/Invitational 13: The battle of Yarmouk. Decisive victory!

[chamber]

DRK is a reasonable enough wagon, but panzer also smells a little too fishy

Vote panzer

[chamber]

I can think there are good reasons to vote DRK without thinking that panzer was using good reasons when he voted. I can think panzer is scummy even when I think he votes with good reasons if I think the way he does so is off. Also fishy puns.

[chamber]

I don't need to elaborate to show that mith's reason for being suspicious of me is faulty. If I wanted to elaborate for some other reason I would have done so initially.

[chamber]

Why?

Feel free to wait until after fishy has answered, but why why?

[chamber]

I don't know if fishy and mith are both scum but i'm slightly leanign that way

Is this based more on you finding them individually scummy, or actual play cues hinting at a connection?

[chamber]

This interaction between fishy and mith is striking me as distancing.

I mean, is this the only reason, and if not, etc.

[chamber]

So you'll follow a gut scum read on minutia but not a gut town read on minutia?

This is a weird question, can you explain your reasoning behind asking it?

[chamber]

Panzer, what internet browser do you use?

[chamber]

I'm trying to be concise

If this is abnormal for you, is there a reason for it this game?

[chamber]

He has a typo in one of his posts and I was wondering if he used a browser with a built in spell-check.

[chamber]

Why would you openly ask that question instead of privately? (@drk)

[chamber]

@Chamber
Because it wasn't a question about private information

This is a very bad answer and it was a very bad question.

[chamber]

Too late now, you've drawn awareness to it which is the reason why it was so bad.

[chamber]

The fact that scum likely have day talk. Much thought on the matter would make it fairly obvious that they should, and assuming that they do, that asynchronicity between town and scum knowledge had potential to birth some nice scum or town tells.

[chamber]

Do scum "likely have day talk" or is it "fairly obvious that they should"?

Both of these can be true (and are). Your assertion about panzer and KK requiring proof of the negative doesn't justify your question being public.

[chamber]

Then I guess I just don't understand what you think is harmful about it. Are people going to start playing differently because that question was asked publicly?

Yes.

[chamber]

Then I guess I just don't understand what you think is harmful about it. Are people going to start playing differently because that question was asked publicly?

Yes.

So where you going with this chamber? is DRK scummy for asking about daytalk or were you just spending half a page instructing DRK on how to properly scumhunt?

It started as the former but ended as the later.

[chamber]

I think a couple of people have smeared him when all hes actually guilty of is being boring.

[chamber]

I think a couple of people have smeared him when all hes actually guilty of is being boring.

If we were voting based on boring it'd probably be your neck in the noose right now.

I didn't say you guys were voting him because he was being boring, I said its all I thought he was guilty of.

[chamber]

I asked about it because on reread,

I'm willing to hammer yet (page 2 and all). But panzerjager needs to explain himself.

^ that sounded like Kublai telling buddyPanzer to step up his game.

[chamber]

Vote KK

[chamber]

Colored in red are the bottom three names on my suspect list and would explain why there was no extra push by way of votes on the panzer wagon once the mith wagon formed. DRK as a bonus is #4 suspect. mith voting the panzer wouldn't have really counted as the scum push back on the panzer wagon. Immediately after that votecount I posted, chamber gets active and starts questioning panzer, and DRK speaks up about not liking the mith wagon and starts questioning panzer some more. That could be the extent of a scumshove on the panzer wagon that scum were able to muster.

I'm at least slightly biased against your theory knowing that I'm town, but I completely disagree with your analysis. I thought on this topic before anyone started talking about it, and if mith were scum and there were already a lot of scum on the panzer wagon I feel he would have voted for panzer when miths wagon got to l-1. It wouldn't have been unnatural for him to do so, he was basically pressuring me and panzer all day, but he chose to keep his vote on me. This tells me he wasn't actually worried about getting lynched. That means to me that if hes mafia its almost surely with KK, who was questioning him negatively while mith was at l-1, and yet mith still didn't seem worried about gettng lynched. It also suggests someone else on miths wagon would be his 2nd partner, allowing for the mobility to lynch panzer quickly if it were needed.

[chamber]

You are still pretty boring. I've given you plenty to judge how genuine I am by, even if the posts I'm voting in themselves aren't.

[chamber]

chamber: You have absolutely given me plenty to judge by, that's why I am voting for you. Continuing to read after the transition word ("but") might be helpful. Or reading is boring.

I did read after that point. You don't actually directly address how genuine those things are. Perhaps its a difference in how one measures the state of being genuine, but I tend to look more at tone and phrasing than acts themselves, because any act could be genuine. In effect I see your flow as something like:

Attack me with the stated or at least implied reason of not explaining a vote > Fishy says that's not scummy for me (it's not, read literally any game I've been in since about 2006) > You claim you use judgment of how genuine someone seems, so the lack of explanation isn't the reason for your vote > you then, in an accusatory manor, transition into things that have nothing to do with how genuine I am being.

You may disagree with the questions that I asked panzer, but they do show that I was still thinking critically about the placement of my vote. I even already explained the more odd of the 2. I'm not sure you are scum for what I see as a discrepancy, but for someone that was overly cautious of confirmation bias just a few pages into the game, you at very least seem to be falling pray to it now, or not explaining yourself effectively, which unlike me, does seem to be an intent of yours.

[chamber]

He answered my questions in such a way as to maintain the status quo, thus requiring no further action.

I didn't take action to stop your lynch for 2 reasons, the first is that despite not finding you particularly scummy, I also wasn't unhappy with you getting lynched. My mix of respect for you as a person, but complete disrespect for how you've been playing this game is making it incredibly difficult for me to have a read on you that I'm confident in, and I don't foresee that changing. You having a scum read on me is also likely to be an inconvenience at some point the longer we both live. The 2nd is that I believe when in a group of competent players, it takes an insane amount of hubris to think that any individual can scumhunt better than the collective. I will take stands in weaker groups of players relative to myself, or when I feel extraordinarily strong about a town read, neither of those things are true here.

I will note that I did still question suspicion towards you that seemed disingenuous.

[chamber]

Have I stifled this game? I worry that I have.

[chamber]

Kitty is my strongest town read.

It is a clash of styles more than anything else.

[chamber]

Also, 6 out your first 10 posts are (mostly) bland open-ended busywork questions with no follow-up. Where's the analysis from any of that?

I only need to follow up if I can catch someone in bad answers(and can prove it), or if there answer sufficiently changes my perspective of their alignment.

[chamber]

Oh, and on coaching; if I see an attack I disagree with on somebody I'm leaning town on, I'm often going to counter it and/or ask questions to get them to say the right thing (the latter was most of the reason I asked Kat questions in 201 - I was nearly sure I knew what he was going to say on the important one). Particularly if I think there's a good chance they are going to make a hash of it for reasons which have nothing to do with alignment.

I remember you doing this in another game I think, and me finding it extremely annoying then, primarily because the questions I ask normally don't have straight forward intents, so this kind of interference is very unwelcome for any future questions I ask.

/needs to put way more time into this game but is too busy today.

[chamber]

I'm a man of my word and my vote will not move from KK until he is dead. If that means today's lynch has to be me or KK, then so be it. That just means he's forced to try to squirm his way out of this.

Do you have any other posts like this one or the one above this one from games you were town in? Can you link them?

[chamber]

Thats katsuki.

[chamber]

Spoiler:

Oh KK, you like seeing me angry, don't you? You like it rough, don't you?

This post. Oh that post. You wanted to write it off as me being unclear, didn't you? Well you know why I made a big deal out of it? I bet you do.

The issue is that it has nothing at all to do with me being unclear

. It has everything to do with you

selectively and blatantly responding to things I didn't actually say

. Let's look closer, shall we?

It doesn't seem implausible at all in my mind. Scum get night talk in normal games and mostly just discuss who they're killing. Do scum need communication to function during the day? Considering you're the second person to tell me (or heavily imply, in your case) that scum do get daytalk in nightless games, clearly I was wrong.

You've been here since 2009 and the only thing you've ever used night-talk is to discuss who to kill?

This isn't even to being a response to what I wrote. For one thing, it's practically responded to

within the post he's responding to

. "Scum get night talk in normal games and mostly just discuss who they're killing." There's two ways I would be willing to believe someone interpreted that:
1) Most scum teams just talk about who they're killing.
2) Most night talk of the average scum team is in reference to who they're killing.
Regardless of which way he read that, his question is completely irrelevant. Perhaps more importantly, he blatantly missed the point of my response. He was supposedly asking this to find out if it would make sense for me to believe scum wouldn't have any form of private communication. The important thing he should have taken away from my post if he actually cared about my response was the "Do scum need communication to function during the day?" that sums up the "mostly just discuss who they're killing" part of the post that he seemingly completely ignored. But that's okay because who needs to respond to the actual content of a post when following an

agenda

(more on the agenda thing later because it runs soooo deep).

What answer were you expecting out of that question that would have been useful?

I'm pursuing this line of questioning because in post 103 you suggest that I'm scum because I'm "coaching" Panzerjager. I'm observing that you're doing something that I call "spaghetti-ing". You're throwing all sorts of bullshit to the wall and looking for something to stick.

In this quote, KK tries his hardest to one-up himself in failing to read anything I write and amazingly manages to succeed. I don't think that requires a drawn-out explanation and I don't think one exists beyond

is it even possible to read my question and think that was a valid response to it?

I think it shows something better though:

he didn't care what my answer was

. I mean, I suppose he made that sufficiently clear in the previous thing I quoted, but if you didn't believe it there, oh how he drove home that point here. Remember that

agenda

thing? Yeah, is there any doubt at all that he was asking these questions to lead to a conclusion he knew he couldn't support if he actually had to care about responses?

Here's where I initially said that I found you scummy. Tell me why at that point in the game I would decide I "wanted to read [you] as guilty" and why I would include an offer to give reasoning if I didn't actually have a reason.

But you didn't have a reason. You had a gut feeling. You didn't try to follow up that gut feeling by asking me any questions, you just starting making misinterpretations to justify a desire to lynch. That is scummy behavior.

I think I would find this post funny if I weren't legitimately angry right now. "Why would I offer to give reasoning if I didn't have a reason?" "You didn't have a reason." Smooth. Not only does this one fail to respond to what I said, it also fails at reading the post I linked:

I'm not really liking KK. I'm going to be lazy and pin it down to gut for now, but I could identify a couple quotes/patterns that lead me to that read if anyone actually cares about it.

How did he get "you didn't have a reason" from "I could identify a couple quotes/patterns that lead me to that read"? Welcome to first grade reading comprehension; failures: Kublai Khan. Except he's not that stupid. He's not stupid enough to have actually failed at reading any of my post that badly.


The big theme here is: he asked me questions without caring what the answers were. Heck, they were practically loaded questions. "You've been here since 2009 and the only thing you've ever used night-talk is to discuss who to kill?" Why yes KK, I did stop beating my wife, how nice of you to notice. He wasn't asking me questions with the intention of gaining information; he was asking questions in order to ask follow-up questions that weren't even dependent on my answers in order to lead to the conclusion he started out with in mind. And he had the

nerve

to accuse me of this:

You didn't try to follow up that gut feeling by asking me any questions

Yes KK, you are clearly following up on your gut read on me by asking me questions and ignoring the answers.

And even better,

this pattern of asking questions and ignoring the answers is the exact same thing he did with mith earlier

. See this post for a summary of that line of questioning.



So why did I make this big a deal out of KK taking another shot at reading comprehension? Failing that badly at reading my post once is damn near impossible. Failing that badly at reading it twice, knowing that he did so the first time would leave no question that he was doing it intentionally. The fact that he refused to take a second try at it tells me he didn't want to read my post correctly and I don't doubt that he reread my post and just didn't say anything. But hey, let's not sell him short here. He didn't actually refuse to try again. He pretended my request didn't exist and just didn't post anything. Is there any reason for that other than to impede my line of posting? I'm supposedly his big scum read...why doesn't he want me to post? I for one love it when my scum reads post things. In fact, it would be nice if KK posted things more often or if he ever posted anything remotely useful, but now I'm making this personal, aren't I? Oh KK, you wanted me to look like a fool sitting around waiting for you to make an acknowledgement you were never going to make, didn't you? But please, don't respond to anything now. If you do, I'll be forced to play to your level and respond with "NEENER NEENER NEENER" in all caps. I figure that should be simple enough for you to understand.

I don't really like this post at all. I'll give KK first right of refusal to address the actual points before giving my opinion there. But aside from that, I really dislike all the use of the over the top rhetorical devices, rather than letting the points speak for themselves. It sounds like you're trying to make your case sound stronger or more damning than it really is. The whole post to me just seems more likely to come from scum trying to force a case than town actually having one.

I agree, but I've seen town do this. Which is why I asked for him to give examples from the past. Too lazy to look them up myself, whens deadline?

[chamber]

More KK votes.

[chamber]

So now let me ask you again, do you dispute my summary here. And if not, what in the name of tadpoles did you mean?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You're disputing that it's not possible since you aren't that good at mafia. So glad we could re-summarize the last ten minutes.

Is this part of your campaign to prove that you're an idiot?

Someone being capable of doing something isn't a motive to do that something.

[chamber]

@chamber - what's your analysis on the lack of KittyMo hammering?

If you are scum, I suspect its scum with rhinox. So that would be 2 scum votes already on the wagon, again if you are scum, my next two biggest scum reads after you 2 would be mith and fishy. On the other hand if DRK is scum, I can easily see it being with kittymo. Less sure on a third, but kitty being mafia in this game-view is all that's really important. So both of those do a pretty decent job of explaining things (and I do think exactly one of you and DRK is scum at this point). Currently I'd rather see you die, or if not you DRK, so I don't intend to vote for kitty myself.

[chamber]

Vote DRK

[chamber]

You're right, I didn't.

[chamber]

@chamber: in 263, you said you felt exactly one of DRK and KK were scum. Why not neither? (Yeah, I know you've already decided not to answer that. But I need an answer to get a better read on you, and if I don't get a better read on you I want you dead.)

I wasn't setting up some kind of false dilemma, which seems to be what you are implying. I was explaining why kitty town sitting at l-1 was consistent with her being town in one of my game views. I simply find them both independently scummy to a great degree, but don't think that they are likely to be scum together because of their interactions with each other.

[chamber]

@chamber: in 263, you said you felt exactly one of DRK and KK were scum. Why not neither? (Yeah, I know you've already decided not to answer that. But I need an answer to get a better read on you, and if I don't get a better read on you I want you dead.)

I wasn't setting up some kind of false dilemma, which seems to be what you are implying. I was explaining why kitty town sitting at l-1 was consistent with her being town in one of my game views. I simply find them both independently scummy to a great degree, but don't think that they are likely to be scum together because of their interactions with each other.

Really? Because it read strongly like you're fence sitting on a false dilemma. Hell, it still does.

Why has the scale tipped more towards DeathRowKitty being scum than me?

What new information did we get between my two votes I wonder?

[chamber]

@chamber: in 263, you said you felt exactly one of DRK and KK were scum. Why not neither? (Yeah, I know you've already decided not to answer that. But I need an answer to get a better read on you, and if I don't get a better read on you I want you dead.)

I wasn't setting up some kind of false dilemma, which seems to be what you are implying. I was explaining why kitty town sitting at l-1 was consistent with her being town in one of my game views. I simply find them both independently scummy to a great degree, but don't think that they are likely to be scum together because of their interactions with each other.

Really? Because it read strongly like you're fence sitting on a false dilemma. Hell, it still does.

Why has the scale tipped more towards DeathRowKitty being scum than me?

This post gets more ridiculous the more I think about it. Please describe how my play can in anyway be described as fence sitting?

And you don't need to infer anything with respect to why I changed my vote if you actually read my posts. Rereading my ISO will probably do you a service if this is negligence and not malicious.

[chamber]

I know how you feel... it's pretty much how I feel at this point. T^T

I still want to say that I'm not wrong on mith and obviously lynching him is hard, but how last day went obviously has me doubting myself. Also means obviously that there are other good players as scum this game which is all blah.

Chamber you don't seem to be as engaged with this game. Why is that?

This feels like town katsuki to me for what its worth.

[chamber]

But back to this game. Why aren't we lynching chamber?

This is a pretty good question. Everyone whos not voting for me should give a reason why.

[chamber]

But back to this game. Why aren't we lynching chamber?

This is a pretty good question. Everyone whos not voting for me should give a reason why.

EXPECTED RESPONSE

Yeah! good points! chamber is totally scum!
VOTE: chamber

Make it so.

I've been l-2 for a while, and know that I'm town. So its interesting to me that there doesn't seem to be any real threat of me getting lynched.

[chamber]

Everyone whos not voting for me should give a reason why.

[chamber]

vote chamber

Everyone should take a good long look at what preceded this vote.

[chamber]

Doesn't work like that.

[chamber]

Also it's D3 already. Why no awesomeness yet?

There is no one to play off of, I've been trying. Look at the sweet question I dropped earlier this page?

[chamber]

Why didn't you realize that sooner?

[chamber]

As unfortunate as it is, both katsuki and DRK aren't voting me atm, which means neither are actually viable counter wagons because they can just lynch me to save themselves if it comes to it.

[chamber]

If I live through today I don't really expect to ever die.

[chamber]

Well I mean, If I was willing to lynch katsuki (which looks possible?) then that would probably only put me off dying for a day. But I'm not really all that willing to do that, so if I actually live it will be through real means.

[chamber]

Unvote Vote Kublai Khan

[chamber]

I think I'm lynched and I was definitely town.

[chamber]

You say really dumb things. I can't help myself.