: theopor (the person he says he would be voting were he not on three already) he hasn't cited

any

reasoning whatsoever.

Thesp and Azkar are both behaving rationally, I don't disagree with any of their arguments (except of course where they disagree with me ), and I don't have any reason to be suspicious of them at this point.

[Seol]

Wow, a lot to respond to. I have two posts - one principally responding to VitaminR, and one principally responding to theopor. Theopor post will follow.

Seol, I agree with you on your suspicions on Theopor_Cod, and lack of them on Azkar. Though I think Thesp is lurking to much to be cleared. Avinyl is also scummy to me in the same ways that he is scummy to Seol.

I wouldn't say I consider Thesp cleared, but then again I wouldn't consider him lurking either. He's definitely not contributing as much as I'd like or expect, but he is here and keeping us abreast of his current position.

Heh. I'm so going to get myself lynched...

Don't fault yourself if you end up lynching me, I screwed up as an IC here, I think.

I don't really expect anyone to follow me at this point.

My Seol vote was way too late and at a point where my credibility in this game was pretty much gone anyway.

That's an

awful

lot of sympathy plays there...

Seol: he only focused on me and I felt he was avoiding your wagon. Also, from his earlier comment about you (which I will quote below this) I thought he saw you in the same way and I wanted to see if he would stick to that. I find the fact that he hasn't pretty scummy.

I don't have a good handle on theopor_COD yet. He's wagon-happy, and says he's confident in his position, but I don't think his reasoning as I understand it is compelling. I'd say he looks scummy in a vacuum, but it's not in the least atypical for newbies nowadays.

Hmm... that was in response to my question, wasn't it? Then I'm remembering it wrong.

The one you quoted was because I felt he was focusing on me, asking him for an opinion after the debate was because I wanted to see whether or not he would do the convenient thing and change his position.

Seol, what do you think of theopor_COD?

I'd like to hear this too.

Azkar, you make some good points, but I'm just not sold on the wagon. I don't see it.

Those are the quotes you're referring to, in the order you referenced them, right?

Are you confused about what happened here? Because bearing in mind the chronology of what happened, your comments make no sense.

"Resolve a sticking point" seemed quite vague to me. I didn't read it as a clear statement of your position.

Ah, well, the combination of the full comment ("Now, I don't like this resolution a great deal, but it does resolve the sticking-point I had") and the lack of unvote seemed to be a reasonably clear statement to me. Are you arguing that it was intended to be vague, or that it wasn't intended to be a statement of position?

I did not blindly agree with you in the debate and I presented explanations that should cause a change in perspective. As you yourself indicated, your opinion did improve. As a result, you should have scrutinised your vote.

Your explanations

should

result in a change of perspective? Surely that's up to me to judge? And yes, my opinion improved, relative to the point where it appeared to me you were flatly contradicting yourself in every post. I was still suspicious of you, and (prior to the re-read which I needed to get a handle on the rest of the game) I didn't have any firm suspicions on anyone else. So I kept my vote on you.

As for the Azkar wagon, Seol didn't comment on it as it was going on. He attacked me when it was winding down.

Azkar-Thesp: Thesp essentially just waved away the Fircoal-Azkar thing, commenting on it afterwards. If they were scumbuddies, he would not dismiss a case that was that prominent so easily. If Azkar turns up scum, it is too damning a mark on his record. He's too experienced a player to make that kind of mistake.

I'm not seeing the difference. I ignored the wagon (along with the rest of the game - not that that's justifiable, just trying to put it in context), which therefore links me and Azkar. Thesp, who actually was here, was ignoring the wagon, and it's a sign they're

not

linked... except that if Azkar is scum, it's a black mark against Thesp (i.e., it's a sign they're linked... if it suits you).

You're taking the same behaviour and saying it means X in one case and not-X in another. Isn't this just a case of you interpreting the evidence in whatever manner is most convenient for you?

[Seol]

Re: theopor -

Ok I've been doing some heavy reading this morning, mainly berating my own play, I've read the whole thread twice and I've read the individual posts (my own mainly!!!).

As such I can say I've played appalingly, this is my first game on mafiascum so hence the newbie stupidity, doesn't excuse the way I've played thus far though, i'm letting myself down but mostly the rest of you, townies that is, the scum must be chuckling away.

Anyway I can't say much else apart from that, foolish, stupidity whatever, i've made a complete ass of myself so far and only hope I can redeem myself . . . and how you may ask . . . well I have an inkling on a scum, maybe wrong but it's about time I offered the town more than the crap I've come out with yet.

to be honest I'm amazed I haven't been lynched yet, I deserve to have been.

surely if anyone views my posts they must find me scummy and prob 90% mafia

remember here I think i'm incredibly scummy

is way I've played I'd expect everyone to vote for me and I could understand it, so I just think VR is scum mainly because I know I'm not despite my awful play so far.

Sympathy plays definitely seem to be the flavour of the month here...

Basically, the sum total of your post is you saying "yep, I'm scummy, I've been talking crap all game, but VitaminR doesn't think I'm scum so he's scummy".

I'm not convinced on Soel but I'd like to hear his reaction to my thoughts on Vitamin.

I don't buy it. It basically boils down to "Why didn't he pursue me when I thought I was suspicious?". There's a number of reasons for him to do so, some which imply he's town, others of which imply he's scum. Trying to argue motivation from something like that leads you into WIFOM-style reasoning.

I'd only skimmed your post and I thought I'd have more to say about it, before I read it properly. Am I missing anything relevant here? Because, if not, my opinion of you just worsened.

vote: theopor_COD

, as the only reason I wasn't voting you previously was that it would be lynch. I still think a claim is appropriate.

VitaminR is not far off level with theopor.

[Seol]

Well, I know I'm not scum, so I know I'm not scum with Azkar.

[Seol]

Well then what are your opinions about Azkar?

He's bottom of my suspicions, which are currently:

Most scummy:

theopor
VitaminR
<big gap>
Avinyl
Fircoal
Thesp
Azkar

[Seol]

Nobody hammer theopor. He is pro-town.

You're stating that like it's fact.

What makes you so sure?

Seol is scum trying to push two mislynches (theopor and me).

I'm trying to lynch people who are behaving like scum.

He is setting up two distinctly separate wagons.

I

set up

the theopor wagon?

Also, he forced a claim from theopor on a third vote when there has been no indication of anyone wanting to put on a fourth vote. This allows someone who normally wouldn't have theopor to go "ah well, at worst he's a townie" and hammer him.

Avinyl said he considered theopor the most suspicious, but didn't want to lynch him yet. That's normally the time to be asking for a claim.

Also, (and I'm adding this as I eat breakfast) Seol really had no right to ask for a claim. Thesp is still in need of a re-read and he could, for instance, realistically switch to Seol.

Thesp's most recent post:

Hmm.

I'm still fairly fixated on theopor_COD, and I'm a little surprised at the lack of claim from him after essentially being told to do so (rightly, I think) by Seol.

I don't agree with the VitaminR hate at all.

There are a number of likelihoods still out there, and I feel bad for saying I still need a proper re-read, even though I won't get the next chance to do so until Tuesday night.

Emphasis mine. Seems pretty clear to me that Thesp, while he acknowledged the need to look over the thread, was actively supporting the claim request.

I'm thinking Vitamin is making some sense there with his theory on Soel, I'm not overly sure if it clears Vitamin in my mind though, however I'm going to unvote. More conversation the better.

What theory? "He's scum and he's attacking me"?

[Seol]

I'm going to start by responding to VitaminR's points. I also have a post in mind which clarifies the essentials of my opinions on theopor and VitaminR and also cites some observations I've made but haven't had the time to flesh out in detail, but that won't be tonight. This game is starting to take up a great deal of time.

Which is all good.

I've already answered that question a number of times. His play is illogical, but not manipulative. An example would be him unvoting me, he doesn't need to do that at all. I would be a convenient target to lessen the pressure on him.

Firstly - there's more to scummy behaviour than just being manipulative. I'd agree that illogical behaviour isn't necessarily scummy in itself, however it's not just a lack of logic. There's also a lack of consistency, which is far more telling. Also, I'd disagree that he's not manipulative - I'd describe his "defence" post as

highly

manipulative - not only the sympathy plays (see below) but also the turn into an attack on yourself in the latter part.

Yes, he then later unvoted. That's one example of an instance where he could have behaved in a certain opportunistic, manipulative manner, but didn't. That doesn't mean he isn't manipulative. It just means he wasn't in that instance, and if he was elsewhere, then those arguments still apply.

What theory? "He's scum and he's attacking me"?

Seol, let's not devolve into insults. I've made my position clear and attempted to explain my thoughts as fully as I can.

Between post 163, where theopor said you stuck out the most, and post 170, where he said your theory made sense, all you'd posted was assertions I was scum.

Wait, no - you did also criticise me for "forcing the claim" on the basis that "this allows someone who normally wouldn't have theopor to go "ah well, at worst he's a townie" and hammer him." That's assuming a hammer-hungry townie, when Avinyl had already expressed a cautious approach re: hammering, and it postulates one possible outcome - which is

always

a possible outcome of a claim on a wagon and yet doesn't happen all that often - and cites it as motive. Pretty much

every

wagon has a claim. Are all requests for a claim trying to set up a BWCS hammer? Do you have

any basis

for me trying to set it up, other than speculation?

Sympathy Plays

When I care about a game, I'm more likely to post what I feel. There is nothing inherently scummy about posting an emotional response. Town and scum are just as likely to do it. It is only scummy when it's the only response.

Disagree. There's nothing inherently scummy about posting an emotional response, or two, even. There is something scummy in posting an emotional response with no substance as a substitute for a proper response, but there's

also

something scummy about ladling on an emotive message to excess. It's manipulative, the written equivalent of puppy-dog eyes.

Theopor hasn't done that.

I beg to differ, actually. Theopor didn't post a substantive defence. He simply said, in a number of ways, "I was wrong, I suck bad". He also attacked you, but in respect of "defending" himself he appealed to our better nature and tried to divest himself of accountability for his past actions.

I haven't done that. Citing that list looks impressive, but the quotes are wholly irrelevant. It simply makes it look like there is this big body of scummy quotes as evidence for your suspicions.

No, volume is highly relevant. Once isn't really worth remarking on. Four or five in short succession - or in a single post - most definitely are.

I was still suspicious of you, and (prior to the re-read which I needed to get a handle on the rest of the game) I didn't have any firm suspicions on anyone else. So I kept my vote on you.

What I have a problem is that none of that was clear at the time.

I can't anticipate everything that you're going to want at every point. If you want clarification on my position,

ask

. My playstyle is not governed by your expectations.

I'm not seeing the difference. I ignored the wagon (along with the rest of the game - not that that's justifiable, just trying to put it in context), which therefore links me and Azkar. Thesp, who actually was here, was ignoring the wagon, and it's a sign they're

not

linked... except that if Azkar is scum, it's a black mark against Thesp (i.e., it's a sign they're linked... if it suits you).

There's a big difference. You avoided the wagon, you didn't ignore it at all (you commented on it quite definitively when did you post).

I wasn't avoiding the wagon, I was avoiding the game as a whole... something that's not unusual for me (not to get into a game until page 3 or 4).

I don't get your last point at all. I specifically said that it wouldn't be a black mark against Thesp.

...

I misread you here. You wrote:

If they were scumbuddies, he would not dismiss a case that was that prominent so easily. If Azkar turns up scum, it is too damning a mark on his record. He's too experienced a player to make that kind of mistake.

I read:

If Azkar turns up scum, it is a damning mark on his record.

I totally missed the context, which of course reverses the meaning of that line. So, yes, I was wrong there, and retract that point.

Regardless, that argument's WIFOM - you're basically saying here that because Thesp's reaction to Azkar would be damning if he was scum with him, if Azkar's scum, it's not with Thesp, because Thesp would know better than that. But if that mindset means you view that as meaning they can't/are less likely to be linked, then it's actually a better play for Thesp to do the damning thing if they are linked. The counterexample is circular, yes - but so is the original argument, as is any where you're cting behaviour determined by expected reactions.

Also, can't you apply the same mindset to me? Even if I was actively avoiding the wagon - which I wasn't - you're arguing that's damning against me. I'm pretty much as experienced as Thesp. Simply put, I don't see the distinguishing factor here.

Seol's Theopor post

Seol's opinion can essentially be boiled down to this quote, I think:

Basically, the sum total of your post is you saying "yep, I'm scummy, I've been talking crap all game, but VitaminR doesn't think I'm scum so he's scummy".

That's not true. Theopor is voting me because of how definite I am about it. That's not a bad reason to be suspicious of me.

He was voting you because he thinks that you not finding him scum was illogical, as it seemed clear to him that he was appearing scummy. His arguments are all about the nature, not the firmness, of your position.

Seol: he only focused on me and I felt he was avoiding your wagon. Also, from his earlier comment about you (which I will quote below this) I thought he saw you in the same way and I wanted to see if he would stick to that. I find the fact that he hasn't pretty scummy.

This one refers to asking for your opinion on other players after the debate.

So you found me scummy for changing my position on theopor_COD? My original opinion was that I hadn't heard much from him, and wagonning isn't a tell for newbies. My revised opinion was based on new information, and my reason for thinking he was scummy was basically inconsistencies in his story, which is a tell for anyone. Revising my opinions when presented with new information is scummy now?

Seol - Somehow, he feels more like a machine than a human. I don't know how to describe it.

Yep, that's me. I only get emotional in games under very extreme circumstances. I'm always like this.

It's a part of trying to explain why the fact that he seemed so focused on me seemed scummy.

Being focussed on one player in an early stage of the game is also absolutely typical of my playstyle. I've found it to be very effective.

A lot of the back and forth between Seol and me is essentially fluff.

Agreed. On that basis, I'm trying to only respond to the key points. If I omit anything you think is significant or relevant, please highlight it. It's important we don't get drowned in the details.

If anything, Seol should have been a lot more cautious. As an IC and a player with a good reputation, he should know that a strong request for a claim from a newbie is not something to be taken lightly.

I didn't want it to be taken lightly! I thought his "defence" was a joke and it was time for him to claim.

This is what I meant:
You are setting up justification for two distinctly separate wagons. This allows you to switch freely between them. You even said that we are almost level in scumminess. That means you don't have to stick to one vote. If, for instance, you'd said one of us was more suspicious, you would have been bound to pursuing that person.

This seems incredibly scummy to me. The fact that we're almost level in his eyes means he can switch rather freely.

You

are

almost level in my eyes. I'm not going to bind myself to a single position when I see two people worth pursuing. To do so would be foolhardy and careless.

I think it is also important to stress the difference between this and, for example, my Seol-Azkar suspicions. What I'm doing is incredibly limiting. If Seol or Azkar turns up town or one of the other plays turns out to be scum, the foundation of all my reasoning collapses.

For something like this, it doesn't matter if theopor turns up town or I turn up town. He can continue to push for the other. They're separately justified. It's low risk and high reward for scum.

I also find the fact that Seol hasn't addressed the interaction between theopor and me at all very interesting. He's not looking at a scum pair, but at lynching individual players. (Incidentally another, albeit small, reason why Fircoal is pro-town, he has.)

I don't look at scum pairs on day 1, because it's a fundamentally weak approach. I look for scummy individual behaviour. Like you said, your reasoning is prone to collapse - that's because it's built on sand (and by sand, I mean unverifiable assumptions). The scum

know

that people are looking for relationships, and they're going to behave in such a manner as to try to undermine that approach as far as possible - so chances are if you do apply such reasoning, you're either being manipulated or doing the manipulating yourself. I don't know why you're arguing that taking an approach like that is essentially pro-town.

I try to use the best tools for the job. Lynching people based on postulated relationships is not only weak day 1, it's also a classic misdirection tool (ie establishing a false relationship to later exploit). Lynching people based on their behaviour in isolation is simply more effective.

Day 2, once you have some reliable evidence about the alignment of people,

that's

when I believe it's appropriate to start reasoning based on scum pairs.

[Seol]

Core points:

RE: SYMPATHY PLAYS

Labelling sympathy plays as manipulative seems a bit exaggerated to me. I know from my own experience that it is easy to build up frustration over a game. I don't believe all emotional expressions should be taken at face value in a mafia game, but I don't think this level of suspicion towards them is warranted.

It's specifically the volume and the timing of them that I found suspicious.

Disagree. There's nothing inherently scummy about posting an emotional response, or two, even. There is something scummy in posting an emotional response with no substance as a substitute for a proper response, but there's also something scummy about ladling on an emotive message to excess. It's manipulative, the written equivalent of puppy-dog eyes.

True, but I don't think it has been ladled on that heavily. There is nothing there in theopor's posts or in my posts that I don't see as normal human emotion. I'll agree with you that theopor's big defence post is an exception, but coming from a new player in that position, I don't regard it with that much suspicion.

So you agree that his big defence post - which is the only context I've mentioned it in - he was ladling it on heavily? Also, I don't think the noob defence applies in this situation.

I disagree. I feel theopor has made a real attempt to defend himself. What you think of the quality of his defence is a different matter.

I agree he's put effort into it. I was saying it's not a substantive defence, in that there's no substance to it. There's no justification or explanation - quite the reverse, he damns his own behaviour. This was in response to:

It is only scummy when it's the only response. Theopor hasn't done that.

What I was saying was - yes, he has. His response

had no content

.

Context is still important. They were posted in quick succession and in a mood of frustration. If I'd consistently continued with them, you'd have a point, but I think it is clear I'm not attempting to sway people with emotion.

I already said that their being in quick succession was part of why I found them excessive, and my point is I do think you were trying to sway people with emotion.

RE: CHANGE IN STANCE ON THEOPOR

Straw Man. I didn't say that.

What I found scummy was that initially you seemed to adopt the stance I'd expect from a townie. Not overreact at a newbie's inexperience. You changed your position after behaviour that I felt was very much in line with what I'd expect from an inexperienced player.

So you found me scummy for changing my position from one you agreed with to one you didn't agree with, would you agree with that assessment? I've explained my philosophy on both positions. I didn't feel his later behaviour was in line with a noob townie. That's why I found it suspicious. Do you want me to explain the distinction in greater detail?

RE: REQUESTING THEOPOR'S CLAIM

There's more to it than that.

1. You've won yourself some information. You know he doesn't have a power role.
2. It always has an influence. Knowing that theopor is a townie makes it easier to go after him. Even if only subconsciously for some players, there will be an effect.
3. I have seen quite a few players lynched Day 1 based on the "at worst, he's a townie"-principle. Perhaps that's not your experience.
4. Theopor having claimed consolidates the position that he is a suspect. It sets him apart from the other wagons. The fact that he has claimed alone makes him suspicious.

Re point 1: yes, we all have some more information now. That's the

point

of requesting a claim from someone under heavy pressure, it gives us more information with which to judge the lynch.
Re points 2 and 3: Even if I were scum, I wouldn't have known theopor was a vanilla (aside - I dislike using the word "townie" here as some people read it as "vanilla" whereas others read it as "pro-town") before he claimed, so to cite this as part of my motivation is nonsense.
Re point 4: I think theopor's "position as a suspect" was well consolidated at that point. That's why I was requesting the claim.

As for what other basis I could have for thinking that you're trying to set up an easy hammer: What other basis would I have? You're not come out and say "I'm trying to manipulate you into hammering theopor."

In other words, you don't have one. You're attributing a scummy motive to a standard play and then pointing out that that motive is scummy. That's circular reasoning.

Also, what is BWCS?

Best Worst Case Scenario. An often misused acronym, originally meant as a comparative tool only but now often taken to refer to lynching someone because "at least they're not a power role" (and used in that context, it's horrible strategy to apply BWCS reasoning in the vast majority of situations).

ON SCUM-HUNTING VIA PAIRINGS

This misrepresents my point completely.

I never said only looking at scum pairs is pro-town. I said not looking at scum pairs is scummy. I believe a combination of the two to be most effective.

I think maybe I was unclear by what I meant by "weak". I didn't mean "not as effective as looking at players in isolation". I meant "fallacious and damaging". I'm not comparing looking at scum pairs only to looking at people in isolation only. I'm saying that adding in that factor is really as good as useless

until you have some reliable information to act on

. On that basis, it's not something I do unless there's a really obvious connection.

Subjective or not, there will always be links between scumbuddies that are in some way tangible. To ignore them is convenient, you don't have to limit your suspicions. It will get people lynched, that's true, but the game is not about getting someone lynched. It is about getting scum lynched.

To ignore them is to focus on the elements which relaibly allow me to assess whether someone is town or scum, and not utilise reasoning that's often as much of a liability as a benefit. That's what lynching effectively means.

As for Day 2 being the right day for it, surely that would depend on the information available?

You have some information that you can reason from - you have (normally) two dead bodies. Reasoning on scum pairings is reasoning about one player based on another's alignment. Until you know the alignment of one player or the other, it's fallacious.

[Seol]

I haven't read up yet. I'm posting to apologise for being away (had a ludicrously busy week), to confirm I am going to start reading tonight, and confirm I'm going to post properly tomorrow.