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

[VitaminR]

Vote: Thesp

For playing a good game in Nightless?

[VitaminR]

Vote: Thesp

For playing a good game in Nightless?

I'm being punished for a good game?

If a random vote is punishment, then yes. Severely so.

[VitaminR]

Unvote: Thesp,
Vote: Seol

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

[VitaminR]

Waiting for theopor, I suppose. In the meantime, this is the only post that could possibly be remotely scummy:

Alright .. scum hunting time .

random.org says I should

vote: Fircoal

.

Feels like a "safe" post. Random.org to not be held responsible and the ultra-townie smilie with enthusiasm and reassurance that scum is the enemy.

Unvote: Seol,
Vote: Azkar

Based on very little, but it's a start.

[VitaminR]

Feels like a "safe" post. Random.org to not be held responsible and the ultra-townie smilie with enthusiasm and reassurance that scum is the enemy.

Unvote: Seol,
Vote: Azkar

Based on very little, but it's a start.

Well, I guess if you really want to grasp at straws .. *shrug*

Seriously, though, is random.org any more a suspicious reason for voting someone than any of the other reasons offered, so far?

I guess I'll try to curb my excitement about the next game I play . I admit it, I'm an impatient person. I waited through the queue, I waited through the confirms stage, and I was just happy about getting into the game.

It is pretty much just grasping at straws.

But also to test reactions, like Fircoal stepping up to defend you. That could at some point become useful information.

[VitaminR]

(I am going to reduce the quote size a bit to make this more readable.)

But also to test reactions, like Fircoal stepping up to defend you. That could at some point become useful information.

The only reason I defended him, was because it didn't seem like a scum post. Just what I think.

It certainly isn't something that'll really count against you in my mind. I'm just explaining why I voted based on something that is not really concrete evidence.

[VitaminR]

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.

[VitaminR]

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

I don't really see it as a significant tell.

[VitaminR]

My vote is now also based on:
1) Your defense of Fircoal.
2) Your eagerness to vote me.

[VitaminR]

Did I really defend Fircoal? I thought I was more defending myself, by speaking out against the sort of logic that was being used against both of us. Honestly, Fircoal hasn't really said much in the game to make me think much, either way.

Could you show me how is it the logic that has been used against you?

Because you're innocent, obviously, right?

Well, yeah. 8)

I'm still new to this game. I'm trying to get a feel for the right directions to take. Maybe my attack on VitaminR was weak. I still think his attack on me was weak. At least I'm willing to admit it, and back down for the moment.

More than anything, I'm keeping my vote on you and picking at your actions to see how you respond (and others). I'm not anywhere near convinced that you're scum. Honestly, your posts seem pretty transparent and helpful overall. I am definitely re-evaluating my suspicions.

The thing that is keeping my vote on you at the moment is mostly the strong sense of connection between Fircoal and you.

This, I'm afraid, is just strengthening that:

unvote: Azkar
Vote: Theopor_COD

You put Azkar at -1 lynch, that's a newbie game scum tactic.

While I don't think theopor_COD's conviction is warranted, putting Azkar at -1 is not really all that significant. One of the votes on him was a random vote by you, who has clearly stipulated that he does not agree with the suspicion on Azkar (and therefore would not support a lynch). Also, anyone hammering Azkar this quickly would come under close scrutiny. It is not all that dangerous.

[VitaminR]

Maybe it was a more tenuous link than I thought it was, at the time. But that's the only point I remember saying much of anything about Fircoal.

I do think you're right in that they stem from the same tack of reasoning. I definitely see them as separate, though. Firstly, intuitions about the sincerity of a post play an important role. Secondly, Fircoal's comment was different. It was unprompted and defensive and it stood out. Your first post was essentially the perfect townie post. They are both falling back on what is "safe," but in ways that I think should be distinguished.

That's all fairly irrelevant, since I do see how you would not have necessarily been defending Fircoal in attacking that.

Thanks for explaining your current reasonings. I can see how the perceived connection between two players can be seen as suspicious. It seems a pretty obvious tell, though, and a really poor strategic move to show that much public support for a scum-buddy. It was nice having at least one person sticking up for me, but I don't pretend to know his motivations. I'm sure Fircoal can provide more insight into his thought processes than I can.

It is a poor strategic move, but I have (or had) no way of gauging whether or not you or Fircoal are sound strategic players. 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 would definitely like to hear more from Fircoal about his theopor vote, though.

I would also like to hear from Avinyl and Seol.

[VitaminR]

I voted Theopor_Cod, because he put Azkar at -1, and a newbie, but to you it may not seem like much of a problem but it stood out more to me. If we allow people to put someone at -1 lynch, the scum can lynch that person, making in 2:3 on the 2nd day, I don't want that to happen.

The point is that scum would give themselves away by doing that, which is not worth lynching a townie. A pro-town player should never hammer in that situation.

Btw, Azkar, what did you make of theopor's vote?

[VitaminR]

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.

(emphasis mine)

I fully admit that I have been creating the polarisation, like I attempted to indicate there. I wanted to see how Fircoal and Azkar would respond to being linked. It allows me to pressure two people at the same time.

In that, I've become reasonably convinced that Azkar is not scum (although I'm in no way sure about Fircoal, which is why I've kept my vote on Azkar).

The way Azkar has responded has been very balanced overall and I don't feel like he has reacted like scum. He hasn't tried to shift the blame or defend himself to death. I also think the manner in which he stepped away from his initial vote of me was distinctly pro-town. It is very easy to respond to an attack with an attack.

Unvote: Azkar

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.

The point is that scum would give themselves away by doing that, which is not worth lynching a townie. A pro-town player should never hammer in that situation.

Taking the step from "A pro-town player

should

never hammer" to "A pro-town player

never

hammers" is a pretty big leap. (Actually, looks like others have also harped on this.)

Very true, but, to a large extent, assuming that they are the same will make the latter true.

[VitaminR]

I don't see VR's earlier post to be making a joke out of anything, and I doubt anyone else did. And if someone casts suspicion on me, yeah I'm going to try and explain my perspective. I don't think it would be good for anyone if I just tried to skirt the issue.

I can see how it can be read as less than absolutely serious, though. The phrasing is a bit over the top ("ultra-townie smilie," for instance) and we were essentially still in the random voting stage.

I get the feeling that theopor's found himself with some doubt cast on him, and is trying really hard to try and justify his past actions. It doesn't really seem sincere to me, though.

I have to say I disagree. He explained his vote then too.

[quote="Azkar"That puts theopor at lynch -1. I think we've had enough discussion here about premature hammering that I can trust no one will do so?[/quote]
I'm definitely not going to hammer him.

Argh... now I'm doubting Azkar again.

[VitaminR]

Very true, but, to a large extent, assuming that they are the same will make the latter true.

I disagree entirely. There are a number of counterfactuals against this line of reasoning as well.

I think that would be an interesting discussion. I must admit I haven't given it that much thoughts and I would to hear your reasoning. It wouldn't be that appropriate for the game, though. Perhaps through PM afterwards? If that would not be too much trouble, anyway.

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.

I thought you

did

indicate that in your post.

In the original post, I did try to in the wording, but it could have been clearer.

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.

(emphasis mine)

[VitaminR]

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.

[VitaminR]

He remembered me!

*swoons*

No worries, we all have busy weeks.

[VitaminR]

Theopor, it may sound definite, but I just don't think you're scum. I don't know why, because you're not really making a great deal of sense.

[VitaminR]

I'd still like to see Seol address my defence.

[VitaminR]

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. 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.

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

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.

[VitaminR]

VitaminR does not stand for what he says.

I take it this means you agree with Seol? I'd like to hear it if you have any additional reasons to vote me.

[VitaminR]

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!

[VitaminR]

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").

It wasn't meant to be accusatory. In my head, it was just a clarification.

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.'

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.

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.

[VitaminR]

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?

It borders on being tautological, yes. I suppose the way I see it as that comments like that can reveal more about someone's sincerity than the way they attack someone. Also, in a general sense, someone who posts something like that is relatively more likely to be insincere. That is why I think the logic does apply. That does not, however, allow for individual variation, i.e. subjective judgement.

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.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this properly, but this is how I see it.

[VitaminR]

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?

I think so, because I do agree that my perception of his sincerity made it not a tell for me. I don't, however, think that invalidates the logic.

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?

That is exactly what I'm doing. I believe the logic to be fully internally consistent.

Fircoal, a brief summary of events:

- Thesp voted you for the way you stressed that you were pro-town.
- I then explained the logic behind that.
- Azkar attacked me for using that line of logic on him too.
- I stated that I actually didn't feel it applied in this case.

Seol's case against me (with my responses in italics):

- In originally explaining the logic, I did not say that I did not feel it applied. By doing this, I endorsed the logic and strengthened the case against you.

I agree with Seol on this. I should have made it clear in the original post.

- I presented an argument that I didn't support.

It was intended as an explanation and not as an attack. Also, I do agree with the logic behind it.

- I agree with the logic, but do not follow it through (i.e. attack Fircoal).

My gut reaction to your post was that it was sincere. That overrides the logic for me.

Seol, do you feel this captures the debate fairly?

[VitaminR]

As far as the recent back-and-forth between Seol and VR ... I'm still not really sure what to make of it. Seol makes some valid points. I did initially find VR's earlier attack/explanation (wording depending on who's side you're taking) to be suspicious - hence my earlier VR vote. It's possible VR's later posts explaining that it wasn't really an attack really

were

an act to distance himself from a poorly executed attack.

The problem is that it wasn't a poorly executed attack. I see it as good logic and I could have easily used it as a platform to attack Fircoal from. It would have even been more consistent with my attack on you. If I had wanted to attack Fircoal, I don't see why I wouldn't have done it in the original post. Perhaps to divert attention away from myself and not be held accountable, but that does not really seem consistent with my subsequent focus on a perceived link between Fircoal and you.

[VitaminR]

The problem is that it wasn't a poorly executed attack. I see it as good logic and I could have easily used it as a platform to attack Fircoal from.

Now, Fircoal's certainly guilty of making a useless circular defence, but I don't

really

see how it becomes an assertion of pro-townieness. Maybe I'm reading things from a slightly different perspective, but the first defence from Fircoal came accross to me as, "It didn't seem suspicious to me." The second defence just restated the first. It was a non-defence, really. He doesn't explain

why

he didn't find it suspicious, just that he didn't.

I agree with you. The point is that a non-defence

is

an assertion of pro-townness. The reason why it is a non-defence is because we assume that every player only defends posts when they didn't find it suspicious. That is the assumption of townieness.

Fircoal and theopor, did the summary help at all? I could try again.

Upon re-reading, Seol has become my nr. 1 suspect. He has focused pretty strongly on me and it bothers me that he has mostly only commented on the other players in this game when asked specifically about one of them.

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. 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.

Avinyl is probably nr. 2. I agree with theopor's questions about his vote. On the whole, though, he has not posted that much and I can't really say I've seen enough of him to get a read on him.

Vote: Seol

[VitaminR]

I'm going to lump these questions together:

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

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?

I'd expect to hear that your position hasn't changed. I'd expect some sort of attempt to put it into perspective with regards to the rest of the game. Your point is only worth as much as how it relates to your suspicions of other people. That is what I meant. 'Movement' was an ill-chosen word. 'Fluidity of suspicion' would perhaps have been more accurate (also: it sounds fancy).

[VitaminR]

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

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

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.

[VitaminR]

My suspicions of VitaminR are that he was arguing a point which he disagreed with. It's also that he just feels suspicious. I am very bad at deciding who seems most suspicious, so I usually just go with what feels right. I am not 100% sure that he is mafia, not even 5%, but i have to vote someone.

That actually makes your stance a lot more understandable to me.

[VitaminR]

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

Theopor, your awful play just seemed sincerely clumsy to me. It didn't seem manipulative, just like someone who wasn't exactly sure what he was doing. I still don't think you're scum.

The fishing...

Fircoal: he voted you and I wanted him to explain it more. I don't think a third vote early in a newbie game is necessarily a scum tell and I wanted him to back it up with reasoning.
Azkar: I thought his reading of someone voting for him could reveal a lot about his alignment.
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 think you have turned it around and you pulled up some good analysis. Don't fault yourself if you end up lynching me, I screwed up as an IC here, I think.

[VitaminR]

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.

[VitaminR]

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.

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

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 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.

[VitaminR]

Fircoal is definitely not scum.

It's Seol and Azkar, I'm fairly sure. That's just gut, though. I don't really expect anyone to follow me at this point.

[VitaminR]

It wasn't an elaborate plan to catch anyone but I stand by my last post, I just think townies however experienced have to view me as scum or had to at any least, nowhere have you even discussed the idea that I'm looking the most guilty, it's like your trying to push a lynch on someone else because you know I'm town, I think the plan was to lynch someone else maybe Soel, (mind I'm not sure on him, he could easily be your scum partner) and then get me easily lynched tomorrow, I'm maybe miles off there, but your defence of me just doesn't look like anything a townie would do. I think you'd get respect if you hammered me pages ago.

Maybe, but it would have been stupid. Perhaps it is highly irrational, but I just don't think you're scum!

I can't really explain it, I can't make it much clearer. I'm not going to pretend I think you're scum because I can't back it up with logic.

If I was trying to push a lynch on anyone, I've really handled it the wrong way. I said I'm not going to hammer you in such definite terms that it would look strange if I changed my mind on Day 2. My Seol vote was way too late and at a point where my credibility in this game was pretty much gone anyway.

I don't have a plan and I genuinely just happen to think you're not scum.

[VitaminR]

Fircoal is definitely not scum.

It's Seol and Azkar, I'm fairly sure. That's just gut, though. I don't really expect anyone to follow me at this point.

Seol maybe, but I don't think that Azkar is scum.

I thought that too, initially. They've avoided each other so neatly, though. They've barely commented on each other's behaviour. Seol avoided the Azkar wagon, Azkar has avoided the Seol/me debate.

[VitaminR]

No, he did. He commented on it. He didn't take a stand, though.

[VitaminR]

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

Sorry for all the double posts, I'm mostly posting on the cuff here.

[VitaminR]

He's the only one I'm not that sure about. I'm reasonably certain neither Avinyl, theopor or you are scum.

The way he FOSed Seol seemed sincere and, if scum, it was not really in his interests to divert any attention to a suspect who seems unlikely to be lynched. Theopor, Azkar and me make much easier targets.

I think he is pro-town at this point.

[VitaminR]

This post:

I know i definitely meant to write that theopor_COD put Azkar at lynch -1. Why did i write Fircoal? I really have to sleep more.
I didn't want to put the last vote on you, not because it would seem suspicious, but because i don't want this day to end too soon. My suspicions of VitaminR are that he was arguing a point which he disagreed with. It's also that he just feels suspicious. I am very bad at deciding who seems most suspicious, so i usually just go with what feels right. I am not 100% sure that he is mafia, not even 5%, but i have to vote someone.

He can freely cite that he agrees with Seol or that my attack on Azkar was suspicious. The fact that he admits to not being sure about that and the fact that he bases on gut to a large extent make it seem sincere.

For scum, there would be some perfectly plausible reasons to hide behind there. He doesn't need to make his position that weak or his vote that open to criticism.

As for Thesp, theopor and me, I suppose, but the crucial thing to me is not who he was diverting attention away from, it is the fact that he need not have pulled Seol to the forefront. If he's scum, it makes justifying a vote needlessly difficult to choose Seol over others.

[VitaminR]

Yeah, that was my cunning plan.

I call three players pro-town, and then I'm scum for not being absolutely sure on the fourth one?

[VitaminR]

Well if we listen to you then Azkar and Soel are the scum partners, right?

Yes and I do definitely think Thesp is likely to be pro-town. A big contributing factor, however, is also that I don't think an Azkar-Thesp pair or a Seol-Thesp pair is likely from the way they've interacted.

[VitaminR]

Yes and I do definitely think Thesp is likely to be pro-town. A big contributing factor, however, is also that I don't think an Azkar-Thesp pair or a Seol-Thesp pair is likely from the way they've interacted.

What interactions?

Seol-Thesp: Thesp's attacks on Seol, mainly.
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.

[VitaminR]

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.

Mixed response to this post.

Pro-townish: He doesn't capitalise on the wagon building against me, which is an easy route to follow.
Scummy: Theopor is at 2 now (Fircoal unvoted), I don't think he need claim. Also, I don't the like theopor wagon at all.

[VitaminR]

Does that mean you'll follow me on Seol?

[VitaminR]

Yay!

[VitaminR]

Nobody hammer theopor. He is pro-town.

Seol is scum trying to push two mislynches (theopor and me). He is setting up two distinctly separate wagons.

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.

I have to go to university now, but I'll go through Seol's post in more detail this afternoon.

[VitaminR]

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.

Azkar, whose vote it is also based on, hasn't posted in ages and hasn't even acknowledged theopor's defence yet!

[VitaminR]

Right, I'm back from uni. I'll address Seol's latest post and then dig into his earlier ones.

You're stating that like it's fact.

What makes you so sure?

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.

The same thing goes for him messing up reasons for voting Azkar earlier in the game. He could have got away with hiding behind my reasons. The fact that he confused his reasons is strange, but it does not serve a purpose for scum.

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

I don't think you are. You are voting people who are not behaving like scum.

I

set up

the theopor wagon?

That was a fairly rushed post. Picking at my phrasing has very little use, you know.

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.

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.

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.

Avinyl has barely posted, and has definitely not commented on theopor's defence. Azkar has not posted since theopor posted that defence. Thesp didn't even know how many votes theopor had.

You got a quick and easy claim off a newbie and it was scummy.

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.

In game terms, we're at each other's throats, but I'd like not to breed any ill-feeling.

[VitaminR]

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. Theopor hasn't done that. 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.

Reactions to Seol

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?

It seemed pretty ambiguous to me. I think you were intentionally vague in order to not give a statement of position.

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.

Heh.

I meant "should" as in assuming that your position had changed, which you indicated.

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

A Paragraph on Avinyl

There's another reason why I think he's pro-town. It relies on the assumption that Seol is scum, but that is fairly fortified in my mind. Avinyl joined Seol on the wagon on me, citing his reasons. That amount of deference is too obvious for scum, I think.

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.

[VitaminR]

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

What theopor quoted was much later into the game in my head, for some reason.

I'll clarify.

Seol, what do you think of theopor_COD?

I'd like to hear this too.

This was quite early on and it was because Seol had only commented on one aspect of the Azkar wagon, his suspicions of me.

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.

[VitaminR]

Next, VR's starting to worry me, some. His attack on Seol for (apparently) not restating his position at the conclusion of their debate comes off as a little contrived. I think Seol made his position fairly clear, and it doesn't reflect well on VR to try and indicate otherwise.

It came across that way to me. It's a part of trying to explain why the fact that he seemed so focused on me seemed scummy. It's getting a lot more attention than it deserves, really.

It's mostly that I feel compelled to respond to every part of a post (lest I leave anything unrefuted) that some things get pulled to the forefront that shouldn't be. A lot of the back and forth between Seol and me is essentially fluff.

All this focus on Seol's request for a claim seems odd. Theopor had been at lynch -1 for quite a while, with two others willing to vote if it wouldn't cause a lynch. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for a claim. Fircoal's unvoted, but that's irrelevant to the request for claim, since the unvote was

after

theopor's non-claim.

I don't think so. Half of those voters hadn't acknowledged theopor's defence and his defence made a visible difference to some players in the game.

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'm afraid I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw, here. I'd think ignoring the wagon

completely

would be a more suspicious act than at least acknowledging it, if maybe a little late.

That's what I was arguing. It is so much more suspicious (if you are scum), that it makes Thesp and you an unlikely scum pair in my eyes.

Nothing really overtly scummy here, but Azkar's post and opinions are definitely in line with what I'd expect in the case of a Seol-Azkar scum pair.

[VitaminR]

Seol's a very good debater. He's probably either being very helpful or very unhelpful.

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

I think that sums up Soel perfectly, he's damn good town or scum! Mind VR isn't far behind, one of them is very good at lieing.

Definitely, Seol's an awesome debater.

I re-read and Seol's request for a claim wasn't as strong as I thought it was. Doesn't change my point, but it seems only fair to mention it.

Also, Azkar, it is important to realise that none of the other voters were up to speed with the game. There was really not enough justification to ask for a claim.

I'm stressing it because I'm worried theopor will get lynched because there's not a lot of risk involved. I don't want to see another easy newbie lynch that, in my opinion, really isn't justified.

I forget to comment on one thing in Seol's posts earlier.

VitaminR is not far off level with theopor.

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

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.)

[VitaminR]

I don't think so. Half of those voters hadn't acknowledged theopor's defence and his defence made a visible difference to some players in the game.

But .. the request for claim was

before

his defence! Seol may be many things, but a prophet, I doubt. You're twisting things around. Seol made the request for claim at a point when there wasn't any reason to think anyone's position was going to change any time soon.

I was and have been referring to Seol's second request for a claim. The one that led to a claim.

The fact that Seol, after theopor posted a defence after the first request that led to an unvote,

just repeated the request

, despite not having heard from Avinyl or you, only makes it worse.

[VitaminR]

Theopor was in a situation where just about everyone in the game found him very suspicious. It's a point in the game where it's generally considered appropriate and neccessary to claim. He was

told

by one of the players that it would be a good time to claim. Instead, though, he deliberately avoided claiming. It makes it look like he's got something to hide.

That said .. I think you're blowing the claim thing out of proportion. From the games I've read, it's not at all abnormal to ask for a claim in the situation theopor was in. Nor were Seol's requests particularly urgent: "I think a claim is probably in order," and "I still think a claim is appropriate." No, "You need to claim, now," or "Claim now, or someone is going to lynch you," etc.

What I'm used to this is giving the player a final chance to defend themselves. That is how I see this situation. Theopor does some scummy things, people vote him and then you get to a point where he has to make his big defence. If that doesn't convince anyone, he claims.

I have acknowledged that his requests weren't particularly urgent, but they definitely implied a way of seeing the game (not waiting for you or Avinyl, ignoring theopor's defence because it is not a stellar display of logic, based in honesty) that I don't agree with and that I honestly find scummy.

It's a pattern I'm seeing in your attacks on Seol, picking at small things, and twisting them out of proportion.

I could very well be attaching undue importance to some things. When you see someone as scum, everything they do becomes scummy.

I don't think that's predominantly the case, though. I don't think I've grossly misrepresented Seol's actions. If you don't agree with me, that's okay, I don't expect you to, but there is a difference between that and your characterisation of my attacks.

Azkar, I've noticed you're basically doing Seol's end of the defending. I also find it fairly unsurprising that I'm high on your list of suspects. In fact, judging by your recent list, you should pretty much be voting me.

[VitaminR]

I don't know .. I wouldn't have said there was much to get up to speed on, at that point. There was a lot of back-and-forth between you and Seol, but it wasn't really anything new.

I don't see how you can say that. It was enough for Fircoal to unvote. Also, it was a couple of pages. That is essentially half the game.

[VitaminR]

Azkar, I've noticed you're basically doing Seol's end of the defending.

Well, I'm trying to point out how your recent actions have come across to me. I can't really do that without bringing them up, and since the lion's share of your recent actions have been attacks towards Seol ...

Fair enough.

You do seem to pick his side in every single detail of it, though. You seem to disagree with me completely on all of it.

[VitaminR]

Sorry, I think we were talking about different stages of the game, again. I thought you were talking about the first request, since you had said, "There was really not enough justification to ask for a claim." The second time around, the request was already been out there, so I didn't think that statement applied .. .

That attitude is exactly what bothers me. Assuming that the justification still holds ignores everything that happened in the meantime, when there were strong indicators that the general consensus could change significantly.

[VitaminR]

Yeah, I did the same thing and assumed you were talking about the second.

[VitaminR]

I have a couple of really busy uni days. I don't have the time to post anything substantial in any of my games, but it is definitely coming once I do.

[VitaminR]

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.

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.

I just don't understand the inconsistency. It is not difficult to avoid from his point of view. He could have easily hid behind my reasons for pushing Azkar. I honestly don't think it's that telling.

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.

He was referring to 167 and 168.

I felt referring characterising that as "he's scum and he's attacking me" was unfair.

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?

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.

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."

Also, what is BWCS?

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

It was an impression of your behaviour that gradually formed during the debate. Also, I don't really see how you can excuse yourself from not pointing who you find scummy by saying: 'Nobody asked.'

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.

What you did was not drawing an obvious connection between the two of you, though. Avoiding a wagon is something that a lot of players do. Defending another player and attacking their attacker is likewise common. They're subtle connections. That is the distinguishing factor.

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.

I'd think they'd correlate in his perception.

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?

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.

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.

I can't argue with that, considering the amount of players who have me near the top of their list.

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.

Righto. I've omitted some of my responses (which was difficult, because it means granting you the final word on some things ).

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.

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. 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.

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

I feel there's more than enough to analyse in this game.

[VitaminR]

I don't feel great about it, and don't make this decision lightly, but I'm going to ask to be replaced. It's nothing to do with this individual game, or the people involved. I just feel that the game of mafia isn't going to be a good fit for me, in terms of time and focus commitments.

I've found it harder and harder, lately, to gather the time and interest to go through the ever-growing number of posts in the game, and make meaningful contributions. I'd wanted to stick it out to the end of this game, at least, but I'm thinking that might be a far ways off . I think it'll be better for the game to have a set of participants that are all able to give the game the interest and attention it deserves.

I know it's an inconvenience, so I'm sorry for that . Good luck to everyone, though.

That's a real shame. I enjoyed playing with you.

I hope I get another chance to get you lynched someday.

[VitaminR]

Fircoal, what proof do you mean?

I'm going to start with sympathy plays and I'll see if I find the time to respond to the other points later.

Sympathy Plays

VitaminR

Let's look at the actual posts:

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

This was a fairly rushed reply in a mood of frustration because the wagon on me was building, but I'll agree with you that the emotion is unnecessary.

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

Mostly a response to theopor, but again unnecessary. It was posted mostly in a mood of dejection, because getting lynched as a pro-town IC in a newbie is letting the other players down. Both of these were not needed, though, and you could see them as aiming to detract from the wagon on me.

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

I really didn't and this was intended to indicate that this post was something I wanted to leave behind for the town to look back to when I turn up town. At that time, I had not properly established worked out my suspicions in my head. This was mostly gut feeling.

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

That was not intended as emotion. I thought was true. If I had planned to build a case against you, I mistimed it completely. I don't think the last two are that directly "poisonous" and even if you read them as manipulative, their aim is pretty indirectly beneficial.

The fact that it was posted in quick succession (all on one day) and in a fairly unplanned way (see all the double posts) should indicate that this was in no way a deliberate attempt to use emotion to win people over. I don't see how you can draw that strong a conclusion from this evidence even if you do think that.

theopor

He did explain his actions, or attempt to explain his actions. Whether or not that suffices for you, whether or not there is enough logical consistency in it, is a different matter to me. We have to keep individuals in mind here. It fits what I've seen from theopor.

It's so heavy in his defence post that I can't see it as manipulative. It's very ineffective manipulation if it is intentional.

[VitaminR]

The change of stance thing is not all that crucial to me and I don't think we'll get much further with a debate about it. I don't think your opinion should have changed, and you do. That doesn't seem liable to change.

Requesting Theopor's Claim

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.

By responding to these points separately, you've managed to dodge the point (and you are effectively arguing that getting someone to claim is not beneficial to scum, something that truly surprises me).

If he's a townie, points 2, 3 and 4 apply.
If he has a power role, point 1 applies. You know who to night-kill.

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.

It still applies. "Where there's smoke, there's fire." It's an unfortunate truth, but accusation, and especially the formal consolidation of accusation, will create a bias in perception.

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.

You got a claim off theopor in an incautious manner. That is my basis. I don't think your actions fit pro-town motives. As a result, I think they were motivated by the above points.

[VitaminR]

Thank you

I just printed out all 50 pages of this thread so I should be good to go on catching up tonight. I find it easier to flip real pages than scrolling around and hopping from tab to tab.

Plus I can use my highlighter and make nifty charts and stuff

Charts!

I now expect to see something shiny and dynamic. It should have arrows and stuff, at the very least.

Scum Hunting via Pairings

I think I can safely sum up your position as the following (as your other points rely on the assumption of fallaciousness):

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.

I would disagree. Reasoning on scum pairings is looking at certain behavioural tells that scum partners can display. The weight you attach to these tells can vary, but exclusion is ignoring a potential source of information.

The weighting correlates with how definite an assumption about a player's alignment you're inclined to make. Using judgements about the certainty of your suspicions, scum pairing need not be a fallacious tool at all, but rather a way of judging your certainty by following it to an extreme (i.e. Is there a plausible scum partner? Are there behavioural tells?).

Btw, as far as I am concerned the first post of this game might as well read:

Alive (7)

Avinyl
Azkar
Fircoal
Seol - Mafia
theopor_COD
Thesp
VitaminR

This is also why I feel fairly free to use scum pairing as a tool. I feel I have certainty.

[VitaminR]

I don't think the call for the claim was in the least bit suspicious. I don't think scum would be more likely to make that request than town would be at all.

Do you agree that it wasn't warranted at the time, though?

Seol, VitaminR, do you think scum are more likely to make sympathy plays than town? (I don't mean to limit the question to only those two, anyone else with experience on the matter is welcome to weigh in.)

Nope, pro-town players are just as likely to get frustrated over being attacked as scum are, if not more likely because they're not supposed to get themselves into that situation. It does depend on the player, however, and how they deal with different situations. The atmosphere of a game is also an important variable.

I know that I'm more likely to post them when I'm pro-town (I try to shy away from dishonest emotion), for instance.

[VitaminR]

Thesp, could you explain this in more detail?

After a mildly-thorough re-read, I think it's time for me to change my tune.

Unvote: thopor_cod, Vote: Fircoal.

His approach seems as though it would be more advantageous coming from scum than from town, and doesn't feel genuine to me. I'm still leery of Seol, and still don't agree with the VitaminR hate. I had a feeling of a Fircoal/Seol pairing, but I have doubts of that after a cursory view of votecounts.

And address this:

Fircoal what do you make of Thesp's point?

I don't know why he thinks I'm scum, and how he can clear VitaminR, with the proof we have.

Also, Fircoal, I'd still like to know what proof you meant.

[VitaminR]

No worries, take your time.

[VitaminR]

These posts are from the 19th and within ~30 minutes of each other. It was the day you were posting emotionally (sympathy plays some called them), if I recall my reading correctly.

I'm curious how you can state with absolute certainty Fircoal is not scum. Why did you fall back to 'reasonably certain'?

I didn't fall back. It was just a blanket phrase. I'm not equally certain about all of them. That would be strange.

I don't know why I can be that certain Fircoal is not scum. I am, though.

It might be weak a weak tell, but the only two people who can say that someone is definitely not scum are the scum and it was during a period when you admitted to posting off the cuff (post 137) so I feel it is more likely to mean something.

Yeah, giving no justification and stating with certainty that people are not scum is useful for scum. Never mind the fact that I've severely restricted my ability to get people lynched. I have forced myself to pressure either you or Seol. As scum, you need two lynches to win. That means I have no leeway anywhere, if I'm scum.

Also, why would I draw needless amounts of attention to myself stating things like that with certainty? I've received two or three votes for my certainty by now.

I could just say "his analysis has been useful, I'm getting a pro-town vibe off Fircoal." No responsibility, no content and I'd be free to jump on him if someone pointed out something scummy that I had 'missed.'

I'm not surprised by your vote at all, though.

Doesn't it strike anyone as somewhat odd that both Azkar and gorckat find themselves disagreeing with me completely?

[VitaminR]

What I'm saying is that you

slipped

. You didn't do it because it helped you. You did it because you were posting "off the cuff" and frequently.

Let's just assume for a moment that it was a slip. It isn't, it's just ambiguous phrasing, but I'd like to make a point. How does that help me? Have I used it anywhere to argue against Fircoal? Has my stance concerning Fircoal changed? Have I indicated any sort of change in my perception of Fircoal anywhere?

I don't get how this is damning evidence, or evidence of any sort really.

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?

(Emphasis mine)

I agree with the bolded part.

You're ignoring my defence here, given after that statement. That is a bit unfair.

Here is the gist of it:

What you did was not drawing an obvious connection between the two of you, though. Avoiding a wagon is something that a lot of players do. Defending another player and attacking their attacker is likewise common. They're subtle connections. That is the distinguishing factor.

[VitaminR]

On the contrary, I think the call for the claim was entirely warranted.

Looking at the other votes on the wagon and the way the pressure on theopor has subsequently developed, I still think it was premature at best. But let's get not into another discussion about that.

What precisely do you think warrants further explanation?

The reasons for your Fircoal vote.

[VitaminR]

I'd still like to see gorckat explain why my slip was telling.

[VitaminR]

Yeah, I've read that article. That refers to a slip, though. Jeep wasn't referring to something intentional. Nowhere did I intend to call Fircoal anything but a pro-town player.

[VitaminR]

Yeah, I've read that article. That refers to a slip, though. Jeep wasn't referring to something intentional. Nowhere did I intend to call Fircoal anything but a pro-town player.

Also, I'd still like to know what purpose my slip served, according to you.

Fircoal, I don't think it's fair to say that theopor picked you. He has repeatedly stated the reasoning that led him to suspect you. Also, you're not the easiest target. Thesp may have his vote on you, but his reasoning is still non-transparent. I have Avinyl and gorckat voting for me, with Seol more than ready to join if theopor were to show willingness to vote me.

Theopor, your theory relies on the thought that an experienced player could argue themselves out of a lynch. The problem with that assumption is that from it follows that an experienced player could argue someone else into a lynch. Consequently, an experienced scum player would still have the experienced pro-town player(s) to contend with the following day.

So... stop attacking each other. Neither of you is scum.

[VitaminR]

I think either you or Soel could easily argue your way out of a lynch the following day especially when it was in lylo. It would make sense to kill one experienced player at night, then all it needs is one newbie townie to make a rash vote the next day on a townie and the two scum could easily pile on. It just seems a viable option. I also don't know how convincingly clear both me and Fircoal. It does seem Vitamin that you have a vendetta against Soel and to be honest I don't think either you or Soel are scum.

That's a good point. I see what you mean. I still think that makes an experienced player experienced is knowing not to play that conspicuously, though.

I've indicated why minor things that make me think you're pro-town, but mostly you just both seem sincere. Seol is very logically consistent, but his behaviour doesn't fit that of a confused townie to me. He doesn't go out of his way to build theories and ask people questions. He doesn't suddenly change his mind or come up with new things.

You come across as real pro-town players.

Vitamin what do you make of Gorckat? As I say I'm pretty leery of both Fircoal and Gorckat wouldn't have a problem voting either.

Gorckat is scummy, but I'm not as convinced as I am of Seol. He has the same sort of reactionary play and streamlined opinions, but less so.

Gorckat, what the article refers to is unintentionally calling someone a townie (for instance, in making a point about someone, i.e. 'that is scummy, he's trying to push for two townie lynches'). I intended to convey in both statements that Fircoal was pro-town, the wording was just different. That's an important difference.

[VitaminR]

How this is phrased intrigues me, and makes me happier with my vote.

Fircoal doesn't always phrase things that clearly (I hope you don't mind me saying this, Fircoal!). I don't think it's significant.

Fircoal seems to be throwing suspicion around on lots of people, trying to see where it will stick. I'm not comfortable with it.

I haven't seen this, could you point it out?

I could only find him pressuring theopor and saying that he thought Seol & me have been posting good arguments, that gorckat and you look pro-town and that Avinyl looks slightly scummy.

I also strongly, strongly disagree with sentiment that gorckat is scum, even if I'm partly colored by metagame reasons.

Thesp, I think you're pro-town, but you're going to have to start sharing your reasons.

I want to see them too!

That includes why you think I'm pro-town, why you think Fircoal is scum and why you think gorckat is pro-town.

[VitaminR]

Unfortunately, I think that will be necessary. We have a lot of information, but not a lot of consensus.

[VitaminR]

There are reasonable arguments that can be made here about context, I'm pulling out what I see so it makes you go "Hmmm....." and examine them yourself. He seems to want to keep a window of suspicion open on almost everyone. There are a few mitigating factors, but on the whole, I'm uncomfortable with his overall position (or perhaps lack thereof). Couple this with the early "methink he doth protest" and something else I'm not yet comfortable sharing (dubious tell?), I'm happiest with my vote on Fircoal.

I don't know. It really doesn't seem all that damning to me. I see that he's wavered in his suspicions a bit, but that in itself is not scummy. He hasn't really used it to wagon excessively. I mean, he's gone from pressuring theopor to unvoting and back to pressuring. I don't really see how wavering there was in his interest. In fact, if he hadn't wavered, theopor would probably have been lynched by now.

I also agree with Fircoal that what gorckat cited was taken out of context and in no real way significant. I find his reaction to the debate I had with Seol a lot more sincere than gorckat's one-sided response.

I don't like gorckat's vote either. I don't really get the new justification for it or the reasons he cited earlier.

He seems to be seeking out the right person to hang his hat on. He's got a few people down at varying degrees of trustworthiness and others he speculates on their possible scum pairs. To me, asking for other opinions isn't suspect in and of itself. But many of his posts are just a solicitation for an opinion or a brief statement of suspicion.

I think we're all seeking for the right person to hang our hat on. I don't see why the rest is suspicious.

Or this:

On the 19th his votes scatter a bit- he unvotes Theopor and FoSes VR, votes Seol and then unvotes Seol, all within ~24 hours.

I am strongly opposed to a Fircoal lynch.

[VitaminR]

My views on the VR/Seol debate were that VR went after Seol a bit more than was warranted. Seol modified his views (while remaining unsatisfied), but VR wasn't happy with how modified his views and it ended as a stalemate, I suppose. I felt VR was the aggressor in the debate, which may be coming off as a "one-sided" view.

Initially, Seol accused me, but I agree the roles changed around somewhat. I do think I'm more certain in my suspicions (he's keeping his options open more) and more aggressive as a result.

Thesp, I hate to pressure you for reasons, but I'm going to have to see something substantial for you to change my mind on gorckat.

At this point, I would suggest a Seol lynch.

[VitaminR]

I'll summarise my position. Perhaps that will bring clarity.

I think that Fircoal and you have been inconsistent, all over the place and outright confusing at times. Thesp has been reticent about his reasons and adamant on clearing people he doesn't need to clear.

Avinyl strikes me as a townie, because he follows people too blatantly, but I don't have that much to back up my certainty here. I wouldn't want him lynched, but I can't really explain why.

Both Seol and gorckat have not really defended anyone and been quite streamlined in their reasoning. Their views seem constructed. I think they are the informed majority.

Especially the way they've consistently disagreed with all my points really strikes me as insincere. There is no leeway or second-guessing their own suspicions.

I'm definite Seol is scum. I'm almost certain gorckat is too.

[VitaminR]

At this point, I would suggest a Seol lynch.

I'd settle for that if we had to, but I still think Fircoal is better.

I'm ok with a Seol, or Theopor_COD lynch. MAybe Avinyl, too. I still think that Theopor_COD is the scummiest, and Seol is close to that.

I see a solution here!

[VitaminR]

"Clearing people he doesn't need to clear"? Huh?

I.e. saying that you're strongly opposed to a VitaminR or gorckat lynch.

gorckat's predecessor came off as townie to me, and I do not think a scum Azkar would have asked to be replaced. (Sometimes I hate metagame reasons, but I can't ignore them.)

Perhaps that would be true if he hadn't asked to be replaced in another game, but he essentially quit mafia all together. This was his only game. If time constraints were truly a factor (as he said), I don't think his alignment would matter that much.

[VitaminR]

Meh, that relies on how you experience the game. I personally find it much easier to post when town than when mafia, although it depends on the atmosphere of the game.

Essentially, when town you don't have to make up suspicions either. It works both ways.

[VitaminR]

We now have about a day to go before the deadline.

I suggest we start looking at a compromise soon, so we don't end up rushing too much.

I'll support a Seol and gorckat lynch. I'd much prefer a Seol one and I think that's the compromise we should be heading towards here. Of course, I am biased.

[VitaminR]

I've been waiting for that too, but the deadline is creeping awfully close.

If anything, we need to allow for time to claim.

[VitaminR]

I think Seol has posted on the site, but I don't think that's an indicator of anything. There is a lot to respond to and read here.

[VitaminR]

Okay... now this was what I was hoping to avoid.

I'm not going to be the third vote on the theopor or Fircoal wagon.

I really want a Seol lynch. Please?

[VitaminR]

Hello?

[VitaminR]

Yay!

[VitaminR]

Yay!

Well-done, theopor. Was I "the voice from the dead"?

When I saw gorckat claim cop, I actually thought "there'd better be a real cop in the game, I don't want to lose this."

I really enjoyed this game.

Thanks for modding, MeMe!

[VitaminR]

I agree! I think we had some very good newbie players in this game.

[VitaminR]

Woo!