Mini 546: House Mafia - Game Over

[vollkan]

This game looks set to be interesting

I don't like the name "L-UNIT", so I hereby pledge my membership to the as of yet unnamed team which is not "L-UNIT"

[vollkan]

"L-Unit" has more members than "Not L-Unit".

We are not amused.

[vollkan]

Vote: Trustgossip

((Sorry for delay, been playing Phoenix Wright constantly for the last few days. I like to read up on tort law when I'm not devouring biochemistry))

Every Phoenix Wright game I have played (the first 2) is

criminal

law, not tort law. Not only are you clearly concocting an outrageous lie, but the lie involves hiding something criminal.

[vollkan]

OK so anyone want to guess what the heck the teams are for? Fives not a lynchable majority so I don't really know what purpose they could serve.

The case is divided up into two stages - "brainstorming" and "final diagnostic", with a "twist" between the two that "will affect voting mechanics, give you role abilities, or they may just be for the flavor" (according to page 1). I'd assume we are in the "brainstorming" stage at the moment. Thus, the most likely effect of the teams is to somehow impact upon the twist.

The most obvious (not really the most likely, though) result would be that the team which does not lose a player gets more/all of the twist's benefits than the team from which the lynchee comes.

[vollkan]

vollkan, do you want to be Chase or should I?

I couldn't care less. You can have him.

[vollkan]

I believe how the two "team-leaders" stepped up to rally players was an action borne of their personalities and are independent of whether they're town or scum. Pooky's nature is to lead a group of people (see Battle Royale) in courses of action. Vollkan is an excellent analyzer of behavior in both town and scum roles.

I don't quite follow your line of reasoning here. I appreciate your description of me, but how is related, as you imply it is, to me seeking to "rally players"?

was the tell volkan identified valid at all? i thought it was, plus he is on my team, so I went with it.

That was a random vote jokey thing. I didn't and don't think it is a valid tell.

[vollkan]

Apply pressure for what?

[vollkan]

Time for some argument methinks:

Dean votes TG for lurking, despite not having actually made any meaningful contribution of his own. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and peg this as a random vote...albeit for a dubious reason.

After a few noise posts, Dean states that the bandwagon on TG (3/6: Dean, voll, Adel) is a suitable size to get TG "talking". Now we have what was a random wagon being called a pressure wagon by Dean - the same Dean whose contribution to that point was basically just a string of noise.

Then, to top it off, Dean says:

my vote was to help apply pressure, the not posting for half of the thread thing was just a bit of sarcasm.

Obviously beg the question "Apply pressure over what?!". Moreover, however, Dean's vote did not "help apply pressure" - since he was the first to join the wagon and a single vote is not pressure and definitely does not "help apply pressure" (which implies that he is aiding other people, which he wasn't because he was the first).

[vollkan]

I like how Volkan is focussing suspicion on members of the other team.

It's pretty pro.

Pardon?

The only player on LU I have expressed any suspicion of was Dean - a far cry from "focussing suspicion on member

s

of the other team".

I'm about 80% sure on Adel & Shaft. 20% on Volkan. 60% Pooky. 40% Karmadog.

Could you explain what you mean here? I gather it is your certainty that players are town or scum...but I don't know which.

[vollkan]

I like how Volkan is focussing suspicion on members of the other team.

It's pretty pro.

Pardon?

The only player on LU I have expressed any suspicion of was Dean - a far cry from "focussing suspicion on member

s

of the other team".

I'm about 80% sure on Adel & Shaft. 20% on Volkan. 60% Pooky. 40% Karmadog.

Could you explain what you mean here? I gather it is your certainty that players are town or scum...but I don't know which.

Could you please respond to this Dean?

[vollkan]

Volkan is all instinct and a teeny bit the fact he diverged first form the Pooky group. But not much.

How do you figure I am "all instinct"? What does that even mean?

Moreover, why is my refusal to join LU a scumtell?

I know you only gave me 20%, but I can't see how the "all instinct" remark applies to me, or why not joining LU is a scumtell at all.

Oh, and if it wasn't noticed, my previous post was totally messed up, in that I quoted the wrong post by myself for Dean to respond to.

Dean, please respond to this:

Time for some argument methinks:

Dean votes TG for lurking, despite not having actually made any meaningful contribution of his own. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and peg this as a random vote...albeit for a dubious reason.

After a few noise posts, Dean states that the bandwagon on TG (3/6: Dean, voll, Adel) is a suitable size to get TG "talking". Now we have what was a random wagon being called a pressure wagon by Dean - the same Dean whose contribution to that point was basically just a string of noise.

Then, to top it off, Dean says:

my vote was to help apply pressure, the not posting for half of the thread thing was just a bit of sarcasm.

Obviously beg the question "Apply pressure over what?!". Moreover, however, Dean's vote did not "help apply pressure" - since he was the first to join the wagon and a single vote is not pressure and definitely does not "help apply pressure" (which implies that he is aiding other people, which he wasn't because he was the first).

OK I'd like to aim the bandwagon at you since I'm not liking some of your choices and reasoning thus far.

unvote vote: Adel

Could you elaborate a bit on this, shaft.ed?

My read of Adel is classic random wagoning. As she said, "stirring the pot". I want to know why you seem (from this post) to have actual issues with her wagoning behaviour.

[vollkan]

vollkan I think you're reading armlx's percentages backwards. He does it the opposite of you with town =0 scum =100.

The difference is actually that he seems to be doing an "innocent until proven guilty" (every starting at 0%) whereas mine is "neutral until proven either way" (with everyone starting at 50%).

As for my Adel vote, it was more a pressure vote, I didn't like her bandwagoning. But I guess your right. Meta'ing her a bit more, she seems to play like this often.

Shaft.ed, I know you're an intelligent player - smart enough to know random wagoning from dodgy vote-hopping. I find it very hard to believe that you would mistakenly take issue with Adel's wagoning - and then try and peg it on meta rather than on the fact that it was apparent random wagoning.

FoS: shaft.ed

I don't think her chaos-wagoning is a towntell or a scumtell. I see no reason, in principle, why it should be more likely to come from either.

That said, this criticism can't be applied to you alone:

The same goes for Pooky in #82. I haven't played with Pooky before, but I doubt someone with so much experience really can't distinguish chaos-causing behaviour from scummy behaviour.

TG in #85 bases it on her wagoning being team-based (I don't think this is a scumtell) and on the wagoning itself (which he says he disagrees with - not a scumtell). This position suffers from the same lack of distinction as shaft.ed's and pooky's.

I don't like any of the attacks

for

bandwagoning.

I clearly was wrong with the wording of this comment. I should have made more clear what I was referencing at the time, and that from your response I could see that you were playing for reaction.

What response are you talking about?

Also, what was your impression of Adel's wagoning when you saw fit to express your dislike of it? I want to know how it is that you failed to spot random wagoning.

I'd like Pooky and TG to answer this also.

vollkan: teeheehee, it's just a random jokey thing! Then why are you still voting me? *frowny* I hope there is a higher purpose. Also what's the deal with just having a little aside conversation with Dean for like three pages? This isn't Shakespeare.

IGMEOY: vollkan

Poor little TG doesn't like my vote: roll: There is no higher purpose. Anyway, random stage is obviously over, so

Unvote

.

Oh, and as for Dean, that's because I asked him questions which he still hasn't responded to

[vollkan]

UnFoS: shaft.ed

Good responses to the questions I asked you.

[vollkan]

What do you want me to contribute to this game other than who I think are scum?

The reasons you have for suspecting whoever it is you think is scum.

[vollkan]

And in the field of law, reasons are crucial ("Your Honour, he is guilty because I say so" is not going to go down too well)

Thus, my next question to you is:
Why is mafia more like diagnostic medicine than a court of law?

[vollkan]

Reasons are also overrated in the Law Room.

For example, let us say a man commits rape, but the police get the evidence through an illegal search.

Then they would be obligated in a court of law to let this rapist go free due to their illegal procedure.

We can not let the bindings of law constrain us, we must meet the Mafia with swift action and merciless attack.

Ah, but the example you give doesn't refute my point that reasons are crucial in law.

Even if the evidence was legitimate, the alleged felon would not be convicted unless there was a good case.

Thus, whilst you are correct that the legality of the means of gaining the reasons is also necessary, it is not sufficient because reasons are also necessary.

Let's say there are twelve people, you know that the 8 mafia are within these twelve people and the game has a total of a hundred players. If you have no way of figuring out who among those twelve are mafia, then it is a perfectly acceptable and indeed and good strategy for the town to kill all twelve of those people in order to gurantee a win for everyone.

Now consider the same scenario in a court of law, if we were to know that there are 8 criminals among twelve people but that 4 of them are completely innocent and we had no way of figuring out who was who, we would have no choice but to let them all go, we can't punish the innocent in order to insure that the guilty are also punished.

This is different in diagnostic medicine, if a patient is dying and it could be due to failures in twelve possible areas, and you know that one of those areas is causing his illness, then it is definitely a viable option to give him a blanket treatment for all possible areas.

But there are not 100 people in this town. There are 10. Town can only win if it eliminates the mafia first. To eliminate the mafia first, good reasons are necessary. Our situation is closer to the court of law one except we do have a means of finding out the scum - by giving our reasons and discussing.

Or, maybe I am wrong. How do we apply your 'diagnostic medicine' approach here in such a way that it is actually more beneficial than the 'court of law' approach?

[vollkan]

The question posed was not as to whether this game of mafia was more like diagnostic medicine but mafia in general.

But the scenario you posit (100 people and the scum are known to be among a selected 12) never comes up in the game of mafia, generally.

The obvious answer is that in Mafia, we do not need to prove guilt beyond any doubt, whereas you would need to show that in a court of law.

This is also true in diagnostic medicine, the doctors do not need to prove it is due to a specific disease or cause beyond any doubt, but rather can act on a fairly good guess.

You can apply my diagnostic medicine approach by lynching Shafted.

Obviously the evidential standard here is lower than in a criminal trial. It has to be.

Now, you say the diagnostic medicine approach simply needs a "good guess". What determines a "good guess" from a "bad guess"?

FoS: Pooky for strongly pushing a shafted lynch without voting for him

Why is "pushing a shafted lynch without voting for him" FoSworthy and not voteworthy?

[vollkan]

You didn't actually answer my question.

Now you get a new question as well:

Why was Pooky's behaviour only worthy of a FoS before Adel called you out and I questioned you, but is now worthy of a vote?

[vollkan]

Jive, for someone who is, by their own admission, "acting identifiably scummy" I find I perplexing that you aren't answering any of my questions...

...Oh wait, you're deflecting onto CKD - my mistake.

[vollkan]

catching scum, obviously.

But if you're too busy killing me, that's a wasted lynch. Since it's in the best interests of the town for the townies to be alive, self preservation/damage control has to be somewhere on my priority list, right?

Oh, really?

Anyways, I didn't initially vote for pooky because it would look like votehopping, which it basically was.

Now, if

catching scum

is "obviously" a higher priority, as you have just declared it to be, it really begs the question as to why you didn't vote Pooky initially.

If you genuinely believed Pooky to be scum, then (by your own admission) you should have voted Pooky rather than worrying about your own welfare. In reality, you only voted Pooky

after

some pressure was brought to bear on you for not voting, proving that your main concern was actually your own survival.

In other words,

Unvote (if I am...), Vote: TheJiveMachine

[vollkan]

I fail to see how that is relevant.

If you suspect someone, you vote/FoS them if the suspicion is strong enough. Fairly banal, really. (Obviously, LYLO with a risk of quick-hammer is one situation where you don't do this - but this is D1 and Pooky had no votes on him).

[vollkan]

What's your point? If the suspicion merits a vote, you vote.

FoSing rather than voting

for fear of consequences to self is no different to simply

declaring suspicion rather than voting

for fear of consequences.

I think you are trying to play word-games with this:

If you suspect someone, you vote/FoS them if the suspicion is strong enough. Fairly banal, really. (Obviously, LYLO with a risk of quick-hammer is one situation where you don't do this - but this is D1 and Pooky had no votes on him).

It should be plain enough that votes and FoSes are not equivalent. What I mean is that if you suspect someone, you vote or FoS depending on what is appropriate for the level of suspicion.

[vollkan]

Erg0
Pooky
Dean
TG
armlx

Hmm, guess it's time for a reread

[vollkan]

Results of my reread:

{For the uninitiated, my % ranking system has every person starting at 50%. Scummy behaviour pushes it up; town-tells push it down. I am very skeptical of "town tells" so it will be difficult for people to move down}

Erg0

- Hardly anything meaningful; with a lot of early randomness and set-up speculation. His only serious action is voting Dean over Dean's weird pressure thing. This nets a

60%

.

Pooky

- As with Erg0, Pooky has made no meaningful contribution. Worse still, Pooky has been making a pretty obvious effort to escalate suspicion (without making good arguments), particularly against shafted. Pooky earns a

70%

Dean

- The first thing notable here is him calling the random wagon on TG a pressure wagon to get TG talking. Ironic given Dean's contribution to that point was a string of garbage. Moreover, voting purely "to pressure" is acceptable, providing there is actually something to pressure about (which there wasn't). Also, Dean was the first to vote, so it hardly makes sense for him to say that his vote was to "help" apply pressure. A single vote doesn't "help" and a single vote does not apply pressure. And now he's vanished. Dean gets a

75%

TG

- He seems to be making a good effort in scum-hunting and has proper reasoning as well. TG gets a

50%

(I don't suspect him, but I have seen nothing which affirms the likelihood of him being town - The purpose for this bracketed explanation is that I've been attacked for giving people who I have no problems with 50% before)

armlx

- Justifies his reads with "instinct" which rubs me the wrong way - you can't argue against "instinct". He throws his vote around and doesn't give clear explanations either (for Jive, he just attacked the "=D" response, and for shaft.ed he gave nothing).

70%

So my list is:-

Dean - 75%
Pooky - 70%
armlx - 70%
Erg0 - 60%
TG - 50%

Volky has no reason to detract from his normal playing style, this could be easily consistent with his normal playing style, but that's the thing, the way he jumps on JiveMachine feels in a way like he's a wolf jumping on this poor sheep that is just geniunely confused and screwed up.

I've been told my playstyle is aggressive before. As far as Jive goes, I think my attack on him was perfectly justified: He was flip-flopping about whether he was trying to lynch scum or stay alive. His behaviour might well be the result of genuine confusion, but I don't know what is going on inside his head, so I can only judge him based upon what I see (which was scummy behaviour and dreadful justification)

Basically I think Vollkan's actions right b4 he pushes jive machine near that noose(or what he thought was lynch) feel somewhat lackluster to me, it doesn't feel like he is looking for scum, it feels like he is looking for an easy lynch.

Could you elaborate on this? I'd like to discuss this in more detail, but "lackluster" is difficult to address.

[vollkan]

I reviewed Dean in a few games and his play is pretty dreadful across the board.

Hmm, I really hate giving people a free pass for this sort of thing - but seeing as a significant proportion of this can probably be attributed to his own playstyle, I lower Dean to

65%

.

I will be keeping a close eye on his replacement, nonetheless.

[vollkan]

Also, I can see your reasonings for vollkan as I've also noticed a significant departure from his usual play,

Could you elaborate on this please?

[vollkan]

I am saying that I would think you'd like to draw more information out of Jive before voting him and that it seemed unusual to me that you would vote without asking for discussion of the matter from other players.

If this meta read of you is inaccurate please correct me.

It also means I have a healthy suspicion of you because you always seem to play pro-town no matter the alignment, and the fact that you WEREN'T one of primary contributor of good discussion worried me.

Basically I'm saying that I am disappointed :/

Sorry.

I questioned Jive. He didn't answer me and then made a swipe at CKD. Then Jive gave a dismal explanation for his behaviour which he contradicted. Thus, I voted him. I then continued discussing with him until he went all defeatist and surrendered.

I voted because his behaviour was scummy. I don't know why you think that I should have gotten more out of him before voting - voting somebody doesn't end the information-gathering process. I also don't see why I should ask for the opinion of other people before voting. I was third on the wagon and had a good reason for voting (direct contradiction). Obviously, I was prepared to discuss it with other people, but I don't know why that should necessarily come prior to voting

If you are basing this on a meta of me, I suggest you read over my play a bit more.

[vollkan]

Having, relative to other players, a reasonable number of posts which make some independent effort at scumhunting.

You've made 24 posts in this game and only one (the post where you question me) shows any real depth of reasoning.

I can't say whether your other post actually

are

pointless. It might all just be chaotic behaviour. However, I don't see you asking questions or giving reasoning (you argued with me on this very point) and that is something which will always pull my suspicion.

[vollkan]

One) What exactly do your %'s mean?

As I said, each person starts at 50%. Behaviour that is scummy moves that upwards, towards 100%. Behaviour that is a town-tell moves that downwards towards 0%. Nulltells have no effect.

2) What makes you conclude I have made no effort at scum hunting?

A serious lack of targeted questions or reasoned attacks.

3) What makes you conclude that scumhunting has to be done a certain way?

Nothing; I don't make that conclusion.

Each to her own and all that. However, if someone's play strikes me as pointless, then it is akin to active lurking unless and until they are able to justify it to me.

4) Does the amount of scumhunting present a definitive corrolation towards the probability of being scum? what has led you to conclude this? where is the evidence?

No statistical evidence.

Scum have more of a motivation than town to go with the flow and to avoid exposing themselves by posting in-depth reasoning. Thus, by hounding and pressuing players who behave in such a way I hope to force them to respond and play in such a way that they actually add something valuable to the discussion (even if only to lash out at me; it still sparks argument).

[vollkan]

Cross-posted.

one) mafia hate saying things like I believe X is innocent because then they can't bus X, mafia is more comfortable with making it so that everybody is suspicious so they can pick and choose which one to bus. By choosing to focus on bumping people above 50% to make them alll look moderately suspicious, Volk does a fairly poor job of finding out who is more likely to be town, and let's face it most of us are town.

I find it interesting that volkan belives that scumtells exist but has a tougher time accepting "town tells" I would like to know why.

You can meta-check me on this. I rarely put people below 50%. They either have to claim, or have done things that I cannot, with reasonable doubt, conceive of as possibly coming from scum.

It's very easy for scum to bus/play tricks that make them seem protown, so I am always paranoid.

2) Volkan's list only includes the 5 people he can vote for, if he did do a full reread, why would he not also post his thoughts on the candidates on his side as well? If he is intent on hunting scum, shouldn't he give us a fair assessment of the candidates on his side of the aisle in order to aid our efforts in hunting scum?

Sure he does not have a vote but we can certainly hear his voice. I think the reason he did not review the activities of the people on his side is because he believes TJM to be head first in the noose and completely hopeless and that he doesn't necesarily need to guide us to a lynch because by saying anything further he either jeopardizes his cover or he makes TJM look like a less attractive lynch.

If that were not true, I do not see why he would not also post his conclusions on the remaining half of the game.

There is no reason why NLU was excluded from the analysis - other than that the analysis was of the LU players.

I'll post an analysis of NLU tomorrow.

[vollkan]

Ever hear of a mislynch? I know you have. In my experience, the best way to ensure a mislynch, especially early in a game, is to pressure an inexperienced player until they make a mistake. They pretty much lynch themselves at that point. Since I am feeling that Jive machine is more likely town than scum at this point, that leaves me with the conclusion that you are scummier than Pooky. I hope I don't offend Pooky by this, but I think that our playstyles have some aspects in common, or at least enough for me to understand that Pooky behavior is more of a null-tell than a scum-tell, especially this early in a game.

I assume this is directed to me.

I play by argument more than anything else, and I am aware of the need for caution in arguing with the inexperienced. TJM's responses were contradictory, and that's scummy no matter who it comes from. I didn't vote him for his deflection to CKD , since I knew that might be attributable to inexperience, but he crossed the threshold when he started making contradictory comments about his priorities in his actions towards Pooky.

Adel, I've played with you before (mini 488) and I know that your playstyle can be eccentric - but I can usually see its direction. I haven't played before with Pooky before and I couldn't see the point of his play - it jumped out to me as making no contribution, escalating suspicion (particularly re: shafted) and basically as a form of active lurking.

Why do you expect pointed questioning to get results?

I think there is a certain effect to having a pointed questioning/reasoned attack prematurely, it does lift the light off others players and put less pressure on them to find their own suspects, I've realized that oftentimes a discussion dominated by a single interrogator or other can lock others outside of the discussion and allow more crafty scum to quietly agree their way in.

That isn't my experience, but I respect that it might be yours (and that you might well be correct).

I don't like to see games degenerate into a 1 on 1 argument. The reason I like questions and arguments is that it usually provides insight into how people play the game and forces well-reasoned discussion - in that it provides an environment most difficult for scum to hide in.

Generally I believe people who come up with numbering systems that try to quantify the suspicion they have for people to be fairly suspicious. I have no doubt that you might do this numbering thing in every game or put scary numbers next to people's names to inflate suspicion and give your opinion more of a scientific weight. But I do find such quantification to be fairly poor logic because of the connective nature of mafia and also because the number doesnt really mean anything, how much more suspicious is a person of score 200 than score 300? Is it more or less than the jump between 80 and a hundred? what type of scoring scale are you going for?

My initial reason for coming up with it let me show my relative suspicions of people, rather than ambiguous things like "X is my main suspect", "I suspect X more than Y" or "X seems pro-town".

Also, it serves me as a point of reference: I can look back to where I had someone at , say, 60% and track their behaviour since then to work out the increase.

There is no "scoring scale" as such - as in, it doesn't involve any sort of objective point of reference (eg. nothing like "A contradiction earns +15%"). A person I see nothing telling (either way) on will get a 50%.

From there, I consider my reasons for suspecting the person and place them somewhere along the spectrum based on how strong the reasons are. The purpose is not to try and make my subjective feelings seem objective. I make the % list because it lets me be clear about exactly how I feel about each person as an individual and relative to each other.

the only thing that is different this time, is that vollkan is not doing the group, just the people he can vote for. In this regard, I agree with pooky, you should do one on your team as well. For pook's "team" has to vote as well (noted you said you would do it).

And I agree with you and Pooky here, as well (it will be at the end of this post). I should have included it initially, but I didn't.

If Vollkan does the % thing in every game previous to this one and then does the % thing in this game then it would show the Vollkan is keeping his behaviour in line with previous behaviour, he is not trying anything new, he is trying the same old stuff in order to stay in character.

I do the % thing each game not for the sake of being consistent, but because it is the easiest way for me to express my suspicions - and it fits with my personal emphasis on transparent arguments.

That suggests that he is more wary of trying something new in order to play his cards tight to his chest and is following the standard "Make up bullshit numbers, say stuff that everyone can see, attack vigorously the weak players that you can get lynched because they can't defend themselves" formula that I would expect VolkScum to be using.

Or he could just really like the way he plays and be determined to do that same thing over and over again.

It's the latter, not that I don't expect skepticism from you. I'm more comfortable arguing (whether in attack or defence) than anything else, and the number system gives me a firm way of monitoring my suspicions. It is a "safe" style of play, but it has worked very well for me so far and I see no reason to play in a way that doesn't suit me.

Analysis of NLU

TJM

- Casts what looks like a peer pressure vote for shaft.ed ("Fiiiiiine"). Then proceeds to FoS Pooky, only to vote Pooky once he comes under pressure. Then he contradicts himself in regards to his priorities - valuing his own safety above pursuing suspicions. And, to top it off, he collapses into defeatism. Jive gets a

75%

CKD

- I'm not keen on the fact that he seems to treat Pooky's "we" as a reliable tell - though his acknowledgment that it was only an early suspicion mitigates this. Runs with unclear hunches on adel and armlx for some time, and I really don't like suspicions based on "hunch" or "feeling" - you can't make someone argue a "hunch". I don't follow his reasoning for voting TJM based on TJM's suspicion of CKD's hunches, which makes this possibly look like scum contriving an "original" reason to join a wagon.

70%

Adel

- Her wagoning looked to me like random wake-up wagoning and this was supported by her calling it "stirring the pot". She does vote shaft.ed, but unvotes once he explains himself. Her vote for TJM isn't explained, but before that she had referred to his atrocious posts. She doesn't contrive a reason of her own. Adel's play is difficult for me to get a firm read on, but there is nothing patently scummy about it.

55%

shaft.ed

- My first problem with shaft.ed was his attack on Adel for wagonning, but he explained this very well. His suspicions are pretty clearly explained. shaft.ed still seems a bit quieter than I am used to from him, but I don't see anything suspicious.

50%

.

[vollkan]

Thanks Claus.

I hope this game continues. It's been great fun so far.

[vollkan]

Thats a combination of posts 298-300. Also at the tail end of your post before this it starts as well. And the fact it was a triple post implies the posts were extremely hasty, implying an extremely aggressive reaction.

Over reaction is scummy as it implies you have a lot more on the line with the lynch, which a scum would (especially in a nightless game, losing 1 of 2 or 3 members is a much bigger blow than losing one of 7 or 8). It also implies that you are being a lot more wary of single votes on you, which is scummy for the same reasons.

OBJECTION!

I love the syllogistic thinking

Triple posting is aggressive over-reaction
Aggressive over-reaction is scummy
Triple posting is scummy

I dispute the first line entirely, and I dispute the reliability of the second line. The third line, then, is just ridiculous.

There's one other reason I can think of for overreactions, and it's that you are a completely incompetent newbie. You offered to do a PbP, so that is blown out of the water.

Have you meta'd CKD? Is he normally calm, cool and collected?

Also, it's not even just the triple posts. Did you read what you said in those? It doesn't even make sense, you use the word bull shit actual infi times.

It makes sense to me. Sure, it isn't exactly eloquent, but it is still intelligible.

I also fail to see why the use of "bull shit" is relevant. Mentally change it to "falderal" or "rot" if you must, but it doesn't mean anything/

You claim that voting on a hunch isn't scummy b/c you told use you were doing it. Because honesty makes everything better.

I agree with you here; hunch voting is bad. Admitting it makes no difference, because the problem in hunch play is that it makes an unchallengeable statement.

Dear god, if that wasn't an over reaction I would love to see what is.

te on why CKD's #360 was an over-reaction?

Double posting on its own isn't over reacting, however in that situation it clearly was.

"Clearly was"? Prove it.

FoS: armlx

[vollkan]

So...this means that you were so excited by your belief that I was excited by my indictment of armlx because I couldn't get my quote tags right that you couldn't get your quote tags right?

^ Lol this hilarious, I am apparently eating my own foot.

And most of the leg.

[vollkan]

Scum are much more invested in their role due to the their limited numbers and such view small vote counts as much larger threats to their team, prompting over reacting a lot of the time.

It's bad scum play too. Thats why it's a tell. It just happens to be a bad town play because it's 90% of the time a bad scum play.

And reaction implies what?

Town can get anxious and cranky. Scum can get anxious and cranky.

It's possible that scum might be more liable to get cranky due to higher stakes. It's also possible that scum might be less liable to get cranky due to higher stakes, because they'll try harder to remain calm.

Since you've given no evidence other than the conjecture that "Scum are much more invested in their role", my counter-conjecture just shot down your argument in flames.

Oh, and on what basis do you say it's bad scum play 90% of the time?

[vollkan]

Vollkan, here's my counter arguement for you trying to shred my knowledge of scum tells. Go back and find me examples of people blatantly lying leading to them being town. What about repeated 3rd votes on wagons and other things that are typically scummy. I was under the impression over reaction was an established scum tell. At least it was last time I was playing.

It can be an established tell -

for some players

. What I am trying to get across to you is that there is no universal rule that emotion = scum. For some people, they might be more likely to get frustrated as scum, but for other it might be the opposite way round.

[vollkan]

Welcome Beep and thanks for replacing. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on things so far.

[vollkan]

Hmm, so my vote will be worthless now because of Beep's lynching of armlx. Still, I can talk and argue so my ability to contribute is not really that impaired,

vote Vollkan

Pooky, the last post in our discussion was back in #319 (it was by me). Hence, I don't actually have any new responses to make to you, because I've addressed all that you have said so far.

[vollkan]

Adel is scum too. Only scum would jump on a replacement failing to grasp some very odd mechanics. A townie would have explained a few rules I might have missed, and would have checked the time spanned by my 8 posts, etc., and been more understanding.

You're presenting Adel's actions in a twisted light. She "jumped" on you because (going by her post) because you posted "a vote summery for all of the involved players... which included some conversation about armix being at lynch -1." That isn't the same as merely attacking an honest mistake (how is a townie meant to know a mistake is honest without questioning?)

I think NLU has fewer scum potential than NLU

Hmm? I gather one of those is LU, but which?

[vollkan]

From #429:

Pooky, the last post in our discussion was back in #319 (it was by me). Hence, I don't actually have any new responses to make to you, because I've addressed all that you have said so far.

[vollkan]

One scumbag down.

Sorry for procrastinating on this game. Glad to see we got one scum (of course it was team NLU that caught him). What phase are we in now btw? I guess we can keep talking or does Claus not have thread locking abilities?

My guess is that it just goes back to another FTA stage. This isn't Hezbollah remember.

[vollkan]

Preferential voting ftw:

My suspicions of NLU in reverse shall determine my nomination preferences:
1) shaft.ed
2) Adel
3) CKD

Thus, my support goes to shaft.ed.

[vollkan]

Why do you restrict yourself to NLU? The teams have dissolved. Your dismissal of half the people in the game is interesting.

At the moment the only reason I can think of for this development is that you harbor some kind of ire for Pooky. Which is odd because you don't seem the type of person to take things personally. Please elaborate on why you've done this.

Oops, my mistake. I thought that we were still in LU/NLU and that both teams needed to elect a leader. I missed the bit about "one team".

In that case:
1) TrustGossip - 50%, shaft.ed - 50%
2) Adel - 55%
3 Erg0 - 60%
4) Dean - 65%
5) Pooky - 70%, CKD - 70%

Either TG or shaft.ed get my nomination.

[vollkan]

vollkan?

hmm

maybe you should update your percentages in light the lynches?

No.

The fact that Adel and youself were on armlx's wagon is not sufficient to, on its own, substantially alter my view of either of you. My views may, as with any player, change in response to improvement or decline in conduct - but the mere act of pushing a single scum lynch does not singularly persuade me to any huge extent.

As for the Beep! wagon, I am certainly not about to suspect TG or Erg0 more simply because there were on the wagon of a good doc.

[vollkan]

Why wouldn't people check the votecount??? I don't really understand what hypothetical logic you're using. I was agreeing with Pooky in his assessment of you. In addition, I've suspected you and CDK all game, calling my actions distancing is a gross removal of context.

Two comments:
1) As far as I can see, the only constant grounds of complaint you have had against Erg0 has been inactivity. That's fine; I hate lurking also - but it doesn't qualify as you having "suspected" Erg0 "all game".
2) Explain why you agree with Pooky's megaFoS

[vollkan]

A cod is a big heavy fish

Its average weight is 10 to 25 lb (4.5—11.3 kg), but specimens weighing up to 200 lb (90 kg) have been recorded.

Is 4.5-11.3 kg really

that

heavy?

Additionally:

The woman who carries a cod next to her liver is likely to remain free from cold.

The woman who carries a cod next to her liver is likely to smell dreadful. (rotting fish = yuck)

[vollkan]

Is 4.5-11.3 kg really

that

heavy?

well I bet when the saying was developed it was more like 15 kg to 35 kg on average.

Good point.

Why wouldn't people check the votecount??? I don't really understand what hypothetical logic you're using. I was agreeing with Pooky in his assessment of you. In addition, I've suspected you and CDK all game, calling my actions distancing is a gross removal of context.

Two comments:
1) As far as I can see, the only constant grounds of complaint you have had against Erg0 has been inactivity. That's fine; I hate lurking also - but it doesn't qualify as you having "suspected" Erg0 "all game".
2) Explain why you agree with Pooky's megaFoS

1) Are you saying I am misrepresenting myself because I was attacking a ghost or that I wasn't attacking a ghost enough?
2) I am town. Armix was scum. I don't understand Erg0's sudden compulsion of "I feel I should vote now. Beep is the lynch today. Mum's the word, pip pip cheerio."

1) My point was that although you had declared that you suspected Erg0 all game long, the only charge you had actually levelled against Erg0 was one of being concerned about his inactivity. Thus, contrary to what you suggest, I don't think you had any background suspicion of Erg0.
2) Okay.

Also I think you're confusing me defending against you as attacking.

2) I am town. Armix was scum. I don't understand Erg0's sudden compulsion of "I feel I should vote now. Beep is the lynch today. Mum's the word, pip pip cheerio."

You can see why I'm confused. When were you defending me?

Reading ftw, Erg0.

TG said "defending against you".

[vollkan]

lets get this part over with...then we can get back to scum hunting. I assume majority will get this..so

Leader choices:

Shafted: CKD, Vollkan
Pooky: Ergo

who else?

Curiouser and curiouser!

I had TrustGossip ranked equally with shaft.ed as my primary nomination for leader, and yet you've slotted me under the shaft.ed vote with yourself.

[vollkan]

vollkan, I AM curious though, what are your personal thoughts on:

over reacting is scummy (now)

I reject the universality of reactivity as a scumtell. Sure, for some people, they might be more likely to blow up as scum - but unless an accuser has actual evidence to support this, then it is an invalid argument.

Now, obviously there is no such thing as a universal scum-tell. However, things which are (or seem) anti-town (be it direct anti-town conduct like a quick-hammer, or something more subtle like arbitrary changing of position) are going to be more reliable means of finding scum generally.

Reaction, in and of itself, is not "anti-town". It's just a reflection of the fact that a player is an emotional state - make of that what you will.

and townies "dont get power hungry"?

I am a tad unsure of what you mean here. I shall assume that you are asking me:

What is your position on the idea that townies "don't get power hungry"?

Well, I have come under fire in the past many-a-time, both as town and scum, for "acting like a judge", "taking charge", "dominating", etc. Therefore, I don't see anything scummy, in principle, with players seeming to take charge - providing that they don't, without reasonable justification, hold their own view out as being infallible.

[vollkan]

Vollkan while I see your point that being on the "right" or "wrong" voting wagon does not an alignment make, I'm a little bit troubled that you are almost entirely ignoring such information. Also seems odd that you would not adjust TG's ranking after his twisted logic in accusing Erg0 for his own transgressions.

I'm not entirely ignoring it. What I am saying is that, on its own, I am not going to take it as persuasive evidence of anything. I'm not one to hike up my suspicion of people just because they had the misfortune of being on a townie wagon. Conversely, I've seen first-hand how extreme bussing can get, so I try to keep an open-mind about everything.

As for TG and Erg0, certainly I agree that TG's "twisted logic" was questionable. However, his play has been overwhelmingly not scummy and such an aberration, whilst important, is (as with the wagons) not enough to substantially shift me at this stage on its own.

If I am saying Volkan is the wolf, and I am saying JM is a poor sheep, then yes I am saying JM is a poor confused townie who is being jumped on because of weakness.

I did not jump on him for weakness. I "jumped" on him for some atrociously contradictory play. Giving him a free pass for that sort of thing is completely irresponsible.

[vollkan]

I agree with the proposed system.

1 TrustGossip
1 shaft.ed
1 vollkan

[vollkan]

Would you believe a "strong" scum player to be capable of making the mistake he made?

No.

Would you believe a "weak" town player to be capable of making the mistake he made?

Yes.

[vollkan]

No

[vollkan]

What leads you to believe weak town players are less likely to make horrible mistakes than weak scum players?

Do you have any statistical evidence supporting this?
[/quote]

I'll declare at the outset that I have no evidence on this front. I do not know if weak town are less likely to make mistakes than weak scum. If you have evidence on this, I would love to hear it.

Now, I've botched up newbie lynches in the past (the most recent example which comes to mind for me is Newbie 514 where I, as cop, pushed hard against a newbie who ended up being doc). I've also had successfuly newbie scum lynches (I pegged Korlash correctly in Mini 495).

My view basically is that newbies are more likely to make serious slips than experienced players, but that pro-town newbies will not, ordinarily, commit serious scummy offences. They may slip up from time to time, but if they are genuine they should keep to conduct which is, at the very least, fundamentally consistent.

[vollkan]

A review of the previous day/case by me is imminent, given that we now have access to spotting distancing-tells to armlx.

[vollkan]

Not necessarily, but there could be. I am still comfortable with my %s last given, since I don't believe there have been any huge aberrations, but it's still important that I am thorough.

[vollkan]

Review of Behaviour Surrounding Armlx

armlx to anyone

0: joins LU
2: Random vote Erg0
3-4: Weirdness re: TG's hamster. First says it is a scummy ploy. Then says it is too cute.
9: Votes Adel until she explains why she thinks scum are in LU
11: Interesting post for a few reasons:
1) He says to TG that non-commitment is "the most scummy thing you can do" (TG had just stated that he wasn't committed to a team). However, he then says that his gut says TG is pro-town. The swipe on TG is dodgy and weak (Why is not being commited to a team scumm?) and he proceeds to deny the attack's strength. This gives a whiff of distancing-style to me.
2) He adds, after the TG comments, that "Neither is Ergo." No explanation given. I wouldn't expect scum to say this about a scumbuddy (ie. no element of distancing).
3) Goes 80% on both Adel and shaft, with no explanation - these were tied for his second place, with CKD in #1. Second-place suspicion is a common place for scum to put their scumbuddy (a manifestation of "FriendofScum"). The fact that armlx gives two might suggest that he is playing his cards safely so that, should his #1 suspicion target get invalidated, he can bump another townie to #1 place. Thus, what I am saying, is that I think there is a good chance that one out of Adel and shaft may be scum.
4) He gives me a 20%. From my perspective, this is blatant buddying-up.
5) 60% on Pooky. I don't get a read on this figure.
6) Gives CKD 40%. Bizarrely, he then votes CKD - despite having given Adel and shaft.ed 80%, and Pooky a %60.
12: Confirms that the %s were his feelings that people were scum - confirming that his numbers don't match his suspicions.
Describes Erg0 as "very pro-town". Thinks TG is pro-town based on instinct. Thinks Pooky is playing as per usual but says something is "different". This attack is rather vague and also gives a sense of distancing.
13:
Shaft - Thinks his posts are large, but not too significant content-wise. He calls this "Very scummy" but also stresses that it is mostly instinct. What I find interesting about this is that armlx uses strong language ("Very scummy") to attack what isn't a damning scumtell. In other words, it looks like a conscious effort to appear to suspect shaft.ed. Another distancing-tell.
Adel - 80% for causing confusion. Thinks this is too high and will probably drop it. This is similar to his attitude to shaft.ed, with one difference - that he makes the point that he will drop it. I'm not sure what to make of this, since the declaration of intention to drop makes it seem more likely that he might fear being attacked for holding undue suspicion of Adel.
Vollkan - Says it is primarily instinct and a teeny bit that I diverged from Pooky.
Dean - Pro-town for a general vibe
14 :Explains that he didn't like Adel's BWing or latching onto his reasoning
15: Says shaft.ed "tries to appear relevant".
16: Says his read on me is 90% based on instinct and thinks my divergence from pooky is a town-tell
17: Hops on TJM wagon
18: Switches over to shaft.ed. First on the wagon. I don't get much of a read on this. Given the mounting pressure on shaft.ed, it makes sense for a scumbuddy to jump on to the wagon asap. It also makes sense for scum to jump on townshaft.ed asap. Ultimately, this is null for me.
19: Gives his new %s:

Shaft: 80%
Jive: 60%
Pooky: 40%
Adel: 40%
Karmadog: 40% (if Pooky is scum, number increases)
Dean Harper: 20%
Volkan: 20%
TG & Ergo: 0%

The some of the formerly scummy (Adel and Pooky namely) moved down as we have real lynch targets to go after now. List is mostly in order of scumminess for the people I actually find scummy.

We now know that TJM was town, so this is a case of my "scumbuddy in #2" idea not being the case. The three people at 40% is interesting. It's not inconceivable that he might have a buddy in the lower %s as well (rather than distancing both partners).
21: Is sticking with shaft.ed for now, but stresses that TJM is rising. Looks like setting himself up to jump over.
22: Attacks TJM
23: Swaps over to TJM
24: L-1. Makes attacks on Adel for BWing, but thinks he (sic) has shown enough insight to remain, though is rising towards shaft.ed. Pushes hard against TJM.
28: Says all the scummy people are on NLU
31: Says CKD's reaction to TG's vote deserves "noting". Nothing further added. Another feeble swipe.
32: Another big analysis -
Shaft.ed - Less scummy, no explanation as to how specifically/
Vollkan - Continues with me as pro-town
CKD - Says his reaction was excessive
TJM - Same thing as CKD. Says he would rather lynch TJM than random. Interesting that he gives the same reason for both, but he only expresses lynch-interest on TJM.
Pooky - Productive but aggressive. Will wait to pass judgment.
Dean - lurker
TG -town
Erg0 - lurker
Says he would vote for TJM right now

37: Some more -
shaft.ed - vague attack. I don't understand it
Voll - Protown and should not be lynched
CKD - Attacks as throwing his vote around and over-reacting.
Pooky - Being pooky
TG - protown
Adel - Crossing the line between chaotic and scummy.

38-43: Pushes against CKD. He seems to be very aggressive (armlx) but never votes/FoSes.
44: After I asked why CKD using profanity was at all relevant, armlx says it reflects aggravation. Says he won't meta CKD because " don't typically meta on usual scum tells unless I've seen that person act that way in many games I have been in"...stupid. He only uses meta advice when he's been in a game.
46: After I again reject this, he reiterates that he believes scum will over-react
48: Votes CKD
52: Hammers Beep

Analysis of others to armlx shall follow soon.

[vollkan]

Second-place suspicion is a common place for scum to put their scumbuddy (a manifestation of "FriendofScum").

Just curious when this idea surfaced. In games I've played most people say scum rate partners in the neurtal category.

I've seen it a few times that scum will place buddies in second or third place (or, alternatively, throw FoSes onto buddies and votes onto townies)

The best recent examples that come to mind:

Mini 495

- Korlash has buddy Lucienne in third place on his suspicion list. Dybeck puts Oman at #4 then #2 on his "night kill list".

Newbie 514

- I correctly pegged the two scum (didn't end up winning due to mod eror, sadly) of Lowell and Lulubelle and each had #1: Townie, #2: Buddy (in the sense that either they listed like that, or that they voted the townie but kept their buddy in the wings as a second suspect)

Mini 500

- I was scum with Pwayne and I had him as a high suspect, but rarely my #1 throughout.

Of course, the actual analysis needs to be much more refined than "Scum had you in second place. You are scum!" - Newbie 514 is the best and most recent example of me putting this theory into practice properly.

Analysis of others to armlx coming shortly.

[vollkan]

Erg0 to armlx

9: Casts a vote for armlx over the hamster contradiction.
40: Points out, in contrast to what armlx said, that Beep was aware of the mechanics about team voting.
~~~~~~~~~~~
That's it for Erg0 mentioning armlx. This total lack of mention prompted me to do a rough meta of Erg0's scum play to see whether he is a "distancer" or an "avoider". In Open 33, where Erg0 was scum with SSF, he only mentioned SSF in one game post and cast a random vote for SSF as well. In Mini 493 he engaged in distancing. He didn't mention his buddy in Open 51, but that was a short Texas Justice game. So, basically, I don't think that Erg0's total non-mention of armlx is necesarily a link-tell, but I also don't think it detracts from that possibility.

TrustGossip to armlx

2: Weak FoS attack on armlx for "his vacillation of whether or not he wanted to bandwagon me" (the hamster affair I assume). He also throws FoSes on Dean (for junk posts) and Adel (team-based BWing). Given that TG does the same for Dean and Adel, I am not going to say the treatment of armlx looks like distancing, but I don't rule it out either.
6: TG FoSes TJM, shaft.ed, vollkan and IGMEOYs armlx. His reasons for armlx are the weakest (he wants armlx to clarify his findings)
12: Neutral with no "good read"
18: "Doesn't understand" why armlx is accusing Adel of following him. This sentence confuses me: "I still don't really understand why you're even making these arguments though, Adel isn't exactly your direct competition of a lynch candidate." @TG: What did you mean by "direct competition of a lynch candidate"?
29: Thinks that armlx is "barnacle-y" and places a "Heavy FoS" on armlx, contigent on lurkers not being "horrendously suspicious".
33: Questions Armlx and Adel in conjunction
35: UnFoSes after armlx posts content and actually agrees with armlx on CKD. It's interesting that the "Heavy FoS" dissipates just because of a content posting. - when the basis for the FoS was armix being barnacle-y
43: Now he flips around, without explanation, and "wouldn't mind Armix going".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Right, we've had TG making kidglove attacks on armlx and others early on. Then he goes neutral. Then he beefs it up to a "Heavy fos" for barnacle-y play, which he then drops once armlx posts content and, in fact, agrees with in pursuit of CKD. Then he flips round again and says he wouldn't mind armlx going. I agree with Erg0 that "This rings alarm bells for me."

curiouskarmadog to armlx

9: Says he understands arm's vote for him, but doesn't like Adel's following
10: Questions arm abotu Adel's following
11: Notes "armix and Adel voting partnership "
12: Notes that the partnership happens again.
14: "vote armix on an ongoing hunch."
19: His hunch on arm is getting stronger, particularly given arm's last vote (no further explanation given)
22: "vote armix"
36: Calls on armlx to explain the over-reaction charge
37: Pushes back hard against arm for using the"over-reaction" attack
38 : ditto
41: Again. Very strong - demands armlx point to evidence
49: Again, calls on armlx to supply evidence rather than basic assertion
50: Says armlx must be scum for voting ckd without commenting on the posts by Beep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This really does look genuine. Armlx was pushing against CKD for atrocious reasons, and CKD bit back with some pretty harsh attacks against arm's reasoning. It "could" be high-level bussing - but there's nothing to suggest that is the case so for now, I'm going to call it a genuine retaliation by a townie against crap attacks from a scumbag.

Dean Harper, Thanatos to armlx

*crickets*

PookyTheMagicalBear to armlx

33: "Armlx=total scum. "
~~~~~~~~~~~
Given that this is Pooky, a single mention like this is basically impossible to glean anything from.

Adel to armlx

14: Follows armlx onto CKD
25: And onto shaft.ed
34: Votes armlx. no explanation
44: Is certain that armlx is not a "logically-challenged" player of the type she believes TJM to be
49: Revotes armlx since Albert missed the last one
51: Calls to lynch armlx
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scant on reasoning, but she was following CKD's suspicion of armlx. Doesn't give me a whiff of distancing, so my assumption is that it was genuine. Still, she's conceivable as scum, but nothing here actually positively makes this likely.

shaft.ed to armlx

12: Includes armlx in a "not liking so far" list along with Adel and TJM
26: Attacks armlx's play as being "much like Pooky". Also asks armlx to compare his own play to TJM's (armlx was moving them closer suspicion-wise) and shaft.ed says TJM has been the more erratic. This looks like trying to attack Pooky and armlx together,
29: Isn't a fan of "Pooky or armlx" but thinks this might be due to bias as recipient of their attacks.
33: Says armlx is looking scummy "pretending to mimic Adel's strategy when he really didn't" (I don't understand this) and that scum getting L-1 and L-2 confused tend to act less rationally (evidence?).
34: Has Pooky and armlx tied in top place. Suspicion of armlx stems from only a few minor things: the not wanting to join a 3 BW, making firm alignment decs early without clear explanation to my questioning and his "joining in with Pooky". It's actually interesting that the attacks against pooky seem much stronger (given Pooky's total lack of content at that point and fanning of flames) - but he keeps them tied. It's like he wanted to be seen to be suspecting the two at an equal level when, in fact, he was pushing more firmly against Pooky.
38: Would like to lynch Pooky or armlx
~~~~~~~~~~
The main problem here for me is that suspicion of armlx is pretty much tethered to suspicion of Pooky. Largely, shaft.ed pushed much more against Pooky than armlx, though his reasons for attacking Pooky were good. I think that there is certainly more potential for distancing here than, say, CKD or Adel, but is less than for TG.

[vollkan]

Welcome, Near. I shall forgive the avatar plagiarism

Basically I disagree with volkan. Many times, you should balance self-perservation vs. voting for a guy you think is a scum. Especially in the beginning of the game, you might have some clues as to who you think is a scum, and maybe your guess is better than random, but often times you are wrong. We lynch on the first night, not always because we are "pretty sure" but because we have to - and we make the best guess. So, I don't think Jive's posts are in conflict with each other.

This is a theory point, but I don't mind occasional theory interjections, so I will respond.

Yes, there is a balancing act

to an extent

. However, catching scum needs to be the highest priority. Ultimately, town doesn't win by holding back - town wins by catching scum. If an argument is legitimate proof of someone being scum, there is no reason (in all normal circumstances) why I would refrain from raising that argument.

I'm not too sure what your point about "lynch on the first night (sic)" has to do with this.

The reason for much of your confusion regarding my interactions with armix is due to my own confusion. I had a very difficult time determining if armix was sticking onto Adel or if Adel was sticking onto armix. After Adel revealed that she was gambitting, this perplexity did not disappear. It stretched throughout most of Day One. As an attempt to rid myself of this distraction I tried to put Adel and armix on the backburner in my mind.

When armix pulled out his gambit excuse at L-1, this flooded my brain with memories of the early game connections with Adel and prompted my HeavyFOS simply because it filled me with a sense of "WTF". When he stickied onto my initial attack on CDK, I should have sensed this was a trend, but I was so relieved that someone actually saw what I saw that I didn't. I suppose I did an extreme disservice to the town by being so easy, but at this point I'm trying to put down in words exactly what I was thinking/feeling/believing during Day One as a response to your inquiries.

And what about the turnabout to you not minding armlx going?

and that scum getting L-1 and L-2 confused tend to act less rationally (evidence?).

This may just be my lack of games played but in mini-495 dybeck played pretty terribly once the threat of lynch became imminent. Korlash also played very ... irationally when pressure was applied to him. I felt armlx was getting flustered and grasping at straws that's what I meant with that comment.

Korlash played very irrationally throughout the entire game

I do understand this now, though.

This strikes me as a very interesting post. Armlx, who was a scum, didn't have to make this post to defend himself. He was not the prime suspect at the time he made this post - the prime suspect was shaft.ed. I am not sure about the exact vote count, but something like 3 votes in a row were being casted on shaft.ed, including one from JiveMachine.

I believe armlx cast the first vote against shaft.ed. He had been FoSed by TG and TJM, and called "so scum" by Pooky. In actual fact, prior to his vote, there was a wagon of three on TJM: Adel, Pooky, armlx. Then armlx swaps over to shaft.ed who has no votes, but a wave of mounting suspicion.

Either:
1) Armlx was trying to go with the bandwagon to kill shaft.ed, who he knows is innocent.

OR

2) Armlx thought that shaft.ed, his partner, is going to die anyway, and by making this post, he can almost guarantee that the next person who will die is JiveMachine (which means, he's a probably good doctor) and prepare to make future arguments for his innocence by citing his decisive post and vote against shaft.ed.

In case of 1), Armlx, I would think, would be concerned about the after-effect of lynching shaft.ed when the mod reveals that shaft.ed was a good doctor. Therefore, I wouldn't expect Armlx to use such "definitive" wording in his post.

Whilst it is true that armlx may have been concerned about lynching townshaft.ed, I am not sure that such a concern really might have prevented him from being so "definitive". Remember that we also had Pooky being even blunter, and the comments by TG and Adel were hardly of phenomenal length either. Given that armlx was first to vote, he might have felt safer given that he wasn't immediately pushing a wagon into danger zone.

Certainly, I think the winds were changing towards shaft.ed when armlx voted. It could be armlx wanting to be first on the wagon of his buddy, so he doesn't need to tag on a late vote and look dodgy; or it could just be armlx pushing against a seemingly doomed townie.

In addition to 669, I just realized that Jive was fired and was actually good doctor, which could indirectly strengthen the likelihood of 2) above, because:

A: If 2) is true, then JiveMachine is innocent.
B: JiveMachine is innocent
C: Since B, which is true, does not disprove A, it's more likely A is true?

something like that?

I don't think this logic is valid.

I think it should be:
A: 2) can only be true if TJM is innocent
B: TJM is innocent
C: Since B, which is true, is necessary for A to be true, A

can

be true.

The best way to think about this is that: TJM not being innocent would render 2) false. TJM being innocent does not substantiate 2) in any way.

That said, 2) seems like the most obvious course of action for armlx if shaft.ed is his buddy. Armlx pulls town credit for lynching shaft.ed scum and can then take down TJM.

[vollkan]

Yes, winning is the highest priority. Catching a scum is directly related to this priority. Therefore, if I can trade my own "life" with that of scum's, I agree that it's correct play to do so. But when your best suspect is, say, only 60% scum (as opposed to your next best guess at 50%), sometimes it's incorrect put your life in danger, since you know you are 0% scum.

Anyway, we should probably talk about this later @ Mafia Discussion Forum.

I disagree with your theory.

But I agree that now is not the time.

Whilst it is true that armlx may have been concerned about lynching townshaft.ed, I am not sure that such a concern really might have prevented him from being so "definitive". Remember that we also had Pooky being even blunter, and the comments by TG and Adel were hardly of phenomenal length either. Given that armlx was first to vote, he might have felt safer given that he wasn't immediately pushing a wagon into danger zone.

First, we don't know whether other people you mentioned (Pooky, TG, Adel) are scums. If they are townies, then they believe who they are voting against are actual scums, so, often they will not concern themselves with "what if who i vote for is not a scum". So I think we can excuse their "definitiveness". It's different for armlx. He knew who the other scums were. If shaft.ed was not a scum, armlx knew that - and he would be concerned about the aftereffect of voting to kill a townie.

The fact that you missed this made me wonder if you were hurried in your defense for shaft.ed.

You miss my point.

Pooky etc. had expressed their suspicions of shaft.ed fairly bluntly. Armlx, if he was pushing the lynch of town shaft.ed, did not run the normal risk of casting an "under-explained" vote because the other attacks made against shaft.ed were all similarly blunt. In other words, armlx could have "hid" amongst the collective "definitiveness".

I'm not saying that this is what happened, but I am raising a reasonable objection to the scenario you presented.

Certainly, I think the winds were changing towards shaft.ed when armlx voted. It could be armlx wanting to be first on the wagon of his buddy, so he doesn't need to tag on a late vote and look dodgy; or it could just be armlx pushing against a seemingly doomed townie.

IIRC, it wasn't armlx who voted for shaft.ed first. There was at least one (I think two) prior vote and multiple accusations on shaft.ed.

There were FoSes and accusations, but no prior votes.

But, IF armlx was the first person to vote for shaft.ed, I think it makes it a lot less likely that shaft.ed is the other scum. A likelihood of a scum making a definitive accusation at his partner who's ALREADY in the corner is high. Likelihood of a scum casting the first vote at his partner that a few suspects, is not.

Since you *thought* that armlx was the first person to vote on shaft.ed, I would have expected you to say something like this and discount my scenario 2). But your not doing so makes me think you are just trying to go along with me.

Uh, no - you miss my point again.

If armlx got a sense that shaft.ed was in a state of impending doom, it would be reasonable for armlx to jump onto shaft.ed asap. Shaft.ed was being called "So scum" and was attracting FoSes and accusations. He looked like a was a lame duck.

What would discredit your scenario 2 somewhat (always remember that bussing can go to extreme lengths) is if armlx himself had started the tirade against shaft.ed and had himself been responsible for pulling shaft.ed into that state.

That said, 2) seems like the most obvious course of action for armlx if shaft.ed is his buddy. Armlx pulls town credit for lynching shaft.ed scum and can then take down TJM.

If shaft.ed is armlx's buddy, then 2) is the only scenario!

You aren't understanding me properly.

Obviously, yes, if shaft.ed is scum than we know that armlx was bussing and it seems obvious that he would next drag down TJM.

However, and this is what I was saying, that wasn't the only course of action open to armlx

at that point

. Armlx could have stayed off shaft.ed and slunk off, or pursued TJM, etc. The obvious (in the sense of "obviously most sensible") course of action for armlx in that scenario, however, would have been to do what he did, which is your scenario 2).

[vollkan]

Team NLU

Beep! 3 - TG, Erg0, Armix

Volkan 1 - Pooky

Not voting:

Thanatos

Armix was FIRED. He was a

bad doctor.

Beep! Beep! was FIRED. He was a

good doctor.

ok, so Erg0 and Trust Gossip were the two other players on Beep!'s wagon.

I think it is time to think about why TG would ask for replacement, and if it is a scumtell.

FoS

Erg0 for voteplacement.

Wait, I asked for replacement?

???

I think Adel is getting games confused again

[vollkan]

I know the investigation doesn't actually stand for too much at all.

Stay tuned for a review of TG and shaft.ed, the two who fared worst after my armix-centred read of things.

[vollkan]

PBPA of TG

{Since he has 100 posts, I will omit those that I see nothing relevant in}
2: Unvotes. Doesn't like the idea of suspicion being based on teams. Thinks that Pooky and myself stepped up to lead by virtue of our respective personalities. Says he doesn't like arml's vacillation about voting him - but admits it could just be him. Doesn't like Dean's spam (though he says it would be hypocritical for himself to criticise it), or Adel's team-based wagoning, but thinks his personal views may play a part. He FoSes all three.

Multiple FoSes strike me as akin to potential FriendofScumming. Aside from this, I find it interesting that TG equivocates on every person he FoSes. For armlx, it might just be "him". For Dean, it's hypocritical of TG to attack him. For Adel, he highlights it being based on his own personal views. Trying to make an attack, without having to poke his head to far out of his shell.

6: Doesn't like TJM's lack of Just Communication; TJM gets FoSed. FoSes shafted in agreement with Pooky. IGMEOYs me for keeping my random vote on him, and asks about my discussion with Dean. Finds Pooky unreadable. Doesn't understand Dean and Erg0's fighting. Thinks CKD's notion of Armlx being linked to Adel is valid. Doesn't understand armlx's stats, and FoSes this.

Again, we have a spatter-gunning of FoSes and IGMEOYs. His reasons for armlx are by far the most irrelevant and pointless. None of his points were excellent, but for armlx he basically just asks for a clarification of suspicion. And yet, somehow, armlx gets a strike out on his Fosometer whilst pooky, erg0 CKD and myself do not. He's declaring suspicion of armlx, whilst giving very weak (non)reasons.

12: Another scumdar. TG thinks Adel has dropped significantly due to lots of protown play. Neutral on Armlx - he only justifies this drop by reference to the fact that Adel also dropped.

This is very interesting because he found the link between them scummy (the following). I totally fail to see how this can then be turned around into thinking they are both pro-town.

He increases CKD because he doesn't understand the "hunches". Says I always seem town. Shaft.ed is a "sinusoidal wave" that is currently moderately town.

He says nothing about why shaft.ed is now less suspect

On Erg0, he is ambiguous, since he acknowledges it would be hypocritical to pursue Erg0 for being inactive. On Pooky, there is an increase for Pooky's pushing of a shaft.ed lynch. Says TJM is worse than before

Again, vague

Doesn't like Dean's non-content. He gives the following reasons for voting TJM:
1) Not giving opinions
2) Constantly being on the defensive

At that point, he was constantly under attack. What did you expect?

3) Giving up

This is a scumtell how?

1) alone might be a good reason for pressure, but not for suspicion (at least that early on and where a player is being under attack).

22: Says he "can see [Pooky's] reasonings" about me, and that he has "noticed" a "significant departure" from my usual play.

No prior mention was made of this by him. In fact, he said I always look pro-town, which at least implies he thought everything was consistent about me. He doesn't just say "pooky makes a good point", he has to make it sound like it was something he himself found.

Votes CKD and asks questions about his behaviour re Jive. Also asks armlx about his L-1 vote on Jive (why no vote on armlx?)
25: Makes decent attack against CKD's hunch-based voting
26: Lovely sentence here: "Instead of attacking my argument and OMGUSing my credibility, you could perhaps give your opinions on everyone else in the game? Does that seem unreasonable?"

Maybe I am missing something about this, but it seems like: "Don't criticise me, but do give me your opinions on everyone else"

29: This is interesting. He Heavy FoS-es Armlx for being barnacle-y to Adel.

Now, I remind our listeners that back in 12, the link to Adel was a reason for TG to think that armlx was pro-town. In 26, he said he was 'swooning' over Adel and Pookuy. 12 and 29 are incompatible and this contradiction revolves around armlx

32: Votes TJM for no content
33: Here, TG seems to hold my attacks on TJM against me, conveniently ignoring that he himself was vocal against TJM. Armlx (and Adel): He does these two together, and says armlx's play was quite decent before his L-1. Encourages pressure votes on Erg0 and Dean
35: Agrees with Armlx about CKD and unFoSes
43: Now, he "wouldn't mind Armix going".

Yet another flip-flop on armlx, totally unexplained. TG really does just seem to be bending with the wind here, and it looks immensely scummy to me

49: Confirms his vote for Road Runner.
52: QFTs Pooky's megaFoS on Erg0. (See: Erg0's ideas about this being an effort to shift culpability)
53: Says he currently suspects Erg0 and CKD. The Erg0 suspicion seems to come in from way out of left field. His lack of explanation for both is also troubling.
--Something I notice here, is that TG never answers this crucial question:
Post 69 looks dreadfully evasive also:

I was emphasising the point that you completely ignored the fact that you'd contributed to a townie's lynch, and focused instead on going after me, apparently for the same thing.

I don't think I was going after anyone. What I wanted was for everyone to weigh in on the aftermath before we decided on a leader. I didn't want the game to degrade into a "he said, she said" but that's apparently what happened.

Then I get you and Adel smacking me in the face. I am currently more confused than trying to string you up or something. Also I think you're confusing me defending against you as attacking.

He doesn't explain the FoS. At all.

Then he never answers this direct, blunt question

So why did you QFT Pooky's post?

73: Puts CKD and Erg0 in Closet of Temporary Confidence" after reread. Doesn't explain why.
83: Explains his Beep vote. He says the Erg0 megaFoS was due to him thinking it was a scum-quickhammer.
89: Doesn't understand why the not minding an armlx lynch is intereting
90: Responds to my earlier analysis. Says he was confused about Adel and armlx and had them on the backburner. Says Armlx's gambit excuse gave him a "WTF" moment.
92: Completely put Adel/Shafted and me on the backburner yesterday because Adel and I backed off shaft.ed desipte Adel being the initial targeter and me being "the most damaging possible opponent"

I'm not sure how this merits no suspicion of shaft.ed. Gives an inexhaustive analysis of armlx's links to people.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I won't rehash everything down here. Needless to say, where I write a lot of opinion in the above, that means I have thoughts (some bits I have italicised to make my thoughts stand out more clearly from general observations)

[vollkan]

PBPA of shaft.ed

0: joins NLU
4-5: Says he "doesn't trustgossip" (pun?). Asks who else is unteamed, and selects TJM instead because TJM has a "cool name".

I'm trying to work out whether or not this is potentially meaningful. @Shaft.ed: Could you explain why you rejected trustgossip?

11: Describes Adel following me with "O Captain! My Captain" as a 'convenient method of BWing'
12: Thoughts so far:
Adel - Doesn't like her team-based BWing

(Begs the question as to why)

Armlx for his attention to BW size
TJM for saying one vote can amount to pressure
15: Votes Adel because "I'm not liking some of your choices and reasoning thus far"

Very vague

. Doesn't like Dean saying he doesn't know where to place his vote since he has seen it as scum trying to look active

Where?

18: After I said that Adel just seems to be stirring the pot as usual, shafted says he meta'd her and found she plays like this before.
19: Explains that he meant unorthodox, not 'unbridled BWing"
20: References Adel self L-1 voting.
22: Admits he was wrong to say Adel often plays like this
24: Explains he was trying to determine why Adel was BWing.
25: Notes Pooky's inflammatory play
26: More (justified) strikes at Pooky's behaviour. Asks armlx to elaborate on his case against shaft and to compare shaft.ed to TJM.
33: Thinks armlx is scummy for pretending to mimic Adel and notes that he misread his vc and that scum tend to act less rationally when they confuse the two

Really?

Doesn't understand why TG unvoted to make TJM talk.
34: Scumdar, only of team LU.
1) Armlx: Attacks for his reluctance to be third, his firm declarations of alignments, and fanning with Pooky

Decent enough attack of armlx thus far, though he does tie it to Pooky

2) Pooky: Flaming fans and very little content

True

3) Erg0: Lurker who posted a lot then slunk off
4) Dean: Total lukrer
5) TG: Doing a good job of scumhunting

38: Doesn't like the attacks against me because my play is same as usual. Makes a critique of Pooky's arguments against me. Says he isn't liking armlx's recent posting. Doesn't like Adel accusing me for being scummier than Pooky when Adel originated the attacks on TJM. Thinks TG is an ass-kisser.
39: Notes a significant contradiciton in TG criticising me for pushing against TJM when he had done it himself.
41: Disputes armlx's CKD case.
42: TG is the only LU he thinks is town. He thinks CKD and I am playing same as usual. THinks armlx is not used to CKD's style. Adel as wild card. Thinks TJM is avoiding having to play.
49: Thinks Adel's interrogating has the potential to result in people slipping under pressure, that he doesn't like what appeared to be my effective ignoring of the lynch results, and that he TG's MegaFoS is just poor play.
50: Further criticism of Pooky
55: Case against Pooky. Suspicion initially provoked by Pooky's pot-stirring. Doesn't think Pooky's argument against evidence was pro-town. Says it was odd Pooky kept his vote on TJM whilst attacking shaft.ed. Then notes that Pooky also had his vote on TJM while the pressure mounted. Then he criticises the "frankly speaking" string again.
56: Thinks Pooky is consistently scummy and TG has a few slips.
67: Explains that he thought armlx's "intentionally acting scummy" was garbage. Says he was not going hard at armlx because Pooky was scummier
70: "having a conversation with pooky has felt like trying to nail Jello to a wall for me." unvotes pooky
74: Votes TG
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm MUCH more persuaded by the TG case than this. shaft.ed's play has been fairly consistent and has reasonably explained the problems I previously raised.

[vollkan]

But in my defense (sort of) I got pretty worked up and emotional.

About what, and why?

[vollkan]

Oh well, I know saying this could make me more suspicious, but: I wish I can take back my vote.

I just reached a stage where I was certain it was TG... and I acted on it.

How are these two posts cogent with each other? You were certain, but now you aren't?

As CKD said: What changed?

[vollkan]

But in my defense (sort of) I got pretty worked up and emotional.

About what, and why?

I don't know the answer to either question.

But, I just do. And it happens pretty frequently to me in real life and it already happened once in the newbie game. When I start to think I have a pretty good idea on who the mafia is, I seem to go into this "emotional mode" where I get scared. Does it ever happen to you guys?

Reference me to you losing control in a Newbie game.

I don't like this. It's just giving yourself an out for irrationality. I might get a bit tunnel-visioned when an interogatee begins to implode, but I certainly don't get into a "scared" (wtf are you scared about?) emotional state.

[vollkan]

But what changed in between your vote and your regret?

Yes. Answer this, Near.

[vollkan]

Another mislynch...and an absolutely atrocious hammer. The game Near linked us to is still on D1 - his own alignment has not been revealed. Suffice to say, his waiving of responsibility by effectively declaring loss of self-control is not sitting well with me at all.

Ummm.. I have no idea how we are going to coordinate such a system. How about we all put in an age and then average the tallies of each players submissions? Maybe allow the most pro-town players to go last so that scum can't rig the system?

Good ideas. How do you intend on working out the ordering for submissions, though?

FOS = Shafted for being the first to "know" TG will turn town and trying to blame me for it.

*facepalm* Says the guy who hammered, then wished he could un-hammer.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: I see the fact that the game is ongoing has already been discussed.

[vollkan]

I really thought that would earn a headdesk.

I'm saving the *headdesk* for dramatic effect. The way Near is going, I am going to need it

I'd personally like Near to go first, and then popcorn starting with Pooky.

Also any freaking clue what the Ages will do?

I don't have any idea, and I am not prepared to speculate.

[vollkan]

1. armlx says: ""One scum wont vote for the other even when he's digging his own grave, but tries to look suspicious of him to distance himself. How cute. " then votes for shaft.ed" Also associates Jive with shaft.ed, which makes this theory more believable because we think armlx was trying to lynch Jive along with shaft.ed, his scum partner.

This is valid.

2. Shaft.ed's famous post at 183. Really, don't you guys think it's more likely that shaft.ed made up the story for his failure to discern random adel's random bandwagon-ing AFTER he was accused?

This is conspiratorial. I think it is possible he made it up, but that demonstrates nothing.

3. the fact that armlx was so stubborn to accept shaft.ed's very persuasive post (at laest, everyone else thought so)

Also valid.

4. the fact that he foreshadowed TG turning town and used that to frame me. i doubt that a townie can say such a thing.

I don't think this can be held against shaft.ed too much. You, near, declared your immediate loss of faith in the wagon.

Oh, and Near, could you please give your ages?

[vollkan]

This is conspiratorial. I think it is possible he made it up, but that demonstrates nothing.

Well, if you think it's possible that he made it up, if he was a good doctor, wouldn't he be honest as to why he mistook adel's random bandwagon-ing? Instead (supposing he made this up after the fact), he fabricated a very logical case by case analysis on why he acted the way he did.

You seem to miss my point, or maybe I have misunderstood you.

Shaft.ed attributed his conduct towards Adel as part of a professed scheme to determine her motivations. What I am saying is that it is quite plausible that scum-shaft.ed simply messed up in attacking Adel for her BWing and, in response, concoted the elaborate explanation he gave. However, there is no evidence in favour of that scenario - as far as I can see his testimony holds water.

As it stands, I see nothing to suggest shaft.ed was being dishonest.

Oh, and Near, could you please give your ages?

Here are the possibilities of "twist" I came up with:

1. The oldest (or youngest person) gets to check out if someone is a scum
2. Divide into two teams of oldest group/youngest group. Maybe not likely tho, because we have odd number of people.

Probably 1 is more likely. We should put the people we think are good doctors in both extreme end of the age spectrum and put everyone else in the middle?[/quote]

Near, you seem to have misunderstood me. I don't want to hear your conjecture about what the ages mean - I want you to give me the numbers you would pick for each person's age.

[vollkan]

Could you guess my reasoning?

I'll take a guess:

You just speculated that oldest/youngest might accrue an investigative power, and you also speculated that there may be an age division leading to it being a good idea to have good doctors at both ends. Thus, I think the first list you produced is based on an assumption that you, Near, are protown.

The alternative list you have given looks like an attempt to be more objective - by not giving yourself the "youngest" position which you have speculated to be likely to gain a power.

[vollkan]

It also seems odd that you would provide two lists. That would be a scum tell to me showing that you are doing something different than your desired play so as to look more townish, but scum generally don't come out and say it so clearly. Bit perplexing.

His second list is conceivable as coming from townNear, if I have judged his thinking correctly - but I don't like the way he goes out of his way to make a point of declaring that he is acting in contrast to as he wants.

Does anyone think there might be an accuracy reward? I don't see why else we would be restricted from posting are actual ages in thread.

I can't see that sort of mechanic existing - the fact that a few of us have our DOBs in our profiles would make something like that rather pointless.

@Pooky

- You're up!

[vollkan]

@CKD: If you didn't notice, Near already gave his numbers. And shaft.ed rolled the dice putting Pooky next.

[vollkan]

@CKD: If you didn't notice, Near already gave his numbers. And shaft.ed rolled the dice putting Pooky next.

oh, like I said, I need to catch up..I saw Near provide two sets of numbers....before Pooky goes, which set does he want?

ok, I see which one he wants to go with...but he needs to assign pooky a number and not leave it up to someone to fill in..

Good point.

@Near, you omitted Pooky from the second set. I assume, given the values used in the first set, you meant him to have 30, but please tell us for certain.

sorry for the Quidruple (that even a word?)

Methinks the word you are looking for is 'quintuple'. You meshed it with 'quadruple' and created a monster

[vollkan]

Oh noes! Adel has ruined the system and created chaos

I advise you to take the FTAs instructions literally instead of acting in accordance to what you think the twist will be. This is in your own interest, trust me.

I think it is in our best interest just to get it done fast!

Agreed with both of you.

Given that Adel has already thrown caution to the wind, I think everyone should just post their lists. There is no way to exploit this system, because its completely murky what the mechanics behind this actually are.

I'm just going to do this as Claus intended: playstyle, coupled with ageist generalisations.

1)

Pooky

- Enflaming remarks dominate. Puerile.

8

2)

Near

- Claims to be caving into emotion and is speculating wildly. Pre-teen that needs to grow up

12

3)

CKD

- Emotional outbursts at times. Hormonal, angsty teenager.

16

4)

Erg0

- Calm and eloquent. Mature player.

40

5)

shaft.ed

- Ditto.

40

6)

Adel

Wise old tricky crone, with folksy wisdom about cod liver.

72

[vollkan]

And now we are just waiting on Pooky

[vollkan]

This just came to my attention:

No two players can have the same age.

I gave Erg0 and shaft.ed the same age.

Thus, I vary my original response to the following:

1) Pooky - Enflaming remarks dominate. Puerile.

8

2) Near - Claims to be caving into emotion and is speculating wildly. Pre-teen that needs to grow up

12

3) CKD - Emotional outbursts at times. Hormonal, angsty teenager.

16

4) Erg0 - Calm and eloquent. Mature player.

35

5) shaft.ed - Ditto.

40

6) Adel Wise old tricky crone, with folksy wisdom about cod liver.

72

And, in case I was meant to do myself as well:
7) Vollkan - Awesomely fantastastic, full of wisdom and modest.

100

1) Erg0 25.89
2) curiouskarmadog 22.42
3) vollkan 40.55
4) Near 42.54
5) Adel 27.44
6) shaft.ed 29.59

You've gone and given everyone the same average or something haven't you?

[vollkan]

But, OK, my headdesk argument sucked. And I was wrong about random voting by Erg0 and CDK. But read my post 780.

I think you mean post #787.

Everything lines up well, if shaft.ed is a mafia.

1. armlx says: ""One scum wont vote for the other even when he's digging his own grave, but tries to look suspicious of him to distance himself. How cute. " then votes for shaft.ed" Also associates Jive with shaft.ed, which makes this theory more believable because we think armlx was trying to lynch Jive along with shaft.ed, his scum partner.
2. Shaft.ed's famous post at 183. Really, don't you guys think it's more likely that shaft.ed made up the story for his failure to discern random adel's random bandwagon-ing AFTER he was accused?
3. the fact that armlx was so stubborn to accept shaft.ed's very persuasive post (at laest, everyone else thought so)
4. the fact that he foreshadowed TG turning town and used that to frame me. i doubt that a townie can say such a thing.

As I said, 1 is valid evidence of a link. 2 is pure conspiracy and I cannot accept it. 3 is also valid evidence of distancing. This really looks a lot like you just deflecting culpability for your vote onto someone that attacked you for your vote.

If I have to make a guess, maybe I wanted people to know how I felt. If TG turned scum, then I did a good job so my posting that I want to take my vote back would make me look less smart but this would not bother me as much as TG turning town and me having to take most of the blame?

So, you basically said it for the purpose of reducing your own culpability?

[vollkan]

No, I don't think so. Yes, I felt bad after TG's mislynch, but I am not so immature (contrary to what everyone else seems to think) as to try to find someone to blame so people would more easily forget my mistake.

It isn't a question of immaturity. You cocked up badly (no matter what your alignment) and so you turned around and tried to pull arguments against an accuser. "Poor little me. I made an oopsie-daisy and now all the bad scum are picking on me."

Even if you think 2 above is pure conspiracy(which I disagree with you and I think I know why), don't 1 and 3 give you some kind of suspicion that shaft.ed is a scum?

Explain to me why 2 is not conspiracy.

Yes, 1 and 3 are good evidence against shaft.ed. They aren't enough though.

[vollkan]

According to your argument, if you really wanted to discern between 2 & 3, shouldn't you have "voted for the wagoner" and see if she counterattacks you?

How Adel will respond to your votes on her and how that depends on her alignment are not at all covered by any of your premises.

Shaft.ed argument sounds so logical, yet it has a flaw. I admit I didn't notice this before until now, but maybe this is where "feel" and "hunch" didn't let me accept the alternative conclusion.

Er...that's the very thing he was addressing.

He said:
1) pressure player into poor response and contrive case = [LIKELY SCUM]
2) Counterattack waggoners = [LIKELY SCUM]
3) Generate discussion = [LEANS TOWN]

The fact Adel was quickly jumping ruled out 1.

Then he says that the fact she did not attack himself or CKD ruled out 2, thus leading him to 3. I don't know how you get that his premises don't cover it - if Adel does not attack back, then 2) is invalid.

There is the possibility of a false

tri

chotomy here, and I personally think 3) may be closer to a null-tell, but the logic itself is not flawed.

[vollkan]

Am I the only one that is starting to view this thread as some weird debate between Young Student Vollkan and Wise Tutor Vollkan? It's weird seeing one person mentor himself.

It's really bizarre His writing style is like mine and he purloined my avatar.

Oh and your quote tags are wrong Near said that not me.

Oops

[vollkan]

Bolded section is where I misunderstood the original post, isn't it.

Yup

a) Do you guys think shaft.ed REALLY believed those 3 scenarios he mentioned cover majority of the cases for random wagoning?

They do cover most usual circumstances. As I said, it may be a false trichotomy - nothing comes to mind which makes it one, however. I don't 100% believe him at all. But, he has given a reasonable explanation. What more can I expect?

b) If he really believed that, then shaft.ed is completely convinced that Adel is a townie?

No. I wouldn't think so. Adel just didn't appear to be acting scummy at that point according to his interpretation of her behaviour.

I am ashamed.

You should be.

Vote Shafted

Vollkan says not enough evidence.
But there is some evidence.
and there is hunch.
and no, it's not because i made a mistake day 1

What evidence? As I said, 1 and 3 were valid. 2 is conspiracy. 4 is deflection. 1 and 3, however, don't pass my lynchability threshold.

Oh, and N, I detest hunches.

[vollkan]

Yes, now that you have drawn my attention to it. Explain the vote please.

[vollkan]

I don't know if this qualifies as gut, but I really didn't like this from Adel:

Erg0 is supposed to be a very strong player according to other players I respect, so I'm interested in seeing what else he will add to this game.

This was her reason for choosing to vote TG over me on day 2. My immediate reaction when someone tells me how good I am is to become suspicious, especially when I've recently blitzed somebody the way I did TG at the start of day 2 and done a big analysis as I did with the armlx links. I gave her the benefit of the doubt at the time because I agreed with her basic suspicion of TG, but "I hear he's good" is hardly a valid reason not to lynch somebody, especially after her comment on day 1 about Pooky and I being "hard to lynch". Now that I know TG was town, I look back at her FoS on me after the day 1 lynch and her subsequent eagerness to pursue a TG lynch and I'm thinking that she was going after the target that the town would be most likely to follow her on, whilst trying to keep me onside by stroking my ego at the same time.

This isn't what I label "gut". It's more a pseudo-conspiracy: pseudo- because the reason she gives for not wanting to lynch you is, as you say, hardly a valid reason, but there's quite a bit of intention-theorising being done here as well.

I'll do up an analysis of someone shortly (still undecided).

Oh, and for laughs, I'd like to present this which I recently encountered. I don't know if the subject is aware of being discussed in this manner:

Your last post rubs me all the wrong ways. Like if Adel was a stripper.

I believe Adel is female? If so, her stripping services are always welcome over here.

[vollkan]

I come home and all of a sudden we have a 48 hour deadline!

First up, I only recently reviewed shaft.ed. I was not persuaded enough that he is scum to justify his lynch then, and I am not persuaded to that extent now.

I've read over shaft.ed's N analysis (following N's actual posts at the same time) and, while I began typing one of my own, I ended up abandoning it since I found myself just repeating shaft.ed's views.

If I was to use my % scale to roughly characterise how I feel about these two at this point. Shaft.ed gets 55%. N gets 65%. I'm not sold on N being scum, which is why this 48 thing is a real concern for me, but I would prefer N to die compared to shaft.ed

I am in the process of re-reading Erg0. He is someone I don't have a clear idea on and I want to determine his viability.

[vollkan]

Speed PBPA of Erg0

1: Joins Pooky
8: Asks armlx why the third vote is so bad
9: Votes armlx for vacillating on the hamster
15: Explains that in 14 he was not saying he thinks TG is town, just that poor lurking excuses D1 have been used by him as town.
16: Asks Dean why he voted to pressure shaft.ed who had posted content in #85.
20: Votes Dean for failing to explain the pressure vote
27: Says he is just hard to lynch generally
29: Thinks Jive's play here is out of character
30: Thinks we are choosing between shafted, jive and CKD (If erg0 is scum, this probably means one of shaft.ed and ckd is also -

probably

). Raises weak arguments against shaft.ed - that he seems to be trying to appear active, but has some "good stuff". Says TJM has done "some scummy things (e.g. twice FoSing and then switching to a vote after pressure was applied)" - raises as potential newbie, but expresses willingness to lynch (which he didn't do for shaft.ed)
31: Some of shaft.ed's posts have been "somewhat weak"

Pot. Kettle. Black

32: Denies over-reaction as a tell for CKD
40: Expresses suspicion about Beep's hammer
41: Votes Beep. The reasons are very "broad":

He seems like a pretty good option for a day 1 lynch, I'd say. Even if the hammer truly was an accident, the vote was wagonny, and his predecessor was fairly scummy. Also, I don't want to spend five pages arguing about him tomorrow.

Effectively, the only reason he gives is a reference to the play of TJM and that he doesn't want Beep remaining come D2.
44-54: On TG's alleged distancing from Beep's lynch. Erg0 is in the right here.
61: Thinks CKD is very likely town given interaction with armlx. Iffy on Adel since she had her vote on armlx, but also attacked the TJM wagon despite having been on it. Suspects myself and shaft.ed more since we weren't on the wagon
62-64: Summarises armlx interactions. Concludes shaft.ed is likely scumbuddy and votes accordingly.
71: Suspects TG for his sudden turn on armlx
80: Votes TG for the megaFoS and armlx interactions
87: Votes Adel. Why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erg0's been hanging in the background for most of this game, and that worries me. I don't find too much which is suspect in what he has said, but the way he has been making many posts whilst hanging back somewhat is concerning. I put him at

55%

. Again, I prefer N

[vollkan]

thoughts?

1) I don't like Pooky's disappearance

@Mod:

When does replacement become viable? I don't feel comfortable with him as a lynch, but he's really causing me concern.
2) I largely don't get much of a strong read either way on Adel - she isn't lynchable at this stage for me.
3) The three viable lynchees for me are Near, Erg0 and shaft.ed.
4) The thing interesting me about this game generally is how difficult I am finding it to pick up on scumtells. N, having the highest ranking, is only at 65% for me. That worries me A LOT.

I see there is opposition to a N lynch from CKD, and I am having second guesses myself. Ultimately, the kicker here is whether N is being scummy, or just town freaking out in the most ridiculous manner.

What am I missing about Erg0? I am finding him "concerning", but nothing leaps out at me. I believe this stems mostly from him playing in the background, despite being an active poster.

[vollkan]

Vote: Erg0

I don't like Near, but his dodgy logic is looking more and more like newbiness than scumminess. I will keep him in my sights, but I don't want him gone just yet.

Erg0 is most concerning me at this stage. His play has been to hang back in a manner that suggests he is keeping his cards too close to his chest, and his Beep vote seems particularly "forced" (to use CKD's description).

[vollkan]

vollkan why no interogations thus far?

I've put N's logic to scrutiny a few tunes now but, as I have said, little is leaping out at me as "interrogable". That's the reason I am finding this so difficult. I've done my usual analyses, but they aren't getting me anywhere interrogation-wise.

[vollkan]

You really found this exchange more newbie than scummy?

It is scummy, N is scummy - but he is raising doubts in me because of his inexperience. This is the sort of situation I hate. At this stage, it is clear that Erg0 doesn't have enough momentum behind him. I do think N is viable scum, but it still makes me uneasy given the doubts I have.

[vollkan]

vollkan you had Erg0 at 55 and Near at 65 what changed your mind?

Unease about his inexperience. I found N scummier, but that pulls me into mental conflict over his inexperience.

I'm not stalling I think Near is the scum. Do you think Erg0 is his partner?

I can't state with surety. But I don't think we've seen anything that rules it out.

[vollkan]

I am humbled.

I should have gone with my initial read on N, rather than getting wrapped up in his inexperience. Thankyou, shaft.ed, for sticking to your beliefs.

Anyway, the new task looks fun

[vollkan]

Let's see..

Erg0

- Canberra

You can't get much more demeaning than that.

curiouskarmadog

- Dessicated llama foetus

PookyTheMagicalBearp

- Turd Brain Teddy

Adel

- Omanticising

shaft.ed

Shaft head

[vollkan]

Shaft = Male genital reference

Dick head = Demeaning.

Shat.fed is better, but I want to be original.

[vollkan]

Got any other pearls of wisdom?

[vollkan]

I am going to have to reread things in light of our new knowledge about N in order to form any definite ideas.

I haven't ruled anyone out at this stage but, similarly, nobody is screaming scum to me. When I look at the list of remaining players, all of whom are high caliber, I think I understand why I am finding this game more difficult than those where I have had success in the past.

[vollkan]

/rejoice

Pooky, give us your demeaning nicknames!

[vollkan]

No, I didn't.

Can we do this democratically (so we can bypass Pooky)?

If so, I vote for my own set. Only Adel and myself have obeyed the rule of no symbols. I like my set better than Adel's (and I can't be bothered requiring majority votes on each singular nickname).

[vollkan]

Erg0's nickname for me is invalid.

I'll vote for Erg0s (or anyone's. I don't much care), but he will have to make my nickname:
"Mr Tothepoint" or something that doesn't have symbols in it.

[vollkan]

You may be interested to know that "To-the-point" consists of 3 parts. Thus, we would actually be trifurcating a hair.

[vollkan]

my list meets all of the rules....

I think we should take at least one name from everyone's list....OR we start with vollkan, he names one person (we have to use that name)...then that person names someone who doesnt have a name yet, so on and so on..

if we do that we should leave pooky last, because really, he is just useless.

Meh...

I'd rather just use Erg0's set, and nickname Erg0 "Needs a Gimmick" to save time.

[vollkan]

My only hesitation is some power to the person who named the most people. I know, paranoid, but still…If we all pick one person to name, it is all even…

This really isn't something we should be wasting time arguing about.

Since my own set will be the only one to provoke no concerns, I hereby motion that my set of nicknames be declared the official one, with Erg0's "Mr To-the-point" as my own nickname.

Thus,

Erg0

- Canberra

curiouskarmadog

- Dessicated llama foetus

PookyTheMagicalBearp

- Turd Brain Teddy

Adel

- Omanticising

shaft.ed

Shaft head

Vollkan

- Mr To-the-point

Done.

[vollkan]

Okay, our current ratio is 5:1. That gives us 3 more mislynches at maximum before we are at lylo, and this is assuming that a setup twist does not occur to somehow trigger more deaths (eg. the double lynch on Case 1).

Adel, I want to know why you are prepared to assume CKD is town? I don't suspect him, but

if he is scum

then the plan you posit is suicidal for the town. I guess this is an issue for later on, if we get into a LYLO situation, but I am interested to know your thoughts.

I agree with the list as it stands, however.

Now, the other point I wish to make is that I think we should not wait for the twist. We have already seen a twist which gave us a cop power, probably the most useful thing possible in this game. Assuming that we don't get the same twist again, I don't think our potential gain from any twist will be significant. Moreover, my paranoid side imagines many scenarios where a twist could be dreadful.

I don't know if we can avert a twist (probably not), but we may as well try.

Vote: Erg0

[vollkan]

The fact that none of them have been harmful does not justify waiting around. The first twist was effectively anti-town because it divided the lynching field and forced a second lynch without results. The second twist was, obviously, immensely helpful. The third twist (despite it's good result) put us in a dreadful situation.

Imagine if, eg, the last remaining scum were to receive PM dayvig powers (this, I admit, is the biggest fear I have).

I'll reiterate: I don't think we stand to gain from waiting for the twist, and we certainly can suffer serious loss.

And my numbers were wrong (thanks Albert )

It's 5:1. (6 total)
Mislynch = 4:1 (5 total)
Mislynch = 3:1 (4 total)
~~~~~~~~~~~
We only get two mislynches before LYLO.

[vollkan]

@Adel and shaft.ed: What are your thoughts on waiting for the twist?

[vollkan]

Pooky - Shafted
Erg0 - Adel, Volkan, Pooky
Adel - Erg0

6 alive, 3 to fire.

Last chance to correct me hehe

6 alive = 4 to lynch

(Unless this is the twist )

[vollkan]

....sarnathed badly

[vollkan]

Should we also ignore the fact that you were so evidently excited by the fact that Erg0 was lynched?

Woah, Erg0. I think they just hammered you. I can't believe it.

There's no twist, you just hammered Erg0!!

[vollkan]

Oh, and I realise - from that second quote Albert has inadvertently informed us that we

can

dodge the twist by hammering.

[vollkan]

Oh, and I realise - I am an idiot

[vollkan]

I have a daykill.

I am not going to use it just yet.

Our setup is now 4:1.

We can only fail twice. NOBODY ELSE is to shoot. Each person who has a daykill please claim so.

Will reread before doing anything

[vollkan]

If a single scumbag makes it to the last three, town loses.

So, randomly firing is not a good idea

[vollkan]

I do however, feel that Ergo might be our last scum

Reading is tech.

Erg0,

Good Doctor

, shot during the 4th case.

Want to reconsider that statement?

[vollkan]

Right now, it's 4:1 (Total 5)

We mess up a daykill, that's 3:1 (Total 4)

Scum daykill, that's 2:1 (Total 3) = WE LOSE!

Thus, I make the following diktats:
1)

NO DAYKILLING!

That's an order!
2) We going to take this slowly. We have a spare mislynch up our sleeves. We need to tread carefully.

[vollkan]

Well it looks like vollkan was right about avoiding the twist, this is certainly a high risk situation.

To be fair, had we lynched asap like I was pushing for, Erg0 would have been the likely lynchee anyway. Our situation is, thus, not any different (though, the twist has still been painful due to Adel's trigger-finger)

[vollkan]

I think you could be.

It bothers me tremendously that I've seen little by way of scumhunting from you.

[vollkan]

No. It is not a scumtell.

It doesn't make you more likely to be scum, but it makes me unable to rule you out (or rule you "unlikely scum")

[vollkan]

No. But it gives evidence to consider which may render them less likely.

Eg. Person A has been apparently earnestly scumhunting all game. Person B has done nothing. Both are still viable scum, but A's actions may be assessable as not likely to be bussing (accomodating for the skill of players etc.)

[vollkan]

Yes. That's beside my point, though: A player that consistently and seemingly genuinely scumhunts has evidence adducing to towniness. A player that has done nothing of that sort lacks that head of evidence.

What factors should I be considering?

[vollkan]

Good, then we've argued ourselves into agreement

[vollkan]

...nothing actually.

[vollkan]

Near to Everyone

{Dean never mentions any of the living}
{Near}
1: Concocts a dodgy argument to suggest that shaft.ed may be armlx's scum partner
2: Provides further "evidence" for the above
3: FoSes shaft.ed and myself
4: UnFoSes after I cripple his argument
5: Thinks it is more likely that armlx's team contained the two scum. IT DID:

Original teams:

L-unit:

Pooky

Dean

SCUM

Erg0

TOWN

armlx

SCUM

TrustGossip

TOWN

NLU:

Volkan

TOWN

Karma
Shafted
Adel
Jive

TOWN

Interesting that LU has been almost decimated I am trying to work out if this says anything regarding Pooky's alignment. Is it likely that the scum would all try to get on the one team?

6: Raises possibility of CKD being scum
7: Reaffirms the above
10: Again with the hunch attacks on CKD:

My second hunch is CKD. In the back of my mind, I just know it's him. But then again, I am somewhat reserved in expressing this suspicion, because I am slightly concerned that this is because I think my theory on CKD is kind of cool and I am almost "hoping" CKD is a scum so I can look smart.

All of this is interesting because his arguments against CKD are so flimsy.
11: Votes CKD. Admits he doesn't have good reasons
12: unvotes
We then have the debacle surrounding the TG lynch. The most interesting thing here is his backflip on CKD and his sudden rise in "suspicion" on shaft.ed (though he ignores the implications of the fact that he has as many +'s for shaft.ed as for TG)
28: His four stupid points against shaft.ed

Looks like a genuine scum attack

34: More anti-shafted. Votes
The rest of this is N defending himself against me primarily
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All in all, the thing that I get strongest from this is that his attacks on shaft.ed do not look like distancing.

He has zero interaction with Pooky (and forgets Pooky on the age list).

[vollkan]

Why?

[vollkan]

This isn't a real time strategy game involving armies going to war.

How would I know what the twist would be prior to team arrangement?

you wouldn't, but concentrating your forces would be a better ideas for a majority of possible contingencies. Go ahead and list all of them and count -- you will find that I am right.

I have to disagree with you this Adel.

I'm agnostic as to whether the majority of contingencies favour lumping the scum in one team, but regardless I don't think that it can be assumed that scum would act on that sort of basis.

Putting myself in that position, the big concern for me would be not wanting to get caught all together. Given that the meaning of the teams was unknown at the time, I find it hard to believe that scum would be most likely to want put all their eggs in the one basket, so to speak.

@Everyone:

I would like each person to make a post consisting solely of the name of the person they most suspect of being scum.

[vollkan]

From Near’s posts I think we can put vollkan away as a townie.

There's a much simpler way of proving I am protown:

There are 3 scum
2 are dead
CKD has declared me innocent

Thus, unless CKD is a townie who decided to lie about the investigation results (and, no, I do not consider this a viable possibility) I cannot be scum.

[vollkan]

Ah righto

[vollkan]

Analysis of each player to Near is forthcoming.

Something else that really concerns me:

Say X is town and at L-1 and scum is not on the wagon at that point. There is nothing stopping scum from using a daykill and then winning.

How I propose to deal with this is as follows:

Let's say the players are as follows:

A
B
C
D
Vollkan

3 to lynch.

I think B is scum. Thus, I will order C and D (eg) to vote B. That lets me hammer. Basically, what I am saying, is that I MUST be the hammerer.

AND NOBODY IS TO PUT AT L-1 WITHOUT MY PERMISSION

[vollkan]

Agree with vollkan, other viable option is to have Adel hammer since she's spent her daykill.

Brilliant!

I forgot that, and it makes things much easier if Adel is not the lynchee. All I need to do then is ensure that Adel is the only party other than myself who isn't on the wagon.

[vollkan]

curiouskarmadog to N

{No interaction with Dean}
{Near}
94: Justifying his investigation choice. Says he gets a "townie vibe" of N and shaft.ed
97: Okay,in post 716 N says the following:

Isn't it possible that CDK is a scum himself? His reasoning of picking vollkan is understandable, but

I am still of the belief that TG is scum (so it would have been a wase of an investigation).

For me, CDK not investigating TG when he thought TG was a scum is difficult to believe. If CDK is a scum, tho it might be desirable to say this in order to try to get TG killed. Of course you couldn't have said "I checked out TG and he's a scum" because then TG would accuse you of being a scum. Isn't this too convenient of a way to try lynch TG? I mean, I am basing most of this on my belief that if you thought TG had highest chance of being a scum, you should have checked him out.

On the side note, despite the possibility of CDK being a scum, I think most likely vollkan is a good doctor. If CDK was a scum, he must have been concerned about other people being suspicious of himself or vollkan sometime down the road. Down the road, if one of the gets lynched or get checked out because of another twist, it would basically prove that the other is a scum also (actually, it would prove cdk is a scum if vollkan was scum, but not vice versa).

This is really speculative and weak. Moreover, note the effort by N to tie CKD being scum to me being scum. He says it would "basically prove" that I am scum.

Anyway, CKD responds with this:

interesting theory, what happens if TG turns out scum? Did I bus both my partners from the beginning both days? Where does the scum paranoina stop? Given your theory, who do you think we should lynch? TG to test me? Me to test...what?..Vollkan..top test what? NOw that you have put it out there..what now? If my investigation was understandable, why are we having this conversation?

Again, I wasnt sure that vollkan was town. I felt that he has been playing differently this game than others I have been in with him. It is documented in the thread that I have felt that way before we knew the "twist" investigation. This vollkan investigatio has provided us much more information than you are giving it credit

CKD avoids attacking N's craplogic (cf. shaft.ed). However, I don't think that is necessary scummy, and CKD's explanation is reasonable.

And then:

My second hunch is CKD. In the back of my mind, I just know it's him. But then again, I am somewhat reserved in expressing this suspicion, because I am slightly concerned that this is because I think my theory on CKD is kind of cool and I am almost "hoping" CKD is a scum so I can look smart.

Again, N is just waving his arms and declaring suspicion of CKD.

98: In response to N

Near, I am confused...do you think TG is scum and I am bussing again (wasnt that your theory before, I could be wrong?) or that TG is town and I am just trying to get a townie lynched? Your hunch (and that is what it is because I have them frequently) is that my attack on armix was all a ruse?

I think you just think I am scum, and you was basing all theories around that. What are your thoughts on Adel then? She seems to be agreeing with most everything I say. From anyone else I would be flattered, but from Adel is just freaks me out..your thoughts?

Near, I notice you have a lot of theories but no votes (not even an FoS atm) ...seems like you are playing it safe..if you think I am scum, place a vote on me...ask me some questions, pick my brain...but this eluding is silly (and slightly scummy).

Near...please provide three reasons why you think I MIGHT be scum.

Potentially HUGE slip

- Near NEVER suggested that CKD bussed armlx. Guilty conscience?

Then we have the weird turn of CKD's questioning on to Adel.

Also, CKD is kidgloving N here in that he never directly calls N out for his bullshit attacks. In fact, he encourages N.

133: Pushes Erg0 lynch over N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The exchange between these two is odd, but I want others to comment on it as well. N was so self-assured around CKD, but his attacks were so dreadful.

PookyTheMagicalBear to N

No interaction.

Adel

45: Asks me to meta-check Dean.
84: Wouldn't feel bad about quicklynching N
86: Asks N to hammer TG
100: Votes N
112: Votes shaft.ed as deadline looms
114: Apparently mistook shaft,ed and Erg0 (What do you mean?) Votes erg0
~~~~~~~~
Adel, why did you lose the desire you had for a N lynch (evidenced by your vote for him)?

shaft.ed

15: Accuses Dean of being scum trying to look active
34: Ranks Dean as a lurker on scumdar (armlx at top)
41: Asks for Dean replacement
43: Ditto as 41
73: Trashes N's anti-CKD argument.
80: Notes the errancy in N's ++ing. Notes N seems to have dropped CKD as scum.
81: Calls out N for the stupid lynching collapse N had
82: Suggests N is trying to give himself an out
85: Swipes at N for deflection
87: Wants N to list first
95: Votes N over actions at the end of the previous day
99: Again blasts N over the emotion. Promises a larger case
105: Suggests N is milking his inexperience
107: Scathing analysis of N
And..of course, he held off saving N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unless shaft.ed has engaged in hyper-bussing (which is quite unlikely imo) he isn't scum. Of all the players reviewed thus far, shaft.ed is the most protown for me. In fact, my recollection of the fact that my previous analysis of him turned up very little, combined with the fact that his behaviour seems to genuinely pursue N, earns shaft.ed the exceedingly rare status of receiving a

30%

. (*gasp* I drop below 50%)

It will take a LOT of convincing to make me perceive shaft.ed as viable scum. For that reason, I am henceforth focussing on CKD, Pooky and Adel.

[vollkan]

I've reread the game, focussing on Adel, Pooky and CKD.

Pooky

- He's been inactive and generally unhelpful - but he hasn't actually done anything truly scummy. I don't like his fan-flaming or lurking, but it does seem to just be the way he plays. He gets a

60%

CKD

- The fact he investigated me is, imho, a huge towntell. In declaring me protown, he ensured that I would not come under suspicion. He could have chosen someone less likely to post lots of content, and instead he chose me - despite the fact that I was coming under some heat for my TJM interaction. Largely, also, there is nothing that stands out as overly-scummy in his play either. Moreover, his interaction with armlx really does look genuine.

50%

Adel

- Adel is always difficult for me to get a read on - and I now believe that is the reason why I have been finding this game so tough. After I reread, she stands out heads and shoulders in scumminess. There was her weird tag-team voting with armlx. Her scumhunting for him doesn't look genuine - she makes no argument against him. It reeks of a bussing gambit. Then we have her hypocritical attacks on me about TJM. The icing on the cake is her hasty use of the dayvig ability - Adel is smart and she ought to have known the danger in using the ability without consulting me. The situation she put us in with that prevented anyone else from using that power, at the risk of losing the game.

75%

I am sure shaft.ed is town. I don't think Pooky is scum. And CKD looks town.

Process of elimination, and her being the scummiest by far, makes me comfortable in doing this:

Daykill: Adel

[vollkan]

HA!

My vigging of Adel was fake. A gambit. I still have my ability to daykill.

Now,

That leaves 4 of us:
vollkan - Vig power
PookyTheMagicalBear - No power
Adel - No power
shaft.ed - Hasn't declared..but I think he is town.

Now, our choice comes down to Adel or Pooky.

Let me declare that the %s and comments I made in my previous post were all bullshit. I just ran through and tried to spin things in such a way that could justify apparently killing Adel.

SO - what have we learnt?

1) Adel reacted by declaring she is town and voting. The voting bit is odd.
2) Pooky daykilled - precisely what I would expect from scum trying to quick-end the game. I don't see how Pooky could justifiably kill CKD so rapidly as town.

HoS: Pooky

[vollkan]

Pooky, you had 2 daykill targets:
CKD or Shaft.ed

I can't fathom you actually just choosing CKD as quickly as you did as town. Justify your actions.

[vollkan]

I'll get a thorough review of Adel and Pooky up tomorrow.

[vollkan]

I had the delusion that my dayvig gambit would either:
a) Cause an outpoouring of confession from Adel; or
b) Cause Pooky or CKD to shoot me, thereby outing Pooky/CKD as scum

I didn't anticipate Pooky killing CKD and throwing up a 50:50.

[vollkan]

Because I had been clear that CKD was still a suspect, whereas my innocence has been long-established.

Thus,
Pooky kills CKD = Is it Pooky or Adel?
Pooky kills Vollkan = Pooky is obvscum.

[vollkan]

*headdesk* I had a PBPA of Pooky done up to post 55, then I accidentally closed the ta b I was writing in. My biggest criticisms of him to that point were:
1) That his attacks on my play were thinly-disguised policy arguments - boiling down to him not liking that my play could potentially be scummy
2) His hypocrisy over CKD's hunch vote (pooky suggested a hunch was insufficient, despite having been clear in his rejection of the value of reasons)

I liked his explanation in 52 of his play wrt shaft.ed

55: Says he was trying to lead armlx around to see how he behaved.
56: Says he has posted "other" genuine things, aside from his attacks on me
57-62: Palaver. N is lynched in the meanwhile.
63: Thinks scum is on the attempted shaft.ed wagon

Which wagon page-wise?

64: Usual inflammatory remarks
65: Thinks that Erg0scum would try to save his buddy

Except that I also tried to lynch other than N...

66: Asks why Adel would have swapped if she were scum

Pooky, I can't see any reason for this regardless of alignment. Could you explain this to me - since you clearly see something that I don't.

67: Ditto
68: Ditto.
69: Wonders why N would choose not to be online

Your point?

70: Unvotes.
71: Has a daykill. Suggests daykilling everyone bar me.
72: Apparently forgot the rules...
73: Makes the good suggestion to lynch and not daykill
74: Quotes ABR about the daykill
75: EBWOP
76: "why do you want to kill me?"

who was this addressed to?

77: Asks me if I suspect him
78: Suggests his inactivity is not a scumtell

How do I reconcile this with your earlier remark that Dean lurking globally should not be treated as making his lurking a nulltell?

79-83: Discussion (not argument ) with me
84: Asks how Adel's game theory stuff makes sense
85: Mafia =/= RTS
86: "I don't believe that's an accurate assessment shafted. "

You may not believe it is accurate, but you don't explain how

87: "Would you choose to lynch yourself if it would gurantee I would be lynched next? " (that's @ Adel) Her response: "uh, no. I'm not too confident in shaft.ed being a good doctor." (

Mental note

: Come back to this from Adel, given her current confidence in shaft.ed)
88: "I wanted to see the degree of her certainty as to my scumminess as well as some other things."

Other things?

89: "I'd rather lynch adel that shafted. "
90: Asks whether scum can daykill
91: Questions validity of Adel's meta-ref
92: Suggests we all do reading
93: Agrees with me on shafted.
94: "if i was scum i would've daykilled someone already "
95: "I realize i need to daykill in case Adel is townie. DIE curiouskarmadog DIE!"

*sigh* This is one of those infuriating cases where scum and town would act the same, isn't it?

96: Town would behave same way
97: Explains why
98: Elaborates
99: Didn't think I would fake a daykill, since it was totally illogical
100: Again explains it
101: Notes the drama (I did too, fwiw) in Adel's playstyle remarks
102: Questions Adel for reasoning.
103: Ditto.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I identify the main points in the above. Largely, I am not at all convinced that Pooky is scum. His play is not significantly helpful, but it isn't exactly really scummy either. I would peg him at about

60%

[vollkan]

1)I do argue against policies i believe to be pro-scum. I don't see what problem you have with that. I made it clear what I thought was scummy and why I thought it was scummy. I'm not sure how you expect me to play that.

The main policy arguments you made against me were that my tight playstyle and use of numbers would suit "volkscum". That doesn't demonstrate in any way that vollkan is scum - only that vollkan has a global playstyle which suits him as scum (and town).

2) This isn't hypocrisy, I wanted you to tell me why reasons are important day one when most of it is generally crap during day one. I certainly didn't think you'd take me seriously in my stance that reasons were unimportant. It was just one of those things were discussion lets me get an idea of where people are leaning on giving reasons/not giving reasons and the quality of the reasons necesarry for a bandwagon/lynch.

As to my CKD hunch vote thing, I'm always going to want more than just "a hunch" because a hunch is something fairly intangible. Anyone could just say "I had a hunch" or whatever. I want to know what hat hunch is based on, where did you first develop this hunch? was it in a bathroom stall? was it when you read up to line X? do you have anything beyond this hunch? When given the option, I am going to push for more, that's just basic play.

I was aware you were not being serious. My point is that you explicitly declined to give reasons BUT when it came to CKD you insisted on more than "just a hunch".

I am also an outspoken hunch-hater - but only for the very reason that a hunch gives no objective reasons. I can't see how you can maintain that you asking for something more than a hunch from CKD (ie. reasons) is consistent with your refusal to give reasons. Yes, you may not have been serious and were just trying to get reaction and so forth, but it sets up a double-standard.

8. Which is why I couldn't understand why you would fake a daykill in the first place. I didn't understand what type of information you could be fishing for, so I assumed you weren't fishing.

I was desperate for a circuit-breaker and, as I've said, I concocted this nice fantasy of the scum killing me and the town going on to glory. I was wrong, obviously (but, at least this will give me a really good meta rebuttal for any other time I make a mistake ).

[vollkan]

0-5: Mostly opening palaver. She BW hop, following other people

but I don’t get anything from that fact.

6: Thinks scum are more likely on the first team
7: Wrong game
8: Notes wrong game. Votes TG – another BW hop
9: Decent rejection of Erg0’s one-game meta. First suggests that scum will want to concentrate themselves.

This really isn’t convincing. I don’t buy the game theory argument she makes (this isn’t a RTS) and it seems to just be a shaky means of arguing that scum are elsewhere – making it a perfect deflective tactic for Adelscum

10: nothing
11: nothing
12: Seems to shrug off the fact that my team was, in fact, the first to fill
13: Is just “chilling” on TG’s wagon
14: Follows armlx onto CKD
15: Apparently this is all part of her new “random bandwagon stage”
16: Swipes at armlx’s bullshit stats
17: Erg0 is trying to hard

Huh?

18: Votes Erg0, jocular reasons

--Will pick this up later. I have some study to do right now.

[vollkan]

19: Taunts TJM towards voting her.
20: Expects a twist
21: Votes TJM "for the scummy behavior of keeping a low profile and only popping in long enough to try to add some fuel to the hottest fire."
22: Calls bullshit on shaft.ed saying she plays like this often

This is interesting, because Adel is renowned for being a shit-stirrer. Thus, I don't follow how she just effectively accuses shaft.ed of lying

23: She distinguishes Discordian Algorithm and shaft.ed's one-game meta read.

Again, Adel ought to know how her play is perceived. Her aggression her against shaft.ed is odd.

24: nothing
25: Follows armlx to vote shaft.ed
26: nothing
27: Unvotes shafted after 183
28: nothing
29: Wonders why TJM is hesitant to vote
30: nothing
31: Is "astonished" TJM is still alive.
32: Nothing
33: votes TJM
34: Votes armlx - no explanation provided
35: Justifies this on the basis of following CKD - CKD is astute as town and may be distancing

Very interesting here. I wouldn't put it past Adel to bus on D1 Note also that she already raises the spectre of CKD distancing - pre-emption.

36: nothing
37: nothing
38: nothing
39: Rejects armlx's play of acting scummy

Odd that she of all people would be so quick to call bullshit on a claim of intentionally chaotic play

40: nothing
41: Thinks Erg0 and Pooky will be most difficult to nail as scum
42: nothing
43: Accepts TG probably missed the killing thing
44: Is worried about TJM being defenseless townie but is certain armlx is not

I smell an "I told you so"

45: After I attacked Dean, Adel tells me to meta him and get back. This causes me to withdraw my charges.
46: Asks Erg0 for a meta on TJM
47: Asks why Erg0 is active outside of this thread
48: Now cajoles me over my treatment of TJM, and makes the point of saying I am scummier than Pooky

First off, it's interesting how Adel slides away from TJM and then turns on me for attacking him just as she herself did. Moreover, the reference to Pooky (which are irrelevant...I mean, why pooky and not shafted?) is peculiar

49: Votes armlx. Previous was missed
50: Supports abandon
51: Asks to lynch armlx
52: Interesting quote:

I still think that

both

scum are in team LU.

Both = 2
No. of scum alive at that point = 3

A slip...from Adel?!?

53: Is gathering info and will present findings

These never surfaced

54: Shows Beep's apparent lying over the hammer
55: Calls for Beep's lynch
56: Doesn't buy it was mistake
57: nothing
58: Endorses Beep's lynch
59: nothing
60: nothing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again next set coming very soon. Respond as appropriate now, if you please.

[vollkan]

I also have a daykill.

Adel continued

61: Votes TG for suggesting bussing on the armlx wagon. She then tries to shift focus to Beep's wagon

I don't like this. TG's reasons for suspecting bussing were decent and Adel reacts by attacking him for this; in fact by voting him. What TG did was not scummy; especially to the point of warranting a vote.

62: Attacking her is a scumtell apparently
63: nothing
64: nothing
65: nothing
66: nothing
67: Will only support herself or CKD for leader because they lynched scum

And that makes someone automatically town, right?

68: nothing
69: nothing
70: supports CKD
71: Votes TG and calls for a lynch
72: suggests shaft.ed and TG as scum
73: nothing
74: nothing
75: Accuses shafted of bussing TG
76: Calls for votes
77: Voll is town. CKD is town. Pooky "probably" is. TG is "getting better" and shaft.ed is acting dense.

Reasons?

78-79: Pulls heat onto Erg0 and TG for their role in the Beep lynch
80: nothing
81: Puts up TG, shaft.ed, Erg0 and N as the potential scum
82: nothing
83: nothing
84: Calls to lynch TG asap. Doesn't want to lynch N, since N is a newbie. Like's "reading" shaft.ed's posts

That's a reason not to lynch?

Wants to see what Erg0 will add

Again, that isn't an alignment-dependent thing

85: nothing
86: Asks N to hammer TG
87: nothing
88: nothing
89: nothing
90: nothing
91: nothing
92: nothing
93: votes shafted No explanation given.
94: nothing
95: nothing
96: unvotes
97: votes shaft.ed after the N deadline comes into effect
98: nothing
99: nothing
100: votes N
101-103: nothing
104: Votes Erg0. No explanation
105-111: nothing
112: Votes shaft.ed, Is willing to vote Erg0. Can be talked into voting Pooky.

In short, she is willing to bend whichever way I swing

113: nothing
114: Got shaft.ed and Erg0 mixed up. Votes Erg0

No explanation

115: thinks she is scummier than CKD objectively

Was this an effort to suck up to CKD?

116: nothing
117: nothing
118: Is sold on Erg0

Reasons?

119: Thinks lynching Pooky is a gamble
120: Wants the town to choose bw Erg0 and herself
121: is still sold
{henceforth, "nothing" posts just won't be written}
123: Says Erg0's rhetoric is another good reason to vote him

Only reason you've given thus far

135: Kills Erg0
136: Votes Pooky, to end day quickly

Whoa! What happened to shafted being scum?

145: Says she won't respond to Erg0's inditement, but will respond if we point out important stuff
147: Stresses all scum would want to be on the same team

It REALLY is not this obvious

154: Solid on Pooky being scum
165: Doesn't think a reread is necessary due to Pooky's actions

Come on Adel. I KNOW you are more nuanced than that. The reasons Pooky gave for town daykilling wo

168: Used the wrong playstyle

FWIW, I am remaining completely skeptical of this

176: Just doesn't play like this as scum

Adel, your play is so varying that I find you totally impossible to get any consistent read on. It isn't past you to shuffle your playstyles at will. I cannot accept that you don't "play like this" as scum when you always use different styles. The problem with you having a lot of masks is that I can't work out what you actually look like.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suffice to say, Adel stands out to me more than Pooky. She's been shifting her suspicions all over the place, with very little accompanying reasoning. The shaft.ed attacks were dropped by her. That's important - if she sincerely suspected shaft.ed she would have argued against me and tried to show why. Instead, she avoided conflict and took the easy option. She is sitting at about

75%

for me. I will give her the chance to respond, obviously - if there is anything extra to say.

[vollkan]

why would you kill Erg0 and not shaft.ed with your daykill again?

How was Erg0 more scummy than shaft.ed?

[vollkan]

Well, shaft.ed and I are in agreement, so there is nothing left to do:

KILL: Adel

[vollkan]

Very well-played. You had us all fooled.

[vollkan]

Really good game setup ABR. The twist dynamic really made this an enjoyable break from the standard night-day thing.

[vollkan]

Vollkan, I'm curious what my odds would have been. Had you logged in and seen my ability to not kill Adel with her and Pooky very likely screaming for you to kill me but not able to with too few votes and no daykills, and me telling you Adel was a bulletproof scum, which way do you think you would have swung?

Without a proper excuse, I probably would have gone after you. I wasn't 100% on you being town, and I was paranoid that I had fooled myself into thinking you were.

I just realised, this gives me an awesome precedent for whenever I get attacked for not having people below 50%. Towntells are a lie!

I'd like to propose the vollkan effect. When a player with known analytical prowess makes consistent and thorough PBPA's, other players in the game will lean on this analysis as a sort of cliff notes version of the game and become detached. This effect is greatly increased when said player is a confirmed innocent.

/emphatic second

It seemed like, no matter what I said, nobody was actually arguing with me. I like being in control of a game, but it doesn't work if everyone just kneels before me.

Does this mean that there is an optimum level of suspicion at which I need to be held that is above zero?