Mini 546: House Mafia - Game Over

[Erg0]

I suppose that TG's comment didn't technically fall into twilight, but it did remind me of my usual policy of disregarding almost anything said between the lynch and the night scene. I'd kind of let that slide due to the whole nightless thing, but I think it's as valid here as it is in any other game.

[shaft.ed]

How is that relevant? It's not.

But, OK, my headdesk argument sucked.

It was pointing out that your headdesk argument sucked, seems relevant.

Near, your "outburst" of emotion following the TG lynch was one of the scummiest things I have seen in my breif time on MS. I have more against you but lack the time right now to put a case together. I will get that up in the next day or so.


Also CKD and Erg0 going to give reasons, or just waiting for reactions from the rest of the staff?

[Erg0]

Reason: I think she is scum. Almost everybody that sucks up to me turns out to be scum.

[Near]

Near, your "outburst" of emotion following the TG lynch was one of the scummiest things I have seen in my breif time on MS. I have more against you but lack the time right now to put a case together. I will get that up in the next day or so.

Yes, I got emotional. Do I think my posting that I wish I can take my vote back immediately after the hammer would make me less scummy? No. I knew that my doing so would make people to become suspicious of me. At the same time, I don't believe it is the scummiest thing you've ever seen. I can imagine someone else regretting immediately after hammering someone, before knowing the alignment of the person lynched. And I am sure this has happened before (although I am new so I haven't seen it). And if it hasn't happened frequently, my guess is it's because the person hammering was afraid of getting the suspicion for exactly what you are accusing me of.

[Erg0]

I have to ask one thing: if you knew it would make you look scummy, why did you post it?

[curiouskarmadog]

Day 1 has reminded me of the folly of attempting to use post-hammer reactions as scumtells. TG's sudden turnaround after the Beep! lynch looked bad to me, and he came up town.

I personally don't think you can compare the two. Near was upset about it BEFORE TG's alignment was even revealed. That's the difference.

this is true and it is scummy...and my vote might end up here..but right now..it is good where it is.

Also CKD and Erg0 going to give reasons, or just waiting for reactions from the rest of the staff?

I plan on it..just letting it ride for the moment though.

[Near]

I have to ask one thing: if you knew it would make you look scummy, why did you post it?

Hmm. A question no one asked before. I haven't thought about it.

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?

[shaft.ed]

Reason: I think she is scum. Almost everybody that sucks up to me turns out to be scum.

Think I missed the sucking up behavior. Care to site references?

[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?

[Near]

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

Dang. Pretty sharp response.
That was only my guess. So maybe.

[Near]

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.

Let me think about that.

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.

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?

[shaft.ed]

Only your guess? Why do you have to guess what the purpose of your own actions are? And you're the one accusing me of making up reasons after the fact.

[Near]

Only your guess? Why do you have to guess what the purpose of your own actions are? And you're the one accusing me of making up reasons after the fact.

Because sometimes I act without thinking, don't you ever do that.
At least I didn't try to make up a fake reasons to try to cover myself.

[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.

[Adel]

vote:shaft.Ed

[Erg0]

Welp, I was up for a shaft.ed lynch yesterday so you know that I'll support a wagon on him. I do like my vote where it is right now, though.

[shaft.ed]

vote:shaft.Ed

You were supposed to vote for CKD, you've completely ruined our votecount symmetry. Any reason for the capital E btw? Oh and the vote.


Happy scumday Erg0

[shaft.ed]

Pooky, you basically lurked through the entire day yesterday. I would not like to see that happen again. Please post.

Adel anything to say about this:

it is always tricky stating a case against your scumbuddy without bussing him and while sounding sincere. Good job.

[Near]

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."

I really don't think so. Yes, if I were you, I would have thought that what you are saying is likely, but it's not. It's because you think my evidences suck/not enough whatever - he still feels scummy to me.

Explain to me why 2 is not conspiracy.

Can I ask other people to help me answer this? because I am not sure, I wrote down a paragraph, but it doesn't make sense to me. Yet, I still feel like I am right. anyone?

[Near]

Explain to me why 2 is not conspiracy.

OK. Let me try again.

I've actually never played in a game with unabashed bandwagon hopping to the extreme that Adel was using. The times I have seen heavy bandwagoning it has been either from scum or from townies that end up outing power roles, so I don't like it. The uses of heavy bandwagoning in my experience are 1) to pressure a player into a poor response thus building a case on them [usually scum], 2) to counterattack players who vote the wagoner [generally from scum] or 3) simply to generate discussion and latch onto "odd" reactions to the wagon

. Since Adel was jumping off wagons before they could get going I knew it wasn't #1.

So I wanted to see how she would react to some votes being added to her in order to discern between 2 & 3.

She didn't heavily attack me or CKD for our votes and she did point out JiveMachines discrepency, this lead me to believe she was motivated to move the game out of random and generate some useful leads. My post saying as such was obviously lazy and incorrect.

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.

[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.

[shaft.ed]

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.

And yes "generate discussion" can be a null tell, but I see it as a slightly town tell since some scum on average don't like to draw attention with such play.

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

[curiouskarmadog]

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.

.

ha, agreed

[Erg0]

The last couple of pages have made my brain hurt.

[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