Open 59 - Daytalk 12! (Game Over) before 545

[vollkan]

How intricate the reasoning depends on how intricate the trap, and again, towns need to push trap-setters more. Automatically assuming scum based on "setting a trap" is just as scummy as "setting a trap" is in your hypothetical.

Well, I don't automatically assume scum in the case of a trap. I assumed Adel's trap was going to be anti-town based on my understanding of scum claims and, thus, I voted her to push the trap-setter (though, you seem to have stepped up in her stead).

Of course, the townies in question might not have taken the trouble to really think things through in the fullest way, or they might just be incapable of doing so.

Exactly my point.

No. Your point was that if the town follow unquestionably they aren't doing their job. I am saying that there is a wide margin of reasonable error judgment in these matters. The analysis might not be perfect, or the player might not be totally up to scratch. Either way, the trap presents potentially big consequences for what can be just a minor imperfection.

Traps are less dangerous if you know how to read into them, and I really don't think this two-sided argument is getting anywhere; for one, it's entirely based on a playstyle argument, and furthermore we're falling into a pattern of just repeating ourselves over and over again.

I agree with you on both fronts.

This discussion has taught me that traps can be useful for some people, if they are up to judging reactions. That's something I'm going to need to work on from now on.

On that note,

unvote

.

Which is exactly why you do not run in and "disarm" a trap before anyone has the chance to react on it. Even if you can't read it, perhaps somebody else can and can explain to you what the tells are within said reactions.

Yeah, I was wrong here. If a person can reliably read a trap, they ought to be able to do so and explain their thoughts on it afterwards.

But again,

I am not voting based on your reaction to the claim

. I am voting you based on two factors:

1) The intent to deprive the town of potentially useful information from reactions to the trap
2) The ease with which you voted someone stating that you didn't necessarily know why you found it scummy.

Well:
1) I didn't consider there to be any potentially useful information, because my conviction was that such reactions are unreadable. You've disagreed with me on this, and said you can read the reactions. In that sense, yes, I have deprived you of potential information.
2) I voted because I saw it as anti-town and wanted answers.

[Mizzy]

*Pokes her head in to see if the walls-o-text are over now.*

[Phate]

The walls-o-text were extremely informative, both to the current game and to mafia theory in general.

Vote: Vollkan

JDodge's line of questioning is simple, direct, and hard to dodge without it being obvious. Vollkan has continued to dodge JDodge's questions and to reduce them to questions of pure theory rather than discuss them as they relate to the game at hand. I predicted as I read the last page the "Well, I concede the argument, let's be friends" ending that vollkan made on the beginning of this page. From what little I know of vollkan and from what I can percieve of his play this game, such a compromise and manner of reacting to questions = scummy enough for a vote.

[Mizzy]

The walls-o-text were extremely informative, both to the current game and to mafia theory in general.

Agreed, but I didn't want to interrupt them, either.

JDodge's line of questioning is simple, direct, and hard to dodge without it being obvious. Vollkan has continued to dodge JDodge's questions and to reduce them to questions of pure theory rather than discuss them as they relate to the game at hand. I predicted as I read the last page the "Well, I concede the argument, let's be friends" ending that vollkan made on the beginning of this page. From what little I know of vollkan and from what I can percieve of his play this game, such a compromise and manner of reacting to questions = scummy enough for a vote.

JD is extremely good at holding up his end of an intelligent debate/conversation and does ask very good questions...but he can do that as town and as scum. I do agree that Volkan isn't answering as directly as I'd like him to, and doesn't answer always in the context of this game as much as I'd prefer, but I'm not entirely convinced as to whether or not his actions/replies are scummy or not; a conversation like that usually leads to one of two things. 1) "I hate your guts and I will want to see you dead for the rest of the game" or 2) "Let's make up and be friends" and I'd really like to see some input from other people before going further with that train of thought.

[vollkan]

Vote: Vollkan

JDodge's line of questioning is simple, direct, and hard to dodge without it being obvious. Vollkan has continued to dodge JDodge's questions and to reduce them to questions of pure theory rather than discuss them as they relate to the game at hand. I predicted as I read the last page the "Well, I concede the argument, let's be friends" ending that vollkan made on the beginning of this page. From what little I know of vollkan and from what I can percieve of his play this game, such a compromise and manner of reacting to questions = scummy enough for a vote.

I disagree that I was "reducing" it to a matter of theory.

I explained the reason I voted Adel right up. Then we moved into discussing the theory behind my vote. The whole debate was related to the game at hand, except it was done in more general terms - because at issue was the underlying theory behind my vote for Adel. So no, I wasn't talking purely in terms of "Adel scum claimed and I think that Adel...etc" because it was largely a debate about my reasons for voting - which are a matter of general principles.

It got to a stage at which I no longer pushed the argument because JDodge provided a good justification for the traps. You seem to have a problem with this sort of ending to an argument. I could have kept pushing the envelope, but it wouldn't have achieved anything other than me being stubborn and refusing to accept a viewpoint contrary to my own.

I find it interesting that you think compromise is unusual for me. Sure, I am argumentative and I don't back down easily. But when I am satisfied that what another party has presented is better than my own view, or at least also a viable position, I have don't see any reason to keep arguing for argument's sake.

[Oman]

The "I Shoulda Known Vollkan Would Do His Wallz" Votecount

In decending order of Mob Hatred:

Vollkan (2): Jdodge, Adel

Adel (2): Phate, Incognito


Not Voting (6): The rest of you.
10 alive, 6 will lynch.

Phates vote has not counted as he did not unvote. (Thanks Adel)

[Adel]

just looking for three more to lynch this guy...

also, i wish I had two votes like Phate does.

[JDodge]

[02] Please be attentive and unvote, if necessary, before casting a new vote. Its not critical, but my wrath may fall..

Mod

: This means Phate's vote counts from my perspective

What can I say, my wrath fell. - Mod

[Phate]

Apologies.

Unvote
Vote: Vollkan

[Mizzy]

So, how's the weather? Crappy here, lemme tell ya.

Anyway, I'm not sure I agree with the case on Volkan at the moment...I think his defense of himself was sufficient and I feel there's better choices for lynches out there than him.

I feel comfortable

Voting: Adel

. I have to admit, I don't understand her play and I don't like it. It's not helpful, by any means. I realize that unhelpful != scum, but she did help kill a townie D1, and I have my eye on her and JDodge who have seemed to pair up together quite nicely. It's odd, I haven't seen a rendition of Bad Cop-Bad Cop before.

[Oman]

The lack of posting disturbs me, I really don't want to deadline today too!

[Oman]

You have 1 day to appease me, if by this time tomorrow there have been no posts (not including the one saying "where are you guys" designed to invalidate this) there will be a deadline.

[Phate]

Mizzy, I don't think your vote is justified. Adel's play is different than others she's played in, but that doesn't make her scum - have you ever seen her play like this in a game where she was scum? If so, please cite it.

It's not helpful, by any means. I realize that unhelpful != scum, but she did help kill a townie D1, and I have my eye on her and JDodge who have seemed to pair up together quite nicely.

Do I have to explain to you why these reasons suck?

What do you mean by "her and JDodge who have seemed to pair up together quite nicely"?

[Mizzy]

Mizzy, I don't think your vote is justified. Adel's play is different than others she's played in, but that doesn't make her scum - have you ever seen her play like this in a game where she was scum? If so, please cite it.

I'm voting Adel because her blatant desire for a lynch doesn't feel pro-town. Regardless of meta, it's generally understood that longer days (with more talk and therefor more information) are better for town, and she seems quite happy ending a day here. Not to mention that with the deadline so close, all she'd have to do is wait it out and she'd probably get what she wanted.

What do you mean by "her and JDodge who have seemed to pair up together quite nicely"?

They've both been on both wagons and their playstyles in this game are very, very similar.

Today: Vollkan (2): Jdodge, Adel
Yesterday: Xyzzy (3): Jdodge, Sir Tornado, Adel

I don't likes it.

[vollkan]

They've both been on both wagons and their playstyles in this game are very, very similar.

Today: Vollkan (2): Jdodge, Adel
Yesterday: Xyzzy (3): Jdodge, Sir Tornado, Adel

I don't likes it.

Why is playstyle similarity a problem?

Why is Adel/JDodge being on the same wagons a problem?

[Mizzy]

Why is playstyle similarity a problem?

Why is Adel/JDodge being on the same wagons a problem?

Playstyle is a problem because they are both coming off as anti-town, whether it's on purpose or not, in the same fashion. JD I'm used to seeing that from, but not necessarily from Adel. It seems noteworthy enough for a vote.

Because the first wagon was wrong. I had expressed distaste for that wagon multiple times, not just here but in chat with others. The lynch and the NK gave us pretty close to zero information. I don't like that they were the driving force behind the mislynch and I don't like that Adel is pushing for another lynch now.

Don't ask me questions just for the sake of looking active.

[vollkan]

Playstyle is a problem because they are both coming off as anti-town, whether it's on purpose or not, in the same fashion. JD I'm used to seeing that from, but not necessarily from Adel. It seems noteworthy enough for a vote.

So you meant they are both seeming anti-town?

Ordinarily, when someone says "playstyle" I think of meta things like "Well, so-and-so is always very emotionally reactive/bandwagon hops/has an aggressive tone/ etc." Hence, my question.

Because the first wagon was wrong. I had expressed distaste for that wagon multiple times, not just here but in chat with others. The lynch and the NK gave us pretty close to zero information. I don't like that they were the driving force behind the mislynch and I don't like that Adel is pushing for another lynch now.

I agree with you that they were wrong to push xyzzy, and I obviously agree with you on myself.

Don't ask me questions just for the sake of looking active.

That wasn't the point. The first question was because your use of the word "playstyle" confused me, and the second was to get you to elaborate on exactly what your problem with the wagoning was.

[vollkan]

@ All those on my wagon:

I just died in Mini 542. I was townie. In that game, a player (cop as it turned out) esploded and claimed GF at L-1. I hammered instantly, despite the fact that another player called for hesitation, (and this was back on Jan 10) because the scum claim "demands lynching".

I've argued here, and JDodge showed me that my adamancy was in error. Mini 542, however, demonstrates that I held my bombast objection in the best of faith.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: And the hammering occurred back on Jan 10.

[Mizzy]

So you meant they are both seeming anti-town?

Ordinarily, when someone says "playstyle" I think of meta things like "Well, so-and-so is always very emotionally reactive/bandwagon hops/has an aggressive tone/ etc." Hence, my question.

I mean their playstyle in this game thus far coupled with what meta I know of them. But MOSTLY their playstyle this game.

That wasn't the point. The first question was because your use of the word "playstyle" confused me, and the second was to get you to elaborate on exactly what your problem with the wagoning was.

I'm sorry, I should have elaborated...that wasn't just aimed at you. It feels like because Mister Moogle's wrath is imminent, that I will be/am being targeted because I posted right before it in an attempt to up participation. Not just by you.

[kabenon007]

I agree with JDodge on this one.

Vote: vollkan.

You are in fact dodging questions with your long posts that can seem contentful but shirk around the important stuff sometimes, by preventing reactions. Reactions to the words written on this thread are, in my opinion, the most telling of all the information we have. Okay, so it's not quite THAT important, but it's pretty high up on the list. And your stepping in did in fact hamper those reactions, and therefore the information given to the town. And plus, you are acting way too close to our first game. It's almost word for word.

[vollkan]

You are in fact dodging questions with your long posts that can seem contentful but shirk around the important stuff sometimes, by preventing reactions.

Here we see kab basically reiterating the main charges against me:
1) Dodging questions with long posts - Not true. I responded to JDodge on all questions asked. (Phate brought this one up as well).
2) Preventing reactions - Damn right. I intentionally stopped what I believed to be anti-town. I've had it explained to me, and I accept its legitimacy, but I stand by my actions.

A challenge for my growing pack of fleas: Find me a question that I either dodged, or did not reasonably attempt to answer.

And plus, you are acting way too close to our first game. It's almost word for word.

How?

[Mizzy]

I agree with JDodge on this one.

Vote: vollkan.

You are in fact dodging questions with your long posts that can seem contentful but shirk around the important stuff sometimes, by preventing reactions. Reactions to the words written on this thread are, in my opinion, the most telling of all the information we have. Okay, so it's not quite THAT important, but it's pretty high up on the list. And your stepping in did in fact hamper those reactions, and therefore the information given to the town. And plus, you are acting way too close to our first game. It's almost word for word.

FoS: kabenon007 for being a lemming.

Voting someone without adding anything concrete or reasonable (prior meta is great and all but it's kind of BS) is scummy to me.

Think for yourself

.

[Mizzy]

EBWOP:

FoS: kabenon007

[JDodge]

Bleh. I disagree with me on this one; vollkan seems genuine enough.

Unvote, vote: kabenon