Mini 880 - Mini Quick and Dirty - Game Over

[Raskol]

Last time I saw someone get worked up over an obvious joke in RVS, they were scum.

Last time I caught someone doing something I found scummy in the RVS, I voted for them.

Last time Troll saw someone hammer it was scum. That no makes hammering something Troll finds scummy.

Of course not. But then, you didn't mention that fact after someone hammered as a prelude to some probing questions. ekiM did. Now, the context and timing of his remark may have just been a grand coincidence, but I find it more likely that ekiM intended to raise a bit of suspicion. Maybe not a lot, but enough to override a random vote, I'm sure---so it's worth pointing out that his actions don't match with what he seems to be doing, at least at this point.

So you're voting him because he made an action, and all actions have motives, and some motives are scummy motives? Do you not see the problem here?

I'm going to ask you a similar question---your vote on SerialClergyman was placed, you said, because bandwagons are good. (I agree with that, btw). Don't you think bandwagons on people who've made plays you find irrational are even better, though?

Your vote could easily have been placed on Scien right now to bring him up to 2 votes, which is as high a threat level as SerialClergyman is now at, giving you your early game bandwagon just as surely as your SC vote does now---why wasn't it?

Here's hoping for some answers.

unvote

Vote: ekiM

[Zorblag]

@Raskol, what you say be true. It be unlikely that ekiM was just bringing up his point coincidentally. Troll's second sentence was actually supposed to be pertinent to the situation as well. If ekiM had simply brought it up and then done no pursuing of any sort it would be noteworthy. As him be having a discussion with Scien Troll finds it an unremarkable part of play. Actually, Troll was largely meaning to do to you what Troll thought you were doing to him; seeing if your comment was meant to lead somewhere. It seems that it was.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[ekiM]

Raskol --- because I'm trying to discern Scien's thinking and motivation. I don't feel the need to vote for everyone I'm questioning.

[Raskol]

I read the second part of your post as well. It's not the fact that ekiM's pushing on Scien that I have a problem with---that part I understand---it's that he's not putting his vote where his attacks are going. I'm reading that as at least somewhat suspicious, especially when he still has his random vote on.

[Raskol]

The above was for Zorblag

Raskol --- because I'm trying to discern Scien's thinking and motivation.

I don't feel the need to vote for everyone I'm questioning.

At a later point in the game, I'd agree with that completely. As it is though, you have your random vote on despite raising suspicion of someone who's not your random vote. My expectation of town players is that they'll put their vote on the person they find most scummy relatively quickly after deciding that they find them the most scummy. I find scum more likely to do otherwise.

So...do you think Scien's play would make a vote on him even the slightest bit better than a random vote, or not?

[Zorblag]

@Raskol, the issue here for Troll be how much importance you seem to be placing on moving the early votes. Unless you think that a vote on Scien would definitely cause a different sort of interaction that would help ekiM determine if Scien is scum it seems like a silly expectation. Having said that, it's your expectation to have or not. Troll be of the opinion that early votes don't need to follow suspicion closely as the suspicions will be fairly weak across the board at this point and a frequently moved vote has less impact than one that shows some stability.

Mind you Troll no even be at the spot in the game where Troll be voting for any reason other than people not having posted yet. Troll hasn't seen anything that be nearly scummy enough to warrant a deliberate vote. Right now Troll just be getting a feel for the flow of the game and the players that Troll no has played with before.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Raskol]

I place enough importance to override my previous random vote. As little as there is to go on in the early stages, a vote based on little is always better than a vote based on nothing. That goes for ekiM with Scien and it goes for me with ekiM. The standard of evidence will shift as the level of evidence shifts---you may not see a pressing need for a vote this early, but there are at least some good reasons for doing so.

On the other hand, I don't see any reason for town to hold a vote back if they think it's even slightly better than the one they have on now. I can think of a few reasons scum might have, though. So yes, it's worth pushing on until I've got something better.

[ekiM]

I don't think Scien is meaningfully more suspicious than any other player at this point, so I'm not placing a "real" vote on him. Thanks.

On the other hand, I don't see any reason for town to hold a vote back if they think it's even slightly better than the one they have on now. I can think of a few reasons scum might have, though.

Please expand.

[Scien]

Do you not see the problem here?

I don't see the problem. Worth it to investigate rather than to stick around pestering my RVS target.

[Raskol]

I don't think Scien is meaningfully more suspicious than any other player at this point, so I'm not placing a "real" vote on him. Thanks.

Do you think it's unreasonable of me to think otherwise, based on your recent interaction with him?

On the other hand, I don't see any reason for town to hold a vote back if they think it's even slightly better than the one they have on now. I can think of a few reasons scum might have, though.

Please expand.

Reasons scum have for holding back a vote when raising suspicion on a player

:

-waiting to gauge support before firmly committing to a wagon
-plausible deniability if such support is found lacking, or if the attacks are questioned ("I didn't

really

find him suspicious!")
-distancing a buddy without putting them closer to a lynch

Reasons townies have for holding back a vote when raising suspicion on a player

:

-they've got an even better vote that they don't want to switch off of
-laziness
-?

[SerialClergyman]

Out of curiosity ekim, I've decided I disagree with most of your rules about claiming. There are plenty of times when an early claim is worthwhile (not the least of which is actually finding scum). In a limited reveal that might be even more important.

Plus in general claiming is what all the cool kids do. I seem to always be asking for massclaims earlier than everyone.

Big thanks to Bigbear for turning a revised setup around in 24 hours

I'm also going to regularly fail to put my vote at the bottom of the post. Just for future reference, I promise no trickery in that regard, I find such moves distasteful.

I'm voting sando because I'll never not enjoy it.

vote sando

[ekiM]

Scien - the problem is that there is literally nothing to investigate. You've allowed that he was just joking around. That makes it null. That you're speculating there might be a hidden motive is not useful, unless you can explain what that motive might be and why it's more likely than an innocuous one.

I find the whole line of investigation pointless.

I don't think Scien is meaningfully more suspicious than any other player at this point, so I'm not placing a "real" vote on him. Thanks.

Do you think it's unreasonable of me to think otherwise, based on your recent interaction with him?

I'm not sure what answer you're hoping for here. I generally investigate before I draw conclusions, not the other way around.

I found his moves questionable, so I questioned him. Having done that, I don't think he's suspicious enough to warrant a real vote.

[ekiM]

Out of curiosity ekim, I've decided I disagree with most of your rules about claiming. There are plenty of times when an early claim is worthwhile (not the least of which is actually finding scum). In a limited reveal that might be even more important.

I don't follow. When are early claims worthwhile? What does the parenthetical phrase mean? Why are early claims more important in limited reveal?

Plus in general claiming is what all the cool kids do. I seem to always be asking for massclaims earlier than everyone.

Those rules apply to individual claims under pressure, not massclaims.

[SerialClergyman]

You are a cop who has a guilty - what do you do?

[Raskol]

I'm not sure what answer you're hoping for here. I generally investigate before I draw conclusions, not the other way around.

I found his moves questionable, so I questioned him. Having done that, I don't think he's suspicious enough to warrant a real vote.

I'm looking for the honest kind of answer. Like, "Yes, I did find him at least somewhat suspicious, and did question him in a way that I knew would tend to make others more suspicious of him as well." You are free to follow that up with "After questioning him, I no longer find him suspicious."

Keep in mind, though, that from my point of view you have cast suspicion on someone without voting them and then denied being suspicious after having been questioned about it. This is minorly scummy-looking, and you're my best vote at the moment. Of course, at this stage in the game it doesn't take much for someone to be the most suspicious. What you've done isn't a huge deal, just the closest thing to one that's happened yet---imo. Which reminds me...

The problem might be that you're suffering from "I need to be sure someone is scum before I vote for them" syndrome---a terrible disease that sometimes afflicts overly cautious townies (and unfortunately, more often, overly cautious scum). The thing is, you don't really need to have a great reason for voting someone---you just need to have better reasons to vote for them than you do to vote for anyone else. Taking a position early on and backing it up with a vote is super-awesome and extra-town and everyone should do it. I would have thought someone who advocates early bandwagon would understand that.

[ekiM]

You are a cop who has a guilty - what do you do?

Again, those are all about claiming when under pressure. Maybe I should make that more clear in future.

[Raskol]

SerialClergyman---do you think the RVS has ended yet? If so, where did it end, do you think? If not, what would you take as a sign that it's ended?

[ekiM]

I don't need to be sure someone is scum before voting for them. But I need more than something I've decided is effectively null. Placing a vote for a null reason is worse than placing a random vote, in my opinion.

[Raskol]

I don't need to be sure someone is scum before voting for them. But I need more than something I've decided is effectively null. Placing a vote for a null reason is worse than placing a random vote, in my opinion.

At what point did you decide that the points you were making against Scien were effectively null, then?

[ekiM]

Somewhere between posts 40 and 48. I still think his chosen line of attack is distinctly sub-optimal, but I haven't found his responses regarding his reasoning scummy.

[SerialClergyman]

I think we are still in the RVS with maybe a nod to the talk about meta/theory stage.

Ekim - fair enough. But even then, anyone with some results, even innocents or whatever should claim as soon as it hits l-1 IMO.

[ekiM]

I don't really see why, unless there's a worry that they will be hammered without being asked to claim. There really shouldn't be.

I guess those "rules" describe my ideal framework for how pressure claims would or would not go down, but if any part of it is broken (e.g., if people might hammer without asking for a claim) then the rest of it doesn't quite work too. Which is a reason to get it all out there at the start of the game.

[SerialClergyman]

I'll drink to that!

[Amished]

1) AGar: Why do you only want PZ to come in? So you can 2fac him like you always do?

2) My wiki is slightly behind. If you want a more recent game of any alignment I'll let you know.

However, I rarely use meta (and think it's overall pretty worthless) so don't expect me to really take too much meta discussion. Any smart player can mess with their meta just enough to trick anybody; and I respect all of you as players so I really don't think it'll be an effective usage of time. You can find meta to fit any situation that you want to; so I'd rather take this game as it's own entity.

3) Raskol's 38 seems like a weak attempt to cast suspicion on something that's not inherently scummy; especially at this point of the game. Counterpoint to your {Raskol's} argument: If I find every "lurker" suspicious for not posting yet, should I then vote all of them? It's not going to affect anything.

I expect votes to be placed when there's a need for a vote. If people are active and will answer questions you post to them, don't really need a vote. If they do something so scummy you don't think that they could be town, sure, go ahead and vote. If they're avoiding questions deliberately or unintentionally, go ahead and vote. But if you think that somebody needs questioning, but you don't really have an overall scum-vibe from them; ekiM's reaction is just fine.

4) I'm tired I should be back later tonight to see any developments though

[VP Baltar]

Amished, what grounds do you have to not post some games for raskol just because you don't like meta? I don't understand that logic.