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

[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.

[Azkar]

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.

Well, whether the request was still justified at that point, it was still out there. I'm not suggesting I went through a conscious thought process to decide which statement you were referring to; I just assumed it was the first, based on how I interpretted the situation. If you had said "ask again" or anything along those lines, I would've interpretted differently.

[VitaminR]

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

[Azkar]

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.

Maybe .. I'll have to look over things again, when I have some uninterupted time. I know his first attack on you bothered me, somewhat. I posted a little on it, but it was resolved (well .. "resolved") before I got around to posting more,

[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.

[Fircoal]

wow, another long post, these posts make me think which of you 2 are scummier.

Unvote

[MeMe]

Vote Count

:

theopor_COD

(3):

Thesp, Azkar, Seol

Seol

(1):

VitaminR

VitaminR

(1):

Avinyl

not voting

(2):

Fircoal, theopor_COD

Lynch at four.

[Thesp]

Why is it my newbie games are my hardest ones? =P

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.

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

Curse your deductive logic!

Hmmm, seems a lot like mine, I think I need a scum list from Thesp, as he's the only one who hasn't gaven one.

If you must.

Fircoal
Seol
<tiny gap>
theopor_COD
Avinyl
<tiny gap>
Azkar
<large gap>
VitaminR

This game is starting to take up a great deal of time.

No kidding.

I'm most comfortable with a vote on Fircoal right now, though I'm not terribly comfortable with where things go from there. I would settle for a Seol lynch if necessary.

[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.

[Azkar]

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.

[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.

[theopor_COD]

This game is like War and Peace lol. I need to review some things, although Thesp's input is interesting especially considering his opinion on VR.

[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.

[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.

[Fircoal]

This is getting so confusing. Both of you make great points.

[theopor_COD]

Fircoal what do you make of Thesp's point?

[Fircoal]

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.

[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.

[MeMe]

gorckat replaces Azkar, effective immediately

~~~~~~~~~~~

And, while I'm here --

Vote Count

:

theopor_COD

(2):

gorckat, Seol

Seol

(1):

VitaminR

VitaminR

(1):

Avinyl

Fircoal

(1):

Thesp

not voting

(2):

Fircoal, theopor_COD

Still need four votes to lynch.

[gorckat]

unVote

, out of respect for theopor, since I have no idea (yet) what you did to provoke votes :p

I'll be skimming things today and tonight and will get up to speed as quickly as possible.

[Fircoal]

Welcome gorckat

[gorckat]

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

[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.

[Thesp]

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.

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.)