WARNING: WALL O' TEXT BELOW
Cliff notes:
1. MacavityLock is misinterpreting Panzer's post 43
2. I still don't buy Dourgrim's reasons for voting for me
3. A summary of the activity in this game (read this if nothing else)
-----------------------
1.
MacavityLock wrote:Yes, exactly. In post 43, Panzer was the one to start bringing up an SK as a real threat.
Post 43 was in response to Dourgrim's post, which I'll quote below.
Dourgrim wrote:Actually, Panzer, mykonian's logic is sound, if a bit oddly stated. He says that GIEFF has information the rest of us don't (i.e. implying a role that isn't Townie) and is also going after mafia. Ergo, GIEFF can't possibly be mafia if he's trying to lynch mafia, and no one pro-Town would out themselves as a Cop or Doc or any sort of useful power role before the game even starts, ergo he must be the SK.
Now, although that logic does work, it's certainly not bulletproof; there are far too many scenarios that would explain all of this... like, for instance, the usual meaningless chatter that people use to "spice up" Day One random voting. Furthermore, the SK isn't likely to out himself either so soon in the game, so I'm not convinced...
And here is post 43:
Panzerjager wrote:@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK lynch him. Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.
@Goatrevolt: He is calling GIEFF anti-town, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.
Panzer wasn't warning the town about the SK; he was correcting Dourgrim's post about Mykonian's post, and explaining what he thought Mykonian really meant.
This is all difficult to talk about because it's hard to differentiate a poster's opinion from their explanation of Mykonian's post. I do find it fishy that Panzer assumes that I am town, though; the only people that know that are myself and the mafia.
------------------
2.
Doursorryaboutwritingscumhereinsteadofgrim wrote:I really hate it when people change names while quoting to try and slant opinions. I haven't mangled your name once, so please show my name the same respect and stop spin doctoring the thread.
I didn't even notice that I had changed your name to Dourscum for a couple of the quotes. Sorry about that - it wasn't intentional. I wasn't quoting directly, I was just typing your name. Freud at work, I guess.
Dourgrim wrote: I believe your arguments have essentially amounted to "Why are you picking on me instead of <name>?" That's not a valid defense.
They have not amounted to this in the slightest; I say that to demonstrate that your logic is faulty. If your reasons for voting me were really what you said they were, I would not be your only target, as I am not the only person who meets your criteria.
I am not defending myself so much as I am attacking your initial reasons for voting me. My main weapon for finding scum is finding faulty reasoning behind votes. Townies actually use logic to figure out who the scum are, but because scum already know, they simply fake logic, as it isn't necessary.
It is easiest to attack logic for votes on myself than votes on others because a) I know that I am town (and attacking the logic for a vote on scum is very anti-town), and b) I don't accidentally take the focus off of another player (If I pre-emptively attack the logic behind an attack on another player, we may miss out on the attackee's response).
Dourgrim wrote:I disagree with this philosophically. Joke posts (even "meaningful" ones) can and do generate conversation, true, but so do bandwagons. How did you decide your method of generating conversation more valid than mine?
What sort of serious conversation do you expect to have in the pre-game? In the first 10 posts? Your method is the most valid, and similar to the way I play the game. But you can't start with ultra-serious mega-analysis right off the bat; there is nothing to build on. This is an easy point to realize, and one on which I think we are in agreement. It's just a matter of the phase of the game in which the posts occur.
Dourgrim wrote:Furthermore, as we appear to be proving quite well in this game, joke posts can (and oftentimes do) get misinterpreted to the detriment of the Town. It is for this reason that I generally prefer to avoid joke posting, unless I'm combining the joke with what I believe to be meaningful content, like my OMGUS in my original vote for you (see below).
Did you misinterpret my accusation of "obvscum" in the pre-game? Or talking about the sugar levels of my blood or the big-screen TV's in my wagon? Do you think these posts are more or less likely to be misinterpreted than presenting three reasons for a vote, getting called on one of them, and retroactively claiming it was a joke, but the rest of your post was not?
Joke posts are only confusing when you mix them in with serious posts, as you claim to have done in your initial vote for me.
Dourgrim wrote:Again, this may be a "generation gap" kinda thing, but in mid- to endgame situations, I've found that voting patterns in earlier Days can be a very useful tool in scumhunting. When people post without voting, it gives them an out when that pattern analysis begins... and so yes, I do think that a lack of a random vote can be an advantage for scum later. Obviously you disagree. Again, *shrug*.
I agree completely that a lack of a meaningful vote along with meaningful analysis is an advantage for scum later. We think very similarly in this regard. But we're talking about meaningless votes and meaningless posts, and I just don't see how a meaningless vote is valuable to look back at in later days.
But because two players have said this, could one of you link me to a game where you experienced this happening? If I could see a case where it actually helps the town, maybe I'll random-vote in my future games.
Dourgrim wrote:As much as I dislike your style of argument (the abovementioned name mangling), you have made certain aspects of your point, and at least you're well-spoken.
That isn't my style of argument - that was a mistake.
Dourgrim wrote:Having said all of that, I would like to unvote: GIEFF for the moment. I'm going to reread the thread with a fresh pair of eyes today and see what I see, and I'll weigh in on the situation later today.
I read this as "As my reasons for voting GIEFF were shown to be faulty and baseless, I've decided to unvote rather than continue to try to defend myself."
You won't get off that easily. It's not the fact you were voting me that bothered me, but the fact that you were using poor logic to do so. Here is your original post voting for me.
Dourgrim wrote:We have 9/12 voting so far. Not voting: GIEFF, springlullaby, dejkha
Of those three, one has posted (twice) and didn't vote. Conveniently enough, that person also has two votes on him and so could be the Day One Bandwagon-ee. And, OMGUS because he called me obvscum before I had even posted anything more than a "/confirm" in the thread.
unvote: Panzerjager
vote: GIEFF
Early pressure is understandable, and I actually took this as somewhat of a joke post. But you said later on that you were happy with this vote, even as your original reasons for voting eroded, and as you failed to present new ones.
In this light, your unvote looks like appeasement designed to stop me from questioning your reasoning any further.
-------------------------
3.
Here is a summary of the players who haven't contributed as much to the game as the rest of us have. I know the game hasn't been going for that long, but I think this information will be useful.
Beyond_Birthday
: One serious post (
72), no serious votes. No serious scumhunting attempts. This is scummy.
MacavityLock
: Three serious posts (
47,
75, and
81).
47 is more information than analysis, and the logic for it is bad, as I allude to at the beginning of this post. Most of posts 75 and 81 are Mac defending himself. Other than the Panzer-SK thing (which I think is bogus), Mac has provided no original scumhunting.
militant
: No serious posts, no serious votes. [joke]Plus, I totally nailed him as scum with my pre-game epiphany.[/joke]
Mykonian
: No serious posts that were not defending himself from others' accusations. No seroius votes. No scumhunting. This is very scummy, as the excuse of inactivity doesn't apply to explain the lack of pro-town contribution.
springlullaby
: No serious posts, no serious votes. [joke]Plus, I totally nailed her as scum with my pre-game epiphany.[/joke]
subgenius
: One serious post (
74), no serious votes. He did do a spot of scumhunting in this post, so I don't think his behavior should be classified as scummy; just not quite as active as the rest of us.
ting =)
: One serious post (
73), no serious votes. As with subgenius, there was some scumhunting in this post.
To summarize:
MIA
:
militant
and
springlullaby
. militant has posted just once elsewhere, and springlullaby not at all, so I think this is more inactivity than actively avoiding the game.
Active lurkers
(posting but no attempts at scumhunting):
Beyond_Birthday
,
MacavityLock
,
Mykonian
Light contributors
:
subgenius
,
ting =)
I think the Active Lurker group is the scummiest, but all the above players should pick up their activity a bit in the coming days, or risk my swift and furious wrath.
I think I should always appoligize for bad play. It simply is not helping, because people may think you are scummy. Even when it was for a random vote, then you have the right to point out that the reason is wrong.
