Mini 581 - Andy's Death - Over

[JDodge]

JDodge and Ythill have brought up the fact that hunting for scum and SK are different. Until now I've been treating the word scum as an all-encompassing term for town threats. I'm curious if anyone else has been playing under the same assumptions. More importantly:

what role does everyone think their most suspicious players are playing as?

I think that avinashv is an SK, not mafia. Right now all I have going is the FBI claim.

It's interesting that JDodge is dichotomizing mafia-hunting and SK-hunting. Maybe I'm just a newb but aren't they nearly the same thing? Hunting either bad guy is just a matter of asking questions and pointing fingers. Can't we hunt both of these bad guys at the same time?

They are nearly the same thing, yes. But you must also consider that an orange and a tangerine are nearly the same thing - yet their uses are entirely different.

And fence-sitting/vague suspicions helps the SK equally considering it allows them to avoid heat on themselves.

Explain how this allows one to avoid heat. I think it's clear that the opposite is true.

You can't be held accountable for your actions if you have no real actions to be held for.

I maintain that there is no contradiction...

Then explain why your first answer attempted to address the contradiction with the inapplicable statement that the SK benefits from a mislynch.

It didn't. It refuted the claim that there was a contradiction. Stop strawmanning me.

...and that you are solely trying to shift suspicion off of yourself by disregarding my claims without basis.

There was no attempt to shift suspicion. Initially, I questioned your claims

with basis

(that you are choosing to disregard) purely in my own defense. There was no attempt by me to reflect the suspicion back onto you. My only mention of suspicion against you came later, when you argued from a slippery stance, meaning one that embraces any claim in pursuit of the win, rather than attempting to determine and/or clarify the truth.

Can you say that again, only this time making sense?

[Ythill]

And fence-sitting/vague suspicions helps the SK equally considering it allows them to avoid heat on themselves.

Explain how this allows one to avoid heat. I think it's clear that the opposite is true.

You can't be held accountable for your actions if you have no real actions to be held for.

IMO, the accountability for failure to commit is more damning than the accountability for committing to a lynch, even if it's a mislynch. But I'm starting to understand where you're coming from at least.

Can you say that again, only this time making sense?

Your statement was that I was shifting blame. I assume you mean onto you. Yet I didn't shift any suspicion onto you at the start of this topic. I only did so when your argument seemed to get slippery.

[avinashv]

Yet another prod at Dave: you never answered me on my last post three days ago.

goborage: you seem to be admittedly not going on much on your claim that I am SK--is there no-one scummier here in your opinion?

[Jenter Brolincani]

They are nearly the same thing, yes. But you must also consider that an orange and a tangerine are nearly the same thing - yet their uses are entirely different.

Ah, but oranges and tangerines had a common ancestor - the scum player, be it Mafia or Serial Killer.

On day one, the town has the least amount of information it will ever have at any point in the game, therefore the obvious thing to do is not to decrease our chances of getting fruit by gambling on which is an orange and which a tangerine yet. As long as we look through scumtells and can get one of them, this is a good thing, and better than hinging everything on the one tangerine and failing to make fruit salad.

Day two we have enough information to get working on separating the two. I think it's a poor strategy day one.

You can't be held accountable for your actions if you have no real actions to be held for.

You can be held acccountable for failing to act.

[Dave]

Dave: are you voting for me because I am active?

No, I am voting for you because I think you are scum.

[goborage]

goborage: you seem to be admittedly not going on much on your claim that I am SK--is there no-one scummier here in your opinion?

Nope, that's why you get the vote.

[goborage]

Dave: are you voting for me because I am active?

No, I am voting for you because I think you are scum.

You haven't voted yet. Both you and Seth seem hesitant to throw your votes out even though you've both claimed avinashv as your #1 suspect. How come?

[Dave]

Well, Although Avinashv is the most suspicious, that would put him at Lynch-1. Which I dont want to do yet.

[Ythill]

@ Dave: You've never voted Avinas. Why did you say you had? Also, why don't you want put him @ L-1

yet

? What, specifically, are you waiting for? And why aren't you being proactive in attaining it?

[Sethaniel]

vote: avinashv

I was hesitant at first because I got attacked for being too quick to move us to L-1 with my previous vote.

Avinashv has had plenty of time at L-2 to mount a defense, and he hasn't really done anything. It seems like he's only too happy to avoid attention and let JD and Ythill debate each other.

[Ythill]

Please don't hammer before Avin has a chance to post.

[Andycyca]

Vote Count:

avinashv- 4 (camisade, goborage, Ythill, Sethaniel)
JDodge- 1 (Jenter Brolincani)
camisade- 1 (avinashv)
Ythill- 1 (JDodge)

Not voting (1): Dave

5 to lynch.

---

Strike count

[mrow]Player[col]Strikes avinashv[col] camisade[col] Dave[col] goborage[col] JDodge[col]X JB[col] Sethaniel[col]X Ythill[col] [/quote]

I made a huge mistake here. Thanks for pointing it!

[Dave]

@ Dave: You've never voted Avinas. Why did you say you had? Also, why don't you want put him @ L-1

yet

? What, specifically, are you waiting for? And why aren't you being proactive in attaining it?

I made a mistake. I have not voted him. Yet my name is on the Voute Count. But is is Seth that has voted avinashv. Although he is my most supicious in my eyes. I dont think that he should be lynched

yet

because this is my first game, and I dont want to put my vote down on someone that could be town, although suspicious. I want to make sure my vote is on someone that I am 80% confident is scum.

[JDodge]

Mod:

Numbers on your vote count are wrong. Please fix them.

[Ythill]

I made a mistake.

You’ve made 17 posts, most of them less than 50 words. In that space you have only placed one vote and it was random. Furthermore, you say, “i pick my words carefully and dont rush into saying things.” I find it hard to believe that this was an honest mistake.

I dont think that he should be lynched yet because this is my first game...

The n00b card comes out. Yet… (1) Your opinion on mass claims demonstrates at least a basic understanding of the game. (2) You cite your playstyle several times in defense. Can you explain how someone making the fourth post of his first game would know what his playstyle was? (3) You’ve got the Futurama avatar, which demonstrates knowledge of site trends. Yes, I see your post count; the account is probably an alt.

I’m noting that you didn’t answer the last question I posted in #208. Why aren’t you proactively seeking the information you’d need to reach that crucial 80% surety?

Unvote; vote Dave.

BTW, you’re not off the hook avinas. Question for you: why did you ask Dave his reasons for voting you when it was plain he had not?

[Sethaniel]

@ Dave: You've never voted Avinas. Why did you say you had?

I made a mistake. I have not voted him. Yet my name is on the Voute Count.

Dave's "mistake" was made

before

the incorrect Vote Count was posted, so that's not a valid reason.

I want to hear from Dave and avin on this issue.

[Dave]

Avinashv said:

Dave: are you voting for me because I am active?

On post 177. When I replied to him I said voted, but I meant to say stated he is my most suspicious, outlined in this post:

At the moment, avinashv is the most suspicious in my eyes.

I was answering goborage's question from post 170:

I think the conversation is starting to stagnate. How about everyone name their second scummiest (and in Dave's and Seth's case, their first) player?

So I said voted when I actually meant said avin was my most suspicious. It was a genuine mistake. When I posted, I had just got in and had to leave shortly afterwards to a funeral, so I was not really concentrating as much as I usually do; hence the mistake.

Avin said voted meaning when I stated he was my most suspicious, I continued to use the word voted when I replied. It was just a mistake on both of our parts.

@Ythill: I am not activley seeking information to make me certain he is scum, because I dont know what to ask him. He is always very active and is always answering questions, so I am unsure as to where or how to attain the elusive information that will make me sure.

[Andycyca]

I made a huge mistake in the last vote count. Thank you for pointing it out and Sorry for the inconveniences it may have caused.

[JDodge]

Mod:

Numbers are still wrong. camisade + Ythill + Sethaniel + goborage = 4.

[Andycyca]

Dammit, I slept like 4 hours in the whole weekend... thanks

[Ythill]

No content from me today and possibly tomorrow, though I'll try to get a post in tomorrow. Sorry. Work is hell.

[camisade]

@ cam: Taking the above as an accusation, do you think it portrays me as mafia or the SK? If the SK, please explain how. Others are invited to answer these questions as well.

I think it could portray you either way. I think you're wrong in saying that strategy doesn't benefit SK, because it benefits both.

I dont think that he should be lynched yet because this is my first game...

The n00b card comes out. Yet… (1) Your opinion on mass claims demonstrates at least a basic understanding of the game. (2) You cite your playstyle several times in defense. Can you explain how someone making the fourth post of his first game would know what his playstyle was? (3) You’ve got the Futurama avatar, which demonstrates knowledge of site trends. Yes, I see your post count; the account is probably an alt.

(2) It's not like you can't have an idea of how you will play before you play.

(3) Oh please, if you click any thread you'll get bashed over the head with the Futurama avatars (which IMO are stupid. ) I recently returned to this site about the same time that Dave signed up and it's not like I've never seen one of those before. Plus I'm pretty sure it even has a wiki entry.

Unvote; vote Dave.

BTW, you’re not off the hook avinas. Question for you: why did you ask Dave his reasons for voting you when it was plain he had not?

I think you jumped at the opportunity to attack & vote Dave to take your vote off avina, rather than Dave actually becoming your most suspicious player.

[goborage]

I made a mistake.

You’ve made 17 posts, most of them less than 50 words. In that space you have only placed one vote and it was random. Furthermore, you say, “i pick my words carefully and dont rush into saying things.” I find it hard to believe that this was an honest mistake.

I dont think that he should be lynched yet because this is my first game...

The n00b card comes out. Yet… (1) Your opinion on mass claims demonstrates at least a basic understanding of the game. (2) You cite your playstyle several times in defense. Can you explain how someone making the fourth post of his first game would know what his playstyle was? (3) You’ve got the Futurama avatar, which demonstrates knowledge of site trends. Yes, I see your post count; the account is probably an alt.

I’m noting that you didn’t answer the last question I posted in #208. Why aren’t you proactively seeking the information you’d need to reach that crucial 80% surety?

Unvote; vote Dave.

Ythill's vote on Dave has got to be the weakest case I have ever seen against a person.

I'm not entirely clear on your logic for your first point. You point out that Dave is a low-content poster, but if anything, this strengthens Dave's case of forgetting the vote count. If he's not active in this thread then it makes sense that he would not know or remember what he has done in it.

You then quote Dave: “i pick my words carefully and dont rush into saying things.” There's an obvious irony in this post in that it is full of typos. I'd take what Dave is saying with a grain of salt.

From what I gather you're saying that Dave is too competent to make a mistake.

I disagree and your 3 points arguing his competence contain flawed logic. (1) Dave's thoughts on the mass-claim came way after everyone else - it was pretty much parrot-talk. (2) Anyone can adopt a playstyle before they play a game. From what I gather Dave has chosen to be a quiet observer. (3) It's been a month since the game has started. I started playing at the same time as Dave and I've also noticed the Nibbler avatars. Seeing as how anyone can have one, these avatars are not indicative of experience at all. You then accuse Dave of being on an alt with absolutely no proof.

It's clear as day that Dave is a newb. If Dave didn't make an honest mistake then what did he do? He made a conscious decision to pretend-vote? Why would anybody do that?

I'm not sure of what to make of your attack, Ythill. From what I've seen of your earlier posts, you are insightful and methodical. Your attack on Dave is really the complete opposite. From my standpoint you are either:
a) trying to distance yourself from Dave (scumbuddies?)
b) trying to distance yourself from the avinashv lynch (to avoid future scrutiny because you're scum?)
c) lost your mind and think you have a good case against Dave

In any case you're a lot more suspicious in my eyes.

[Ythill]

Screeched to a halt here, huh?

You're right that my case against Dave isn't compelling. But suspicious? I don't agree. There's no reason to wait for an airtight case before making an attack (even with a vote). This is D1 and information gathering is a priority. Or would you prefer we just stop arguing until the mod drops a deadline on us?

You both make a good defense for Dave actually being a n00b. I'm wondering why he didn't address the topic though.

I'm not entirely clear on your logic for your first point. You point out that Dave is a low-content poster, but if anything, this strengthens Dave's case of forgetting the vote count. If he's not active in this thread then it makes sense that he would not know or remember what he has done in it.

If you only have three pairs of shoes, you probably remember what color they are. But if you have three hundred pairs? That was my point.

a) trying to distance yourself from Dave (scumbuddies?)

So I defended Dave out of the blue and now I'm distancing without provocation? Seems counter-productive to me. What would be the purpose?

b) trying to distance yourself from the avinashv lynch (to avoid future scrutiny because you're scum?)

Lol. Put avinas @ L-1 to see if this theory is plausible.

c) lost your mind and think you have a good case against Dave

I wouldn't call it a "good case" but then I'm not exactly calling for a hammer here. Dave's "mistake" struck me as scummy. His "assumption" that Avin also made a mistake further piqued my interest, and his n00b card defense seemed less than truthful. There's nothing wrong with a little inquisition. Nor is there anything anti-town about voting someone as a part of that inquisition.

Besides, there are other reasons for my actions that have nothing to do with Dave. Think about it.

[goborage]

a) trying to distance yourself from Dave (scumbuddies?)

So I defended Dave out of the blue and now I'm distancing without provocation? Seems counter-productive to me. What would be the purpose?

Speaking hypothetically: now that Dave has announced a possible vote for avinashv, his scumpartner would probably want to get off the bandwagon and vote elsewhere, or else both scum would be under scrutiny D2.

b) trying to distance yourself from the avinashv lynch (to avoid future scrutiny because you're scum?)

Lol. Put avinas @ L-1 to see if this theory is plausible.

Sorry don't get this part. Are you saying you'd hammer avinashv if he was at L-1?

c) lost your mind and think you have a good case against Dave

I wouldn't call it a "good case" but then I'm not exactly calling for a hammer here. Dave's "mistake" struck me as scummy. His "assumption" that Avin also made a mistake further piqued my interest, and his n00b card defense seemed less than truthful. There's nothing wrong with a little inquisition. Nor is there anything anti-town about voting someone as a part of that inquisition.

Why wouldn't you simply FOS Dave? If we look back at your post history for this game, you were very big on directing questions at people's suspicious behaviour. You were also very slow to vote as avinashv pointed out. However this recent attack is the complete opposite of what you were doing earlier. I'm not sure what to make of this. One possible explanation is that you freaked out when avinashv hit L-1.

Besides, there are other reasons for my actions that have nothing to do with Dave. Think about it.

I'm too dense. Spell it out for me.