Mini 836: Commie Mafia (Game Over)

[Peabody]

In a perfect world, someone else would have placed the L-1 vote right after the L-2 vote was placed.

Wait... what? SensFan, maybe I can understand this better if you answer this question. What, in your opinion, is the point of an early bandwagon? Secondly, would you be content if Hoopla was lynched right away during the day one phase in the beginning of the game?

I don't even think Sensfan is scummy because of it.

Coco- What

exactly

led you to change your mind about Sensfan? Not even two pages ago, you were drilling him for making a suspicious vote and then leaving.

Hoopla - Going with Sensfan's point, I'm starting to see a pattern. You are pushing cases consistently based on "policy" votes. Haru did translation party, Sensfan for lurking...

I want that observation out there just for the record. I'm not meaning that comment to be contesting your judgment, but I'm sensing a pattern. Behaviorally, who do you think is mafia?

[SensFan]

In a perfect world, someone else would have placed the L-1 vote right after the L-2 vote was placed.

Wait... what? SensFan, maybe I can understand this better if you answer this question. What, in your opinion, is the point of an early bandwagon? Secondly, would you be content if Hoopla was lynched right away during the day one phase in the beginning of the game?

An early bandwagon gets fun reactions, like CoCo and company's.
I would absolutely be happy with a hammer placed that early, it would be a guaranteed Scum.[/quote]

[CoCo]

But votes 4 and 5 aren't scummy at all?

[charter]

You really haven't done anything but vote for CoCo, and it's pretty pointless to vote for him. Who are you going to vote for instead of CoCo after your "soul searching" (which I see as an excuse to wait around a bit before deciding).

First, I haven't voted for anyone but CoCo, but that doesn't mean I haven't done anything btu vote for CoCo. Second, I dispute that it's pointless to vote for someone who isn't one of the current forerunners, espeically early on the first day before two major candidates get identified. Third, putting "soul searching" in quotes with an attempt to stigmatize the phrase is as ridiculous as CoCo's "early reports" fiasco. Finally, you can see it however you want, but that doesn't make it a valid interpretation -- I can see SensFan's absence for 11 days as his attempt to embody his mafia character and going and killing people in real life for 11 days on a massive crime spree, but that doesn't make it anywhere near a reasonable interpretation of events. Even without this hyperbole, this was a cheap shot. If I had just unvoted and not mentioned the fact that I was actually grappling with the decision, you wouldn't have even brought it up.

Most importantly

: I find it interesting that you think I'd vote for someone other than CoCo, and not CoCo himself -- why do you assume my soul-searching will necessarily come up pro-CoCo? Know something we don't?

Cam

I would like you to reiterate what else you've done besides interacting with CoCo and what opinions you've formed on players besides him. I say your CoCo vote is pointless because no one else has expressed interest in voting him, you aren't trying to convince anyone else to vote him, and you aren't really questioning him much anymore either. I don't see the point of your vote on him other that to mark your suspicion on him. I guess that's a point, but it's a poor one.

Yes, I'm not trying to use the soul searching phrase as an argument, I know that you meant you need time to think about it, but that's what I find scummy. It seems like you're waiting for the town to go in a definite direction and THEN decide on CoCo. I say this because you have expressed mild, at best, suspicion of anyone else.

Why do I assume you're going to unvote CoCo? Same reasons as before, the vote is pointless, it has nowhere to go and you're not trying to make it go anywhere.

Btw, charter: With chat's unvote, is your vote on cathart now "pointless"?

I stand that it isn't. I'm trying to get others to see Col.Cathart's scumminess. I addressed a question to everyone, but they must have missed it.

Everyone, what do you think of Col.Cathart's using 'charter is active lurking' as a reason to vote me while admitting he is doing it himself?

The fact that I'm not active lurking is besides the point, but I touched on this in 290 saying I find him scummy for it.

[Peabody]

Charter, a majority of your posts are one liners, but I would not call this 'active lurking'.

Col.Cathart has ended up posting a lot more than he used to. Charter, I'm not sure that Col.Cathart has actually admitted to 'active lurking'. He admitted to not paying attention earlier in the game:

And I quote

Now, you're twisting my words. I admitted to not paying attention in early game.

Charter, it seems as if you are twisting people's words around. Also I see you conveying LOTS of emotion in your posts.

[Cyberbob]

Hoopla - Going with Sensfan's point, I'm starting to see a pattern. You are pushing cases consistently based on "policy" votes. Haru did translation party, Sensfan for lurking...

I'm so happy with my vote on you it hurts. The response to the charge against Hoopla having "pushed a case" on Haru and Sens has been covered multiple times already. I really don't know why you would pretend as though it hasn't been (I'm making this assumption based on the fact that you didn't actually mention it).

Everyone, what do you think of Col.Cathart's using 'charter is active lurking' as a reason to vote me while admitting he is doing it himself?

The fact that I'm not active lurking is besides the point, but I touched on this in 290 saying I find him scummy for it.

I don't think either of you are actively lurking at the moment, so not a whole lot I guess?

[Hoopla]

Hoopla - Going with Sensfan's point, I'm starting to see a pattern. You are pushing cases consistently based on "policy" votes. Haru did translation party, Sensfan for lurking...

I want that observation out there just for the record. I'm not meaning that comment to be contesting your judgment, but I'm sensing a pattern. Behaviorally, who do you think is mafia?

Yes, it is a pattern. On D1, town lynches are very close to random, so I endorse policy lynches on anti-town play. Without a major slip from scum, the percentages between your scum/town reads are slimmer than most people want to believe. So I believe it's better in the long run to eliminate a player D1 that could be costly later in the game. To use a random example;

Say you believe Chronic Lurker X's chance of being scum is around 30%, but Active Logical Player Y's chances of being scum is around 35%, I'd still rather lynch the lurker and take the chance he's scum. Because if Y is town he will be of far more use than X later in the game, which can negate a 5-10, even 15% difference in margins.

The reason towns don't often policy lynch anti-town players is because they overvalue their D1 reads.

---

Behaviourally, I still think your play fits the bill, mainly because the random vote thing was so awkward. I can understand a newer player wanting to experience the RVS or whatever, but I don't buy the joke defense.

le Chat being non-committal I interpret as a scum-tell. I don't understand the reluctance to vote. The vote is the most powerful tool the town has, and doesn't have to be used solely to try and get a lynch.

I don't like the charter wagon, and I don't think CoCo is scummy. So my top two lynch choices would be yourself or le Chat. I'd also adopt a Col.Cathart lynch mainly because I don't think charter is active lurking and Col seems to be pushing that.

Of course this is just behaviourally, other factors weigh into a D1 lynch choice, such as possible value to town later in the game, activeness and logical capacity.

[charter]

Everyone, what do you think of Col.Cathart's using 'charter is active lurking' as a reason to vote me while admitting he is doing it himself?

The fact that I'm not active lurking is besides the point, but I touched on this in 290 saying I find him scummy for it.

I don't think either of you are actively lurking at the moment, so not a whole lot I guess?

It's not the accusation that I'm active lurking, it's the fact that he is voting me for something he admits to doing. Pot. Kettle. Very black.

[Cyberbob]

Ah, I read those votes as pressure ones. Guess I was wrong.

[Cyberbob]

(was replying to Hoopla with my last post)

It's not the accusation that I'm active lurking, it's the fact that he is voting me for something he admits to doing. Pot. Kettle. Very black.

I agree (especially after going back and reading the post you're referring to again - Peabody that is not the right quote), but I'm unsure as to whether

he

is able to see the similarities between his behaviour and what he is accusing you of. I really can't see anybody - whether they be scum

or

town - making such a blindingly terrible move unless they genuinely don't see it as such.

I'm not saying he isn't being a hypocrite - because he is, and I'm certainly taking a dimmer view of him than I was before. It is definitely possible that this is a genuine slip and his rationalisations of his earlier admission are lies, but I can also see how he might go "oh but that's different" in his own mind.

FOS: Col. Cathart

(did I do that already?), but I'm not

quite

at the stage where I'm prepared to vote him. IMO Peabody has been more consistently deserving of it for pretty much the whole game.

[Col.Cathart]

It's not the accusation that I'm active lurking, it's the fact that he is voting me for something he admits to doing. Pot. Kettle. Very black.

For the last time - NO. I never admitted that I was active lurking. Because I wasn't active lurking. I admit to not paying proper attention to the game, because I was (and still am, but after this whole discussion, I'm reserving more time for it) on the vacation, and my post were weak, because I didn't even have time to read the thread carefully. Not paying attention =/= active lurking.

[le Chat]

@Peabody re 289: What made you choose Talitha to iso? And after your entire iso, you don't even have an opinion on her. Do you think that was a good use of your time? And who are you going to do next, if you continue?

@charter re 290: Col Cathart stated that he was in a process of being more active and not 'actively lurking' anymore. I think its acceptable for for pot to call the kettle black if the pot is getting a paintjob. Though I still think he's wrong and you aren't really lurking. Vaya, HaruSC, Talitha are lurking, SensFan was gone.

@charter re 304: I agree.

@charter re 328: I'm looking forward to mathcam's response to your first sentence demand for him to say what he's done. I thought he had an interesting spin on "why do you assume my soul-searching will necessarily come up pro-CoCo? Know something we don't?" but now I don't know.

I find Col.Cathart scummier than charter. I also think the "bandwagon" on Charter that people mention isn't really one: HaruSC's vote is on him but I doubt it will stay on him, as Haru repped out and SC hasn't caught up yet. Peabody, Col.Cathart, and CoCo seem to keep charter on the top of their scumlist though.

@Cyberbob re 312: You are correct. Peabody's 160 is a blatant contradiction. I didn't catch your comment on it earlier. Valid point and it incited my iso-Peabody.

@SerialClergymen re 313: You haven't said anything yet and I think you know thats unfair. If you're scum we know nothing about you, you really do stand out because if you haven't finished your read, your replacee posted in a strange way before ducking out and then you've been putting off your post. If you're having a hard time getting into the discussion, why don't you explain to me your position on charter? Haru had a vote on charter, and now that you've replaced him, you do too. Do you agree with this vote and are you going to keep it, or do you disagree with it and if so what are you going to do with it?

@mathcam re 318: I thought "why do you assume my soul-searching will necessarily come up pro-CoCo? Know something we don't?" was a very clever assertion and though I know you'll respond to what charter already said I'm looking forward to hearing what you say back. I'm having a hard time getting a good read on the discussion between the two of you. Also... can you tell me how you feel about Col.Cathart right now? I don't ask randomly but because of 319 and your position against charter who is voting for Col.Cathart.

@Hoopla re 331: I've explained as best I can why I might seem non-committal. I understand completely that the vote is my greatest tool as a townie... and yes I can use it to prod people or pressure people. I had a problem with the bandwagon at the beginning of this game, and now understand how they can be useful - do those two not correlate to you as similar? If I'm not making much sense: what about what I have said this game, or the opinions I am making known / stances I am making? Could you comment on those as well as my vote pattern instead of just my comment that I vote less than most people? I'm not non-committal. It just takes me longer than most people to throw out my vote... do you understand the distinction I am drawing?

Happy birthday, by the way.

@Vaya: please come back. I feel I have as much on you that I have on HaruSC, which is nothing.

[le Chat]

Post iso-peabody:

@Peabody: re my question about your choosing Talitha to iso, I understand it completely after reading your iso. Your last two posts pre your iso-talitha were a back-and-forth with her where I think you are in the right. Your first post, the late RVS vote, is questionable/noteworthy. But like I said before, I don’t think it is scummy. You asked questions to SensFan, CoCo, Hoopla (Hoopla question was really good). You’re also voting charter and agreeing with Col.Cathart on his opinion of charter. I guess you’ve been a lot more involved than I subconsciously gave you credit for. However, I’m looking forward to your response to Cyberbob’s assertion that you contradicted yourself pretty solidly.

[SerialClergyman]

he is now a fluent

englishman

Australian

I wish he was an affluent Australian instead

But I suppose it's better than being an effluent Australian.

I've finished my re-read, so I'll post my thoughts, but you'll have to excuse the lack of huge reasoning. I'm also redefining my scumreading with a different focus so we'll see how this goes.

Hoopla is town.
CoCo is town.
mathcam is town

Vaya is leaning town
le Chat is leaning town.

Finding it hard to get a read on or neutral:
Col Cathcart
charter
SensFan
Peabody

Cyberbob feels scumy but I can't put my finger on it. Gut scumread.

Talitha reads as scummy to me, and someone came close to it in thread. It's the activity after a vote. Twice now, once at 140 and once at 208 where she comes into the game significantly after suspicion was cast her way. Her reads are almost direct opposite of mine and I really didn't like her post where she was upset at one of her arguments being called dumb.

So I'll need to reread my non-reads to give you a complete picture of where i stand but this is a good one. I think the respond to suspicion tell is a good one and it's found me scum before.

On major issues:

Peabody having an RVS vote is in no way suspicious.
Attacking Sens and Harumafuki was legit (I finally understood your post after I replaced in - my god I read that 15 times not knowing what on earth you were talking about!)
The early bandwagon wasn't scummy. There could well be scum on the wagon, but 1/5 is meh odds anyway.

If anyone has anythign specific they desperately need me to expand upon let me know.

[Cyberbob]

Peabody having an RVS vote is in no way suspicious.

Here you are more or less admitting that haven't read the thread very closely - if at all. Peabody having an RVS vote is not scummy; Peabody having an RVS vote when serious discussion had well and truly gotten underway is a huge copout and incredibly lazy. He might have dodged any major suspicion for it if he had played it as a joke - but he didn't. He defended it as a "serious" random vote, which - given the aforementioned discussion that had already taken place - is completely bogus.

The early bandwagon wasn't scummy. There could well be scum on the wagon, but 1/5 is meh odds anyway.

Only 1/5? How do you know?

[Talitha]

Talitha reads as scummy to me, and someone came close to it in thread. It's the activity after a vote. Twice now, once at 208 where she comes into the game significantly after suspicion was cast her way

Post 208 was like my 10th post in the space of not much more than 24 hours. It's hardly coming into the game significantly at that point. My posts also are likely to come more often at weekends, and probably picked up when I was home sick for a couple of days about a week ago.
If that's not enough I can link you to games where I as scum am extremely active. It's not my alignment that affects my posting rate, it's my RL.

I really didn't like her post where she was upset at one of her arguments being called dumb.

Can you please elaborate on how this might indicate I'm scum?

Also, thanks for replacing in and catching up so quick.

[Talitha]

And, how can you say "Her reads are almost direct opposite of mine" when of the people that I've mentioned, 2 of 3 most suspicious ar on your 'Finding it hard to get a read on or neutral' list?

[Talitha]

(Just now realised that I snipped "once at 140" out of the first quote I made of SerialClergyman. I also incorrectly abbreviated his name to SR instead of SC.)

[Talitha]

(And I also just realised that I have again responded to suspicion with increased activity. Hmm, maybe it's just a

natural

response to someone pointing a finger at you.)

[Cyberbob]

Hmm, maybe it's just a

natural

response to someone pointing a finger at you.)

I think what people want is for you to post even when you haven't been explicitly mentioned or asked to.

[Talitha]

I do.

[Cyberbob]

MORE. *cracks whip*

(wasn't saying I agree with them, just that that's the way I'm reading their criticisms)

[Talitha]

I'll try and do better.

[SerialClergyman]

If you wouldn't mind pointing me to such games that'd be great.

It's not that I'm accusing you of posting too little, I think Sens takes the cake on that one, it's more to do with the timing. Even now, as you rightly pointed out, you respond immediately to a case made against you, it's just unusual. In fact, people who are busy in RL are even MORE suspicious when they respond to suspicion of themselves as quickly as you've been doing.

Can you please elaborate on how this might indicate I'm scum?

Because it's a way of appealing to emotion. By being offended at the argument against you you case people to feel a bit guilty and not push as hard. Hell, you're a busy mother of three who's just trying to dabble a bit in a game that gives you some pleasure in between running a busy household - even

I

feel guilty attacking you! You even thanked me for replacing in! I'm going to go call

my

mum after this and apologise for not writing to her more

And, how can you say "Her reads are almost direct opposite of mine" when of the people that I've mentioned, 2 of 3 most suspicious ar on your 'Finding it hard to get a read on or neutral' list?

It's hard to say why specifically without knowing the exact examples, but generally there's a reason why I don't have a read on someone. So for example, if I think the case on peabody is inheritly flawed due to the whole RVS thing being blown WAY out of proportion, and you made a read on him due to that, I'd say you had the opposite view to me.

Here you are more or less admitting that haven't read the thread very closely - if at all.

Try me. I've read the words that have been wasted on that event and personally view them to be nothing but hot air. The post had a number of questions directed at players that looked genuine to me and stated a position on the issue at the time. The post clearly delinearated the RVS part, it had a joke about sucking at maths, then moved on to his position and his questions. No copout at all. If it was just the top third of his post there might be something to it, as it is, that argument is rubbish.

Having said that, I wouldn't clear Peabody, there was some iffy parts to his game and I'm not sure where he stands, but that particular argument is a massive red herring.

Only 1/5? How do you know?

I'm going by what CoCo was hunting for. If he thought 2 or 3 scum were on the wagon it'd be worth persuing, but 'there is scum on the 5 person wagon' is not a particularly fruitful statement to make, I think.

[le Chat]

@Hoopla 311: I hope I didn't misinterpret your suspicion of me by ignoring the qualifier that you were answering peabody by saying which

behaviors

you find scummy and not which

people

you find scummy. However, I'm pretty sure I didn't misinterpret it and I'm pretty sure you said I'm your second largest suspect... so the questions remain. And I hope you can clarify for me.