Mini 546: House Mafia - Game Over

[vollkan]

I think you could be.

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

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

i've been inactive across almost all games during the most recent stretches.

is that a tell?

[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")

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

so a person who is actively scumhunting can be ruled out as 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.)

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

But surely there are other factors to consider than just scumhunting?

[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?

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

The actions of the dead scum.

[vollkan]

Good, then we've argued ourselves into agreement

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

What from above seems to be arguing?

[vollkan]

...nothing actually.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

There there Vollky

I still love you.

[shaft.ed]

Adel would you care to reply to Erg0's 1134?

[Adel]

500 word inditement of Adel

I could do a wall-of-words point by point retort. I don't feel like it, but I'm willing to if ckd and vollkan ask me to. As a possible alternative, quote any argument you find to be particulary compelling and I'll respond to that.

[shaft.ed]

Bah, I'll get your quotes tommorow. Too much procrastinating in the GD today.

[shaft.ed]

Trimmed it down a little bit. Still think it breaks 500 words.

On day 1, Adel was the second vote on armlx's lynch, apparently following ckd. She did push him a bit after she voted, but she never directly called for a hammer as she does on day 2 with TG. She also approved of the Beep! wagon for most of the day (see below).
On day 2 she pushes the TG wagon all the way to the bank, partially based on what I think is fallacious logic (again, see below).
On day 3 she started off being certain that shaft.ed was scum, switched to Near for very little reason and then unvoted altogether and apparently let the clock run out. I'm not sure whether the late vote was deliberate or accidental, but I don't see this as a tell for reasons I've already explained.

- She spent a lot of time talking about how scummy Jive around the time the teams were split (29, 31, 33). In 44 she's less sure, thinking he might be befuddled town, then in 46 she asks me for a meta read on him (possibly because I was in another game with him at the time). I don't believe she ever comments on my response that he seems different from the other game. In 48 she says again that she thinks Jive is town, but after Beep comes in and drops the hammer she implies in 54 that she doesn't believe his vote was accidental, then says in 55 that she wants to lynch him tomorrow. After I put the second vote on him, she says in 58 that she endorses my vote. By post 61 she's swung around, saying "If you want to identify scum look at Beep! Beep!'s wagon", then discredits her own case in 62 when I point out that she supported the wagon, but again doesn't move her vote. She eventually pushes TG's wagon all the way to lynch.
- In post 78 she advances the theory that armlx delayed his hammer to give his buddy some breathing room. Again I point out that this is incorrect and she goes for the ongoing game defence before eventually admitting that she didn't check her facts.

- Case against me today has been one strawman or vague condemnation after another. She's using what I call the "stick and move" approach, throwing as much stuff as the she can think of at me and then dropping the points that I successfully refute (e.g. "easy target" comment in 118, false dilemma in 120, meaningless drivel in 123, poor attempt at a meta in 124, ignoring my response to craplogic from 127). You can't lose an argument if you refuse to engage the other person, I suppose. Her failure to follow up on post 124, where she asks "have you ever been this combative as town before?", is the biggest problem here. I deliberately replied without an example to see if she'd follow up, and she just let it drop. Someone who was interested in lynching the right player (as opposed to just lynching anyone) would have asked for an example there rather than just taking my word for it. This is exemplary of her entire case on me: she's making it up as she goes along, and shaping others' opinions through simple repetition rather than actual evidence.
- Adel says in 41 that she thinks that Pooky and I would be toughest to nail as scum. She later says in 84 that I'm "supposed to be a very strong player according to other players [she] respect

", the basis for which is later clarified as being BM's comments in the Scummies judging. This leads me to wonder what the basis for post 41 was, since it was made much earlier in the game, likely before BM would have made such a comment. I've played with Adel before, but if she hadn't arrived at a conclusion about my ability based on those games (apparently relying on BM's comments instead) then where did 41 come from? A comment like this out of the blue just raises my defences.
- In post 86, Adel tells a floundering Near to hammer TG. Less than 20 (game) posts later, Near does just that. Circumstantial, but notable.

[Albert B. Rampage]

Let's go people, we don't have all week.

[shaft.ed]

pooky why do you debate people about the meaning of townie whenever someone points out you haven't done anything all game?

[Adel]

On day 1, Adel was the second vote on armlx's lynch, apparently following ckd. She did push him a bit after she voted, but she never directly called for a hammer as she does on day 2 with TG. She also approved of the Beep! wagon for most of the day (see below).

I still think that the armix lynch should pretty much clear me, it would be so easy as scum to lynch any other player. I suppose the meta could be at one of those weird places where scum are expected to buss day 1

even when it only takes three players to lynch.

On day 2 she pushes the TG wagon all the way to the bank, partially based on what I think is fallacious logic (again, see below).

magic is to magick as logic is to logick

I use logick because it works better.

On day 3 she started off being certain that shaft.ed was scum, switched to Near for very little reason and then unvoted altogether and apparently let the clock run out. I'm not sure whether the late vote was deliberate or accidental, but I don't see this as a tell for reasons I've already explained.

I often play with wagons. I feel like I've gotten good at identifying when a wagon is scum powered or not, but it takes some experimentation to determine if that is the case. I believe that I unvoted in preperation of a vote on someone unexpected.

- She spent a lot of time talking about how scummy Jive around the time the teams were split (29, 31, 33). In 44 she's less sure, thinking he might be befuddled town, then in 46 she asks me for a meta read on him (possibly because I was in another game with him at the time). I don't believe she ever comments on my response that he seems different from the other game. In 48 she says again that she thinks Jive is town, but after Beep comes in and drops the hammer she implies in 54 that she doesn't believe his vote was accidental, then says in 55 that she wants to lynch him tomorrow. After I put the second vote on him, she says in 58 that she endorses my vote. By post 61 she's swung around, saying "If you want to identify scum look at Beep! Beep!'s wagon", then discredits her own case in 62 when I point out that she supported the wagon, but again doesn't move her vote. She eventually pushes TG's wagon all the way to lynch.
- In post 78 she advances the theory that armlx delayed his hammer to give his buddy some breathing room. Again I point out that this is incorrect and she goes for the ongoing game defence before eventually admitting that she didn't check her facts.

all of this sounds pretty typical for my behavior as town, even the last part.

- Case against me today has been one strawman or vague condemnation after another. She's using what I call the "stick and move" approach, throwing as much stuff as the she can think of at me and then dropping the points that I successfully refute (e.g. "easy target" comment in 118, false dilemma in 120, meaningless drivel in 123, poor attempt at a meta in 124, ignoring my response to craplogic from 127). You can't lose an argument if you refuse to engage the other person, I suppose.

and that is nothing compared to when I really try to lynch someone.
I prefer "stick and move" to "bog down and out type"

Her failure to follow up on post 124, where she asks "have you ever been this combative as town before?", is the biggest problem here. I deliberately replied without an example to see if she'd follow up, and she just let it drop.

how could I possibly prove the counter-factual? We could bicker over the meaning of "combative" for pages alone.

Someone who was interested in lynching the right player (as opposed to just lynching anyone) would have asked for an example there rather than just taking my word for it.

good players easily avoid trapping themselves with blatant lies.

This is exemplary of her entire case on me: she's making it up as she goes along, and shaping others' opinions through simple repetition rather than actual evidence.

all part of getting your target lynched.

- Adel says in 41 that she thinks that Pooky and I would be toughest to nail as scum. She later says in 84 that I'm "supposed to be a very strong player according to other players [she] respect

", the basis for which is later clarified as being BM's comments in the Scummies judging. This leads me to wonder what the basis for post 41 was, since it was made much earlier in the game, likely before BM would have made such a comment.

the scummies forum opened much earlier than Erg0 apparently was aware of. It was opened the same day as the summies 2007 nomination thread was locked. Go ahead and compare the dates.

I've played with Adel before, but if she hadn't arrived at a conclusion about my ability based on those games (apparently relying on BM's comments instead) then where did 41 come from? A comment like this out of the blue just raises my defences.

what games? Perhaps one of the games where I was killed day 1 and stopped watching, or one of our active games... I'll ask him about it after the game ends, I must've skimmed over this part initially.

- In post 86, Adel tells a floundering Near to hammer TG. Less than 20 (game) posts later, Near does just that. Circumstantial, but notable.

I suppose that could be considered budding up as easily as it could be the coincidence I took it for.

[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).

[Adel]

Is it likely that the scum would all try to get on the one team?

yes, emphatically.

[vollkan]

Why?

[shaft.ed]

I don't know that I agree with that idea, especially given the fact that LU took longer to lynch. However, Dean/Thanatos was non-existant pretty much all of D1 so they'd have been one short.

[Adel]

Why?

Basic game theory. Under the assumption that the teams would last for a number of days before being recombines, the tactics seem clear to me.

[PookyTheMagicalBear]

um how does that make any sense?