NY 120: Flash mafia 2. GAME OVER

[vollkan]

/confirm

[vollkan]

Vote: Prozac

Random.org told me to.

Vote: Richard

Why did you decide to use random.org?

Oman and vollkan, what did you ask for? (All of that info is already probably public but can't hurt to start from there. My preferences were more about the players than the modding and are obvious; I asked for less than 20 players and no 2-man scumteam.)

1) No cults or jokers
2) Daystart
3) Ideally mini-size (12) or not much larger
4) Day-game focussed, but not mountainous

[vollkan]

Hmm.

Poro and vollkan are probably both scum. Poro moreso.

unvote, vote: Porochaz

Because?

Do you have a better suggestion?

Answer my question

[vollkan]

Timing of vollkan's vote + need to justify it with some other reason other than "LOL WAGON"

1) What specifically about the timing?
2) My vote wasn't a random vote. Thus, why should I have justified it with "LOL, WAGON"?

vollkan, RVS stands for Random Voting Stage. What better way of participating in it than utilising a random generator?

1) What in your view is the purpose of the RVS?
2) How does using a random generator advance that purpose?

In other news, you're living up to your title right off the bat. Are you going to be like this for the whole game?

That's why it's my title

[vollkan]

Very well. I'm going to concede at this point and commence minor analysis tomorrow.

I find it interesting that you are conceding here. I have a similar view of RVS to what you have in your posts, and Espy's defence of RVS has a number of serious flaws in it (I'll spare everyone a theory debate), so I can't see why you would "concede" (as opposed to even just dismissing the issue as a theory point)

RVS speculation that I can't justify but am willing to throw around anyways because I feel the need to.
Poro is intentionally avoiding the growing Rich wagon
Timing of vollkan's vote + need to justify it with some other reason other than "LOL WAGON"

just both come off as scummy

unvote, vote: Parama

Parama gives reasons here, but in the first and last lines he's trying to distance himself from them. It's like he doesn't want to be found scummy for a weak case.

@Parama: Rather than Hmmming, how about responding to the point he makes against you?

First person to vote seriously gets wagoned

I'M THE MOST PRO-TOWN PERSON SO FAR; HOW DARE YOU VOTE ME!

Unvote, Vote: Parama

[vollkan]

Conceding, dismissing, they both have more or less the same effect. Don't you agree?

I think a concession is much more likely to stop the other player from continuing to push on the point.

First person to vote seriously gets wagoned

I'M THE MOST PRO-TOWN PERSON SO FAR; HOW DARE YOU VOTE ME!

Well, yeah, to me I'm the most pro-town person, with Rich as second. RVS should make it obvious that Rich probably isn't scum. At least we're getting rid of a retarded RVS L-2 wagon now d(''d)

You've missed my point. Why is yourself being the first person to vote seriously relevant to you being wagonned? You strongly implied that there was some connection.

Also, my "MOST PRO-TOWN PERSON" was sarcastic; as in, the way I read your first post it was like you were suggesting that the votes on you were scummy because you were the most pro-town (because you were the first to seriously vote)

Then again, weak logic in RVS has caught scum for me before...

Compare the number of times you've seen weak logic in RVS not catch scum in RVS with the number of times ('time' singular?) you've seen it actually do so. Is the better explanation not simply that you got lucky?

vollkan, why ask Richard about using random.org when you later imply that you don't subscibe to arbitrary RVS voting>random RVS voting?

Consistency check.

I think RVS is a load of crap, but since I haven't been able to find a viable alternative (see: my failed experiments with self-voting in RVS to immediately create a shitstorm) I don't make a fuss about it.

In Rich's case, if he was going to maintain that RVS was valuable then his decision to use random.org would have been inconsistent and I would have pressed him on that. However, since his position is that RVS is largely useless, his actions were consistent.

vote: Porochaz
Dislike of his question to Parama. His expectation of reasonability at this stage. Mildness.

Why is it scummy to expect reasonableness at this stage?

The things that people get voted for in RVS are always much less important than later game, but they still should be reasonable points

VOTE: Vollkan

Because?

[vollkan]

VOTE: Vollkan

Because?

You tell me.

Unvote, Vote: Espeonage

[vollkan]

Acceptable but still null.
UNVOTE: vollkan
VOTE: Parama

The above makes no sense. What about my vote for you was "acceptable"?

And I wouldn't expect you to. It is for my benefit not yours ... yet. That is assuming you are town.

I have a suspects just from the reactions on this page. Two in fact. But they will be revealed later when cases can be made.

The above makes even less sense.

1) You have two suspects, X and Y, already.
2) But you aren't going to reveal your reasons for suspecting X and Y until later on when cases are made.

However:
a) If your subsequent cases are based on your existing reasons for suspecting X and Y, why not just make the cases now?
b) And if your subsequent cases are going to be based on factors other than your existing reasons, from the use of which illicit substance did you develop the psychic powers to know in advance that you are going to be making cases on X and Y?

[vollkan]

TOWN:

vollkan
Budja
Porochaz
Parama
Untrod Tripod

NEUTRAL:

Fishythefish
JDodge
Luchris
mikeburnfire

SCUM:

Espeonage
Ojanen
Oman

What about my play makes you think he is more likely town than scum?
What about budja's play makes you think he is more likely town than scum?
What about Prozac's play makes you think he is more likely town than scum?
What about Parama's play makes you think he is more likely town than scum?
What about UT's play makes you think he is more likely town than scum?

What about Espy's play makes you think he is more likely scum than town?
What about Ojanen's play makes you think he is more likely scum than town?
What about Oman's play makes you think he is more likely scum than town?

-----
If you can't answer any of the above: then how did you determine that they deserve the classification that you give them in the above list?

[vollkan]

I'd agree with your reads more if you put Poro in the scum section, Rich.

P-Edit: WHOA vollkan. Obviously making a wall-o-text case for every one of your town and scum reads is the way to go in mafia. (hint: succintness is pro-town)

There is a gulf of difference between being succinct and posting a list which cannot possibly tell any observer anything about why he categorises people the way he says he does.

(And don't tell me those lists are useful for ensuring he is consistent, because the lack of any reasoning means that he is always at liberty to change his position; whereas if he posts reasons there is actually infinitely firmer ground to anchor him to)

vollkan. - points for the inquiry.

By "- points" you mean?

[vollkan]

Because my cases at this point lack the weight needed to convince the town at the moment. It would just create confusion and make the cases harder to make in the long run. I will be making cases on my suspects because they are scum. I'm sure everyone would agree that is what you do when you think you have found scum.

1) I don't see why the fact that your cases would currently not "convince" the town (meaning what? That they wouldn't cause an instalynch?) justifies not posting them. If your arguments are valid, they will be seen as valid and held against your suspects.

2) You can't possibly expect to be making cases against your suspects based on things other than the two cases as they currnetly stand

because those things haven't happened yet

.

3) Assume you get a few more arguments against each person, why are the arguments you currently have going to be any less likely to "confuse" in that scenario?

vollkan. He was giving a summary of his stances. Don't expect a full on explaination. I would even go so far as to say that if he gave reasons I would consider it scummy.

Bingo - "his stances". If he doesn't have reasons for them (the "g-" word), I want to know.

- points as in you are leaner closer to the scum side of the radar for asking.

Because?

ebwop. Contrary to what you believe I think I am playing well. I have two scum. I just need the third and I will have them all. Then it is just a case of convicing the rest of you that I am actually smarter than I appear.

[vollkan]

1) Every case you make on anyone is an attempt to get the town to believe you. That was all I was refering to there.

Yes, but if you don't think your arguments would convince people (again, to what degree?), that isn't a reason not to post them

2) Scummy people will do scummy things. Weak cases aren't good. I will wait until they do something conventionally scummy and then act. I already have my bases cases.

Depends on what you mean by "weaK".

Cases based on faulty reasoning are not good

Partial cases based on good reasoning (ie. the sort of one-off attacks that people always want to make in this game) are completely fine.

The whole of a case is not greater than the sum of its parts; it only creates a greater impression (and you know how much I like 'impressions' )

4) That doesn't mean you can fish for information. It is a scummy tactic. There is a difference between interrogation and information fishing.

Define "information fishing".

What I was/am doing is ensuring that people can't get away with calling somebody scum or town without explaining why. Why is that bad?

[vollkan]

That is definantly a reason not to post them. Especially when the power of the case is that the scum don't yet know what they are dealing with. There is more than one way to catch scum.

No, it isn't. If your arguments are not going to convince people (for the third time, OF WHAT?), it is probably because they crap.

Also, your second sentence doesn't make sense. If you are suggesting that you want an element of surprise in your attack, I fail to see how that is pro-town (ie. using psychological tricks to make answering your case more difficult) at all.

Cases that have one very strong point that has a convoluded path is weak by this site's meta. Consider it a partial case with a confusing base that will explaination and backing up.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that not only have you predicted that you will have a case in the future, but you also know what the core thread of that case will be?

information fishing is like role fishing but for information. Scum really likes to know exactly what the town is thinking.

And town doesn't?

Because he isn't acting on the unexplained parts yet. Until he does that he doesn't need to provide reasoning and it would be pro scum to do so even if it isn't scummy.

He declared it. That means by definition he should have reasons. I frankly don't give a toss whether he has acted or not.

[vollkan]

Ok, you guys need a big easy to read explaination. Get ready.

My arguements may convince some people that my suspects are indeed scum but the cases are a bit weak and more will be gained from not posting them. My second sentence does make sense. If I post the case now when it is an infant then the only thing that comes from it is that scum know the case that is on them. They can change their play. the case loses credibilty and they get off. There is more to be gained from waiting. it is not a surprise attack, it is an exercise that will draw out the scumtells.

No I'm saying I already have the core of the case. I've said all this before. I feel like a broken record. I really wish you were more scummy. It would give you an excuse.

In this particular case I imagine scum would more.

Yes he should but just because you have reasons doesn't mean you should post them. You would suck as a torturer irl. Too hotheaded when people don't comply.

Hope this post has made it easier for everyone to understand that I will have the full scumteam by the end of the day.

That does clear it up; specifically the fact that you now have the core but don't want it to spoil and be avoided, so I will end this line of questioning.

vollkan, I'm not going to answer all those.

In answer to your final question, I read each player in isolation to determine their placement in my list.

That doesn't answer my final question at all. You must have had some basis for determining whether a person was more likely scum or not, so please tell us what it was.

[vollkan]

If they make make scum-esque posts, I think they're scum. If they make town-esque posts, I think they're town. Lack of information or conflicting tells earn them a spot in the 'neutral' section.

Quite simple really; surprised you actually had to ask.

It only seems simple because what you've posted is tautological (people are scummy because they say scummy things).

What is a "scum-esque" post? What is a "town-esque" post?

(I don't care about neutrality, because it's the default position)

Just say gut, that's pretty much the only thing vollkan will listen to. He's got mad respect for the intuition.

See, I'm not sure "element of surprise" the right idea, but I absolutely have these loose ideas that to be able to catch scum, you pretty often need to put them in uncomfortable positions. Anyone who has played more than a handful of games here is familiar with the culture and the possible things that will incriminate them. Creative or unorthodox plays by townies that can't be predicted by scum is what traps them, and milks information from a game. You need to be smart about what you do, and there's a low ceiling until unorthodoxy backfires to you, but I absolutely symphathize with the idea. I also sympathize with the idea that resulting shifts from scum can be subtle, and especially if you're unsure you don't necessarily want spill before your ideas are a bit more well-formed. So I don't see the problem with Esp atm.

I completely agree that unorthodox play is appropriate when done right.

My problem was that Espy seemed to be suggesting (he's since clarified, though) that he had a scumtell-based case against two people (which is orthodox play) but he was saving it up to hit them with one large case each, which basically would mean that he was trying to increase the potency of a rational case by making it more difficult for the other side to respond/more impressive for onlookers (a whole heap of little points doesn't look nearly as potent as one large case)

[vollkan]

What is a "scum-esque" post? What is a "town-esque" post?

A scum-esque post is a post that is more likely to be made by a mafioso than by a villager.
Conversely, a town-esque post is a post that is more likely to be made by a villager than by a mafioso.

Not to pre-emptively deflect, but I am fairly certain of where this conversation is headed. I am not likely to analyse any posts to justify putting a player into a particular category.

You are voting Espy, so you should at least analyse him (I would ask to analyse everybody, but I can see that's not going to go anywhere other than a theory debate)

So that's four wagons of 3, if we pretend Oman knew syntax.

Porochaz, Parama, Tripod, and Espeonage.
I hereby declare these four players off-limits until tomorrow. So sayeth MikeBurnFire. So shall it be.

unvote, vote Oman

What reliability does this "wagons of 3" thing have? I've never encountered it before (and I have an inherent scepticism of voting analysis)

This really bothers me. I know vollkan will hate me, but it gives me a rough gut feeling where the attack is "Lol, you think I'm scum, I thought you were a good player, but you're actually super-shit for thinking I'm scum." It's obviously designed to get the vote off him, but without any content.

Your last sentence makes it non-gut. And, on that,

Espy+1

Another "I do what I do because I'm town, you don't need to know yet".

I'm a gut player for the first day or two, I go with things that don't feel right, and this feels REALLY deceptive.

Not a whole lot of content on him, from what...maybe 16 posts total, maybe 6 of substance. Meh, hope I didn't get your hopes up.

And the point about it being a playstyle based case that he doesn't want to alert his suspects to?

Don't really see it is trying to get the vote off. Usually comments like that just make people want to keep the vote, no?

You're confusing effect and motivation

Saying something like "You're better than that" will, 9 times out 10, just antagonise the voter and make them more likely to keep their vote; but the motivation for the post is very clearly to pressure them to remove the vote (rather than either just accepting the vote or rebutting its basis)

When there are competing wagons and they are all at the same count alot of shit is going on mentally. Anyway, once a wagon gets bigger than the others it is the wagon that has momentum. When the wagon is on a scum it is usually a null tell because it is a prime time to bus. If the wagon that is voted for is on a townie then the person who changed their vote is even more likely to be a scum trying to get momentum on a townie wagon. mbf, by ignoring the two other wagons gets town points because he didn't force any wagon ahead which is a rather townie move to make seeing as we are definantly not in the rvs any more.

I may be wrong here, but even though we have moved "out of RVS" (I put in inverted commas because I have theory issues with the way that people think that RVS and non-RVS can be clearly distinguished) most of the votes are still random votes (or, at least, "mountain out of a molehill" early votes). Accordingly, I don't see how you can really argue that it's a towntell not to push a wagon ahead, since, regardless of the numerical effect (3 -> 4), the fact remains that there is no way in hell that any of the wagons would, even with an MBF vote, have an appreciable chance of going to lynch.

In short, you're dramatically overstating the incentive for scum to push one of the wagons forward.

[vollkan]

Doesn't change the fact that the tipping point exists and he avoided which is pro-town in my eyes.

But it's not a tipping point. It's an "oh wow he went from 3 votes to 4 votes" point. In no way whatsoever does the addition of a single vote to a wagon which is baseless or, at best, exceedingly weak in any way make it appreciably more likely to advance scum's win condition.

[vollkan]

vollkan, analysis is redundant when it comes to voting for Espeonage. ISO post # 7 for a case-in-point, and general scum-ness thus far.

Whose ISO post 7?

Yours is just: "Conceding, dismissing, they both have more or less the same effect. Don't you agree?"

I await the flood of misrepresentations.

From me?

[vollkan]

vollkan, analysis is redundant when it comes to voting for Espeonage. ISO post # 7 for a case-in-point, and general scum-ness thus far.

Whose ISO post 7?

Yours is just: "Conceding, dismissing, they both have more or less the same effect. Don't you agree?"

Espeonage's, of course.

I don't see the relevance in comparing mine with his.

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant that your ISO post 7 contained a summary of his scumminess.

[vollkan]

As an aside (and something of a given), I will happily lynch anyone on my scumlist today. Keep in mind that I'll probably be on the one with the largest wagon.

Richard+5

Unvote, Vote: Richard

That most definitely is not "an aside" (that you just happen to mention by the by) or "something of a given". You have failed to give any reasoning for any of those suspects and yet, now, you have pre-endorsed the lynch of any of them. Moreover, you're employing a pre-commitment strategy to justify what would otherwise be rank opportunism. There is absolutely no pro-town reason to play in this manner and a pretty obvious scum motivation.

I will remove my points and vote if you can show me meta precedent for you doing all of the following as town:
1. Use of an unreasoned list
2. Pre-endorsing the lynch of any suspects
3. Pre-committing yourself to voting the suspect with the largest wagon

[vollkan]

What do you take me for? I'm not an idiot.

1. I can give reasons, if that's what you mean.
2. Why would I have someone in my suspect list if I didn't want to lynch them?
3. That is completely logical. If I'm suspicious of them, and they have the largest wagon, what possible cause could I have for NOT voting them?

HoS: vollkan

. Metagaming, anyone?

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=14343 - meta precedent for 2 and 3 as requested.

Richard-5

Unvote

1. I mean "unreasoned" in the sense of "you haven't supplied reasons"
2. There's big a difference between suspecting a person and being happy with their lynch
3. The fact that it means that, rather than arguing for your strongest suspect, you subordinate your decision to the crowd

And, yes, I metagame. Why is that relevant?

Also, in that game you linked, your early list was the following:

Scumreads (in no particular order) :

MehPlusRawr (Early parroting and IoAing)
vezok (Out of place, late RVS vote + generally bad play thus far) [dependant on Blazez' flip]
BlazezRB (early tunnelling) [dependant on vezok's flip]
sc00t (wanting to lynch someone very early on, cites reason as the game getting "dull" after it has only been a few RL days, doesn't bother to pursue current EGL vote)
guy0 (IoA post on page 5 or 6 {in response to sc00t}, something which should have been a sentence or two transforms into the entirety of the post, which doesn't even mention anything else that is happening).

Why no succinct explanations for each one here?

Doesn't change the fact that the tipping point exists and he avoided which is pro-town in my eyes.

But it's not a tipping point. It's an "oh wow he went from 3 votes to 4 votes" point. In no way whatsoever does the addition of a single vote to a wagon which is baseless or, at best, exceedingly weak in any way make it appreciably more likely to advance scum's win condition.

It is because they were competing wagons. Wagons have momentum just like anything and it is a great boon to any wagon if it can get ahead of the other wagons that it is competing against.

It was my interpretation of the vote based on game theory.

Yes, but the momentum of a wagon comes from the reasons supporting it. A wagon which is comprised primarily of random and junk isn't going anywhere.

[vollkan]

I never got around to it, vollkan. I was V/LA when the first list was made, and I seem to recall justification of each read not being a requirement from you.

Sorry, are you referring to meta or this game?

I don't really buy it. If you alert someone to a playstyle being scummy, and then the change it instantly, that's a huge tell.

Good point. @Espy: Response to the above?

Also Vollkan, do you intend to play this game empirically with numbers? I'm interested to know your thresholds for votes, and your thresholds to lynch.

I've started using my points system again as of my last 3 or 4 games (some ongoing).

70 used to be my voting comfortableness threshold

and

lynching comfortableness threshold, but it just wasn't viable because in many games people weren't even getting above 65.

The approach I am trying to force* myself to take at the moment is as follows:

• No formal voting threshold
  
• Auto-vote the highest ranked (
  Vote: Espy
  )
  
• Scale numbers so as to make 70 correspond with lynch comfortableness

(* I say "force" because my tendencies have both been to not vote unless I am particularly outraged at a specific thing (see my Richard vote before) and to understate my points values in such a way that few reach 70)

[vollkan]

@Richard: respond to this:

@RGHP: iso 7 is a post that has been much quoted as an example of Espe's scumminess. Saying "Espe is scummy - particularly iso 7" does not amount to a case. Either say where else he is scummy, or explain why iso 7 is so awful and scumlike (why would scum do it would be a good start), or preferably both.

Copy all Vollkan, I disagree with numbers. Although it looks like you're actually just assigning values to what most people assign "rank" or "feelings". It works for me.

Yup. My numbers are just a way of more clearly representing "rankings".

Prozac (Parroting vollkan -

word for word

)

Jesus Christ, Do you not think for a second I did that deliberately... you refused to answer him, I wanted you to know that I had wanted answers to those questions as well. I had hoped increasing pressure would have made you answer them.

I know you did it deliberately. Doesn't change the fact that you did it.

Good-o. Why is it scummy?

[vollkan]

Prozac (Parroting vollkan -

word for word

)

Jesus Christ, Do you not think for a second I did that deliberately... you refused to answer him, I wanted you to know that I had wanted answers to those questions as well. I had hoped increasing pressure would have made you answer them.

I know you did it deliberately. Doesn't change the fact that you did it.

Good-o. Why is it scummy?

Not only does it denote not thinking for one's self, but it's also a huge buddying tell, both of which are likely to come from scum. Correct me if I'm wrong on either count.

I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to correct you yet.

Why do you think Prozac-scum copied me?

Also I haven't changed my vote yet. vote Richard For not supplying the reasoning and being generally stubborn about it. I want to know why vollkan unvoted, I see no reason to on the basis of his defence.

He said he had reasons, so while I didn't agre with him, I wanted to argue further.

But I'll just use "gut" as an excuse for the rest

vote: Prozac
Random.org told me to.

Vote: Richard

Why did you decide to use random.org?

Why are you trying to make a serious-sounding vote look like RVS? Why is the vote on the RVS wagon? I really don't like this post, bad vibes everywhere. [/quote]

Both your questions have false premises.

First, I was not making a "serious-sounding vote look like RVS". I was making a serious (albeit RVS-stage "mountain out of molehill" quality) vote. I hate RVS, so the sooner I could turn it to something meaningful the better.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "Why is the vote on the RVS wagon?". If I was to vote Richard, what other wagon would I put my vote on? Second, Fishy's vote was also not a random vote, so I don't accept that it was a "RVS wagon"

Same bad vibes from this post - it's like trying to skip RVS but then putting a serious vote onto the popular RVS wagon

I was trying to skip RVS (or, more accurately, end it immediately), but I don't see why putting my vote onto Richard's wagon was problematic.

What I think you're implying, but not saying because it would expose what is a rather blatant conspiracy argument, is that you are assuming that, because I cast a serious vote which also happened to be for the highest wagon at the time, there was opportunism.

Richard+5

Unvote, Vote: Richard

That most definitely is not "an aside" (that you just happen to mention by the by) or "something of a given". You have failed to give any reasoning for any of those suspects and yet, now, you have pre-endorsed the lynch of any of them. Moreover, you're employing a pre-commitment strategy to justify what would otherwise be rank opportunism. There is absolutely no pro-town reason to play in this manner and a pretty obvious scum motivation.

Disagree. A townie should be willing to vote for anyone they think is scum. Yes I know he has too many scumreads, but in his mind the 3 scum are in that group of four, giving a statistically 75% chance of lynching right in that group. Those are pretty good odds considering that from any town point of view the chance of randomly hitting scum is 25% (excluding the POV of this person, for obvious reasons).

You missed my point entirely. He gave no reasoning for those suspects and yet endorsed their lynches. If his reaosns for suspicion were so strong as to justify a pre-commitment to lynching any one of them, he shouldn't be basing it purely on gut

[vollkan]

vollkan, I wrote this post specifically for you:

THE LAZY VERSION FOR LAZY PEOPLE:

Town

RichardGHP - gut
Ojanen - gut
mikeburnfire - gut
Luchris - gut

Null

Untrod Tripod - gut
Budja - gut
Espeonage - gut
Oman - gut

Scum

JDodge - gut
Vollkan - gut
Porochaz - gut
Fishythefish - gut

Thoughts?

You supplied some reasons for the suspicions beforehand (and I hate all townreads on principle), so it doesn't bother me terribly.

Otherwise, my response would be:

[vollkan]

I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to correct you yet.

Why do you think Prozac-scum copied me?

Once Prozac-scum flips accordingly, his buddying puts you, a townie, square in the frame from the town's perspective - exactly what he (Prozac) set out to do in the first place. My suspicion of Oman takes the same premise.

1) So, wait, when Prozac copies something I say because he ostensibly agrees with it, that's "buddying"? But when you call me town and attack Prozac on an assumption that I am town, that's perfectly acceptable?

2) Where has Oman "buddied" with me?

3) Even assuming for argument's sake that they have buddied to me, I don't see why you think they would would do that to put me under suspicion. The whole point of buddying as scum is to emotionally coddle a townie so that the townie is less disposed to attack them.

[vollkan]

And buddying to Vollkan is a pointless idea anyway, he is a cold blooded killer. Emotion is not his bag.

Damn right.

Oman, it's not buddying to

vollkan

specifically that strikes me - it's like you're trying to set up as many buddies as you can. Playful RVS votes on someone for being British and posting pictures of whoever are quite different to this. Your ISO also shows elements of coaching.

There's social playing, and then there's you. ISO Post Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13 and 15 are incirimating from my perspective. 8 out of a possible 16 is enough for me.

"it's not

vollkan

specifically". Do you think Oman buddied to me or not? If so, you've failed entirely to deal with what has been said against you on this point. This is just evasive.

Richard+1

Likewise for Prozac being "British" and the more general fact that Oman is a social player.

You say "there's social playing, and then there's you" - but that makes no sense. Why is Oman's not merely social playing? What is in the posts you identify that is buddying? I suspect, from the fact that you say "from my perspective" (which, from experience, my brain translates as "I don't have any sensible argument to support this, but I'm going to say it anyway and then whine if anyone attacks me over it that it's 'just a difference of opinion'.") that you can't/won't answer these questions, but I'm beginning to notice a pattern here.

@UT: On the RVS point, as I've already said, I think that RVS is largely useless. That said, from people who don't take that attitude, Espy's treatment of Richard early on is exactly what I would expect. Your criticism of Espy proceeds from the assumption that a truly random RVS vote is valid - but the meta has moved on significantly from that position.

I...just really dislike this post. We'll believe you that you have good reads when you provide them and show us some reasoning. I'm not saying that it's impossible that you've figured out who the scum are, I just find it very unlikely, so yeah, it is kind of a case of convincing people, just not that you're smarter than you appear. I don't think you're dumb or anything, I just don't know what your reads are and I have absolutely no reason to not think that what you're doing right now isn't a scum tactic to appear more valuable than you are.

You find it scummy, or not?

[vollkan]

The game, please.

He's already rebutted you, so meta is redundant.

[vollkan]

You are right, it took me way too long to change my vote. I am finding currently better to make sure of what Im thinking before I jump in.

Uncertainty gets an undue bad rap in this game. That said, simply saying that you weren't sure isn't good enough; something must have clicked to make the difference between the before and after of your vote - so what was it?

The reason I'm voting him is because what he is doing is a crap shoot. He's picking holes in Kevlar and trying to run with it. When it doesnt work with one person he moves onto someone else. Its not fooling anyone.

What is scummy about attacking different people - unless the logic is consistent crap, but you don't seem to be attacking that here at all (and, if you are, you are, as you would put it, "holding onto it").

Prozac+1

Fabricating a weak case is hellishly easy (oh crap Im repeating things word for word again), fabricating one that people believe and go along with is however a lot harder. Why am I going to be interested on page 30, something he has been holding onto 26 pages. My first question would be, "Why did you not bring this up at the time?" or "Why did you allow town to head on a completely different track when you had what you thought was a golden nugget about that player?"

Easy shot at Espy's unconventional play which entirely ignores what he has said that he is doing.

Prozac+2

unvote, vote untrod tripod

Deadline soon, and I have no idea who scum are. My gut tells me Esp is town, so I'll go for the second-highest wagon.

Unamused.

A lurker-ridden game is problematic enough without the people who should know better not even trying.

Unvote, Vote: Porochaz

[vollkan]

First, my turn for a brief theory rant. Move your votes more! D1 is supposed to look like a traffic jam, not a parking lot. I can see why vollkan doesn't like wagon analysis if this game is anything like the ones he normally plays in. We need Jack and AGar in here, stat. Or Luchris to be town, I'm guessing. Anyway...

GIGO

I think the underlying theory is rubbish, so the fact that you are feeding more data into it doesn't matter.

I think all of the lead wagons are shite but, if I had to pick scum from among them, it would probably be UT, mainly because some of the points against him are decent and because his Esp-hate looks even worse when you notice that he's ignoring similar play from other slots. Then again, both of my personal scumpicks are on his wagon so... *shrug*

Can you elaborate on your reasons for suspecting UT?

Vollkan and Oman really don't like people calling Richard town.

FWIW, even the word "towntell" makes me froth at the mouth.

Mbf claimed SK... twice. WTF?

What is your opinion on his claiming SK?

Town
Para
Fishy
Oja
Poro
Esp
Rich

*groan* Dare I even ask you to explain?

[vollkan]

Mainly, I agree that he has latched on to an easy target and seems to be attacking him for inconclusive things. However, I can see an honestly distracted townie playing in that manner. Hence me leaving him @ null. If there something specific you wanted to know, please ask a more specific question. I'm curious why you want me to elaborate on him rather than on Luchris and Budja. What is your read on Luchris?

Why UT: because I haven't been able to see the reasons for suspecting him to date. I saw his early vote as mostly a pressure vote (lower standards in RVS and all that) and his subsequent questioning of Espy was basically along the same line as my own.

On Luchris: No points, so null by definition. I also think that your argument about linear assumptions in respect of Luchris (#276) is weak. That sort of branching suspicion "Maybe MBF didn't join these wagons because he is buddies with UT" is useful to a point, but I don't think most players do it all the time and even then only in very clearcut cases of buddying, etc. - for the simple reason that the amount of possibiltiies that it invovles considering are enormous. Call this simplistic, but MBF's post there was genuinely unclear, and so prima facie I can't see anything unreasonable about saying so. I also can't see why you think that there is cognitive dissonance, specifically in relation to Espy's defence which was perfectly valid: Espy admitted that he is playing differently from normal and gave a legitimate reasona as to why.

Simply that I wasnt voting him yet and I was tired of him speaking utter rubbish. He picked up on something that was bullshit, Im okay when people vote or try to pressure me for decent reasons, I like Ojanen, her reasons for voting me are ones that I can see why she would see them as scummy. He has dressed up his votes like he would a cheap whore, give them a nice classy dress but not do anything with the horrible makeup, the scruffy hair or those goddamn awful kankles.

That doesn't really explain it, unless your vote was because you were pissed off at his (admittedly annoying) style.

What is he attacking them for though? He didnt attack me for anything and as far as I can tell he isnt voting Oman for anything.

And again - I completely agree that his absence of reasoning was ridiculously anti-town, but you're an experienced enough player to know that some people do just play that way.

I saw what he said he was doing, its a load of bullshit. You know fine well that it is are you really going to care about a point in a case a good few weeks after it happened?

No, but that's not what's happened here. A large storm has erupted around Espy's mystery cases, so it's plainly going to be impossible for him to rely on effluxion of time as a means of avoiding having to deal with it.

[vollkan]

I hope you don't mind me trimming the fat. The enormity of possibilities is exactly my point. Most people (all people, to some extent?) don't consider all the factors, they naturally jump to conclusions based on the assumptions they've already made. Even detatched, logical players do this when they are honestly hunting. My example may be problematic beacuse I am attempting to show the lack of something throughout Luch's posts by demonstrating the lack of it in one post. The only place I see linear assumptions from Luch is where he pressures Oman for a UT read, but there are scum motivations for that as well, so that one could be a coincidence.

If you're interseted in understanding, read Luch's iso and try to name the assumptions he's making as the game plays out.

Luchris's assumptions ISO:
0: n/a
1: n/a
2: Tripod vote. Unclear whether this is random or serious. I'm going to presume serious for the sake of this analysis. Accordingly, he assumes that UT is scummy.
3: Assumes that Espy not playing to his town meta makes him scum
4: Abandons said assumption from 3 in light of Espy's explanation. (and assumes Espy's explanation is valid)
5: Bolsters assumption from 2
6: n/a
7: Continues to assume Espy's explanation from 4 is valid.
8: n/a
9: n/a
10: n/a
11: n/a
12: n/a
13: n/a

At this point we hit Ythill's attack on Luchris, so whatever non-linearity was meant to exist should already exist. Accordingly, I just can't see how this makes Espy scum.

Your opinion of Espy's defense isn't relevant. Although it may help you understand my point to read one of your responses to an Espy defense along side the one posted by Luchris. Then ask yourself three questions... Was Luchris' accusation (in his opinion) drastically less weighty than your own (in your opinion)? Was Espy's repsonse to Luchris vastly more convincing than his response to you? And, assuming the answer to both of those is "no," would you now say that you don't suspect Esp at all?

No to the first 2 questions.

And technically no to the 3rd, because Espy has a +1 point. However, that +1 point relates to:

This really bothers me. I know vollkan will hate me, but it gives me a rough gut feeling where the attack is "Lol, you think I'm scum, I thought you were a good player, but you're actually super-shit for thinking I'm scum." It's obviously designed to get the vote off him, but without any content.

I have completely accepted Espy's defence in relation to everything else, so I completley understand why Espy would as well

Scum; town; scum; no reason in particular.
Since he's on my scumlist and is the leading wagon, it makes the most sense to Unvote; Vote: Prozac. L-2.

The way you are playing has absolutely zero information value. Why do you suspect Prozac?

I want enough time to change this lynch, so Im claiming now and despite me hoping that at least one person would be smart enough to take the hint, I guess I have to spell it out.

Fullclaim - Im a Watcher.

Unvote

[vollkan]

I feel bad you based that iso on a mistake. I said "lack of linear assumptions" not "non-linear assumtions." Big difference.

Then I really can't see what the scumtell here is. I can understand why it would be scummy to have non-linear assumptions (ie. posts that have inconsistent premises). Taking the example you raised:

So that's four wagons of 3, if we pretend Oman knew syntax.

Porochaz, Parama, Tripod, and Espeonage.
I hereby declare these four players off-limits until tomorrow. So sayeth MikeBurnFire. So shall it be.

unvote, vote Oman

I don't get.
At all.
>.>.

He suspected UT. However, I don't think you can turn that into an 'assumption' that UT is scum, let alone to the extent that it should frame how he reads other people's posts - especially where the link drawn (ie. your point that "you seem perplexed by MBF pooh-poohing four wagons including UT's. Shouldn't someone who suspects UT at least entertain the idea that MBF is a buddy") is extremely tenuous. MBF's post was genuinely opaque and I think the natural response (from town or scum) to that opacity simply to ask for explanation, rather than to trawl through the history of a game to draw out patterns.

This is mainly because of the general fact that all of us have limited time that we can expend on this game. But also, the particular point that you expected Luchris to find (ie. the UT link) is only one of a myriad of different ideas that one could similarly draw from MBF's post.

In an ideal world, where we all had infinite time and energy, we probably would go through each possibility like that to build up a complicated matrix of possibilities. But we don't. So I can't see how this can sensibly be used as an argument for Luchris being scum.

I think we should keep the UT wagon alive as a possibility. Poro was town before his claim and I am not okay with lynching him, but I'd love to hear what people think about the inclusion of a watcher in a game that's explicitly focused on the day phase.

It's day-focussed, not mountainous. Since we know there isn't a cop, a watcher is a plausible role to be included as a means of providing some investigative power.

most relevant to my opinion of town-town was the fact that the point the game totally froze upon was the predictable Esp pressure+Rich pressure momentum. Noone had interest to pursue other existing ("justified") avenues.

I don't understand this. How is the stalling a town-tell?

Scum; town; scum; no reason in particular.
Since he's on my scumlist and is the leading wagon, it makes the most sense to Unvote; Vote: Prozac. L-2.

The way you are playing has absolutely zero information value. Why do you suspect Prozac?

http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p2587124

Everything from the start of the quote tunnel to the predictable claim, inclusive.

What was scummy about his 'parroting' of me?

[vollkan]

I'm not debating that again.

You didn't "debate" it the first time.

You made two arguments for it being scummy, shown here:

Not only does it denote not thinking for one's self, but it's also a huge buddying tell, both of which are likely to come from scum. Correct me if I'm wrong on either count.

1) "Not thinking for oneself"
2) "Buddying"

I responded with:

I think you're wrong, but I'm not going to correct you yet.

Why do you think Prozac-scum copied me?

Once Prozac-scum flips accordingly, his buddying puts you, a townie, square in the frame from the town's perspective - exactly what he (Prozac) set out to do in the first place. My suspicion of Oman takes the same premise.

1) So, wait, when Prozac copies something I say because he ostensibly agrees with it, that's "buddying"? But when you call me town and attack Prozac on an assumption that I am town, that's perfectly acceptable?

2) Where has Oman "buddied" with me?

3) Even assuming for argument's sake that they have buddied to me, I don't see why you think they would would do that to put me under suspicion. The whole point of buddying as scum is to emotionally coddle a townie so that the townie is less disposed to attack them.

You never responded.

The closest you came was:

Oman, it's not buddying to vollkan specifically that strikes me - it's like you're trying to set up as many buddies as you can. Playful RVS votes on someone for being British and posting pictures of whoever are quite different to this. Your ISO also shows elements of coaching.

There's social playing, and then there's you. ISO Post Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13 and 15 are incirimating from my perspective. 8 out of a possible 16 is enough for me.

Which addresses question 2), but not the others.

It's also noteworthy that, when asked for the scum motivation, it fell entirely to buddying and not to the "not thinking" point.

Anyhow, I forgot about the hypocrisy inherent in 1), so

Richard+2

contingent on answers.

Vote: Richard

[vollkan]

UT just contradicted his previous post.

Disagree. We have 13 players. If we No Lynch we will definitely wake up with 12 players, 3 of whom are mafia. We could wake up with 11 if there's an SK or a vig, but if that were the case there's about a 1/4 chance that they'll hit scum. We have a great chance of mislynching today, especially since most of the votes recently have been "well, we need a lynch" or "well, I guess I should jump on a wagon". I don't think pushing for a lynch for the sake of a lynch is a good plan. That is poor reasoning at best, and obvious pushing for a mislynch at worst.

however, no one wants to jump on the Esp train, so, UNVOTE: Espeonage

In the above, he is very clearly arguing that No Lynch > Crappy lynch (which I agree with)

But now he is jumping to the Rich wagon which by his own admission he doesn't like.

UT+5

Unvote, Vote: UntrodTripod

[vollkan]

Also, points table

Player	Points
Oman	50
Ojanen	50
mikeburnfire	50
Espeonage	51
Porochaz	53
Ythill Jdodge	50
Parama	50
Luchris	50
Untrod Tripod	55
Seol Budja	50
Fishythefish	50
RichardGHP	53

Also, if anybody knows how to get rid of the big gap above the table, please let me know. It happens whenever I post a table

[vollkan]

In the above, he is very clearly arguing that No Lynch > Crappy lynch (which I agree with)
But now he is jumping to the Rich wagon which by his own admission he doesn't like.

a no lynch would be lovely, but it's not gonna happen. How is it more scummy to want to lynch someone who you think is null than to just let yourself get lynched?

He was already tied with you at the point you voted; your vote tipped the balance from No Lynch to Richard lynch

@vollkan: Is 50 points the default?

Yes. I will stress that 50 does not mean "no opinion". It means "no scumtells" - well, technically "no preponderance of scumtells over towntells, but it's extremely rare for me to see anything as a towntell (thus, it is extremely rare for anybody to go below 50)

Do the three people with the most points comprise the scumteam?

No. I don't hunt scumteams. If I see obvious scum-linkages, I will point them out, but they won't be factored into my points. However, once somebody has flipped scum, I count linkages as points-worthy.

The points are simply a representation of my view of that individual's behavioural scumminess (thus, whilst PD has claimed, he still has 53 points because his behaviour is scummy, but obviously he is below all others in terms of voting preference). The main

[vollkan]

*groan* I just realised:

12) If a majority is not reached by deadline, the person with the highest number of votes as long as it is more than one will be lynched. In the case of a tie,

the first person to reach that number of votes will be lynched.

UT-5

Unvote, Vote: Richard

[vollkan]

How does your inability to comprehend the rules translate into UT becoming more pro-town and me more pro-scum?

It doesn't. Unvote and vote for UT please.

It means that UT's vote was not preferencing yourself over a No Lynch but, rather, was preferencing your lynch over his, which is entirely reasonable.

My preference would be a No Lynch, but that requires everybody to actually vote No Lynch. In short, my choice is between yourself (53) and UT (50). If I unvote you now, the result will be that UT, whose wagon hit 4 first, will be the lynchee.

[vollkan]

And do you feel that I am scum and UT is town? That we are both scum? Or that I am just a 'deadline lynch'?

UT is at 50. He is null.

You are at 53. You are scummier-than-average. If a No Lynch was viable, I'd be strongly supporting it because, given the makeup of your wagon, even the information value that normally comes from a deadline lynch (making up for the inevitable shortfall in scumminess) will be negligible, but that option doesn't exist here.

[vollkan]

Just giving my preferred lynch order. I don't want to lynch anyone outside of those 3 today. I don't think all 3 are scum together because I don't see either wagon being scum-free nor do I think all 3 scum would pile their votes on one player. I feel both leading wagons at the end of yesterday were town, Rich moreso. Why did you all vote him right at the end? UT would've been a better lynch. Vollkan is definitely the most likely on the Rich wagon to be scum, IMO.

Because?

[vollkan]

ISOs #8 and #9 really bug me. He's attacking Espe's logic, but there's literally no disapproval in his tone. It looks like coaching, except while also trying to make an attack... just something off here. And in his next post he says nothing is off about Espe's play.

It's quite clear that in neither of those posts is he attacking Espy; he's making scumhunting recommendations. Also, when you say "coaching" were you using it in the boilerplate scumtell sense or a generic sense?

Forgetting earlier reads - he started the wagon on me and never mentioned changing his mind about it.

Why is forgetting reads scummy?*

If forgetting reads is scummy, how is you missing Fishy's response on this point not scummy?

>Has been pushing a UT lynch pretty hard for a while
>Suddenly says he needs better reads

The only way this could possibly be scummy is if you are presuming in advance that UT is scum. Otherwise it's just a perfectly reasonable reappraisal of suspicion. In which case, your suspicion and your vote should be directed at UT.

[vollkan]

MBF has "ruined" Esp's trap and the cat is out of the bag. It's very likley that Vollkan and Esp are of the same alignment. One of Luchris/Fishy/Seol is prob-scum. One of Oja/Parama is prob-scum. Prozac-town parked on a townie early, important to remember for later.

You make five fairly major assertions in the above, with absolutely no reasoning backing them up.

I don't intend to start another "behavioural analysis" v "wagon analysis" theory debate, but I don't see how you can expect anybody to take your conclusions seriously when we have absolutely no means of understanding the process that you are using.

I'm doubting Vollkan and Oja are scum together. MBF's vote feels like distancing. Note that Parama is voting Fishy...

Ditto

...and then follows him onto Poro without questioning Fishy's vote, which seems odd.

I'm assuming that what you mean here is "It is odd that Parama would join a wagon with the person he previously voted"

If so, I really don't think you can consider that a valid scumtell. Scum distance, scum buddy, scum bus, etc - so the presence or absence of a particular person on a wagon should almost never be a reason not to join the wagon if you think the wagonee is the best vote. Even less, I can't see what is important about "noting" it - I see no purpose in saying "I am going to vote X now. Just so you all know, I was previously voting Y who is on X's wagon".

Still no bites on the Prozac-Rich situation, which makes me wonder what the scum were waiting for and, more importantly, strongly suggests that one of MBF/Oman is mafia.

See ditto above.

MBF has made his move from UT to Rich. If he's town, it was a turning point where Rich was identified as the mislynch du jour; if he's scum, UT is very likley a buddy. Oja and Para are probably not scum together.

Ditto

The Rich wagon grew quickly enough to win the plurality, which looks bad for UT. If he is scum, there was probably a buddy on there with him. My guess is MBF. If he is not scum, there's still at least one on the wagon. PoE and vote tone tells me it's Oman. Note that Seol parked on Prozac and disappeared through the end of the day whereas lurking town would be likley to at least move off of the PR claim.

[vollkan]

I don't care if you take my conclusions seriously, and I'm not going to spell out every detail for you because it's all pretty obvious. Are you questioning my methods or my alignment? If it's the latter, please select one of those dittos that you'd like to talk about and I'll explain; otherwise... meh, whatever.

I do doubt your methods, but that wasn't why I asking you to explain yourself. As my scores indicate, I am somewhat at a loss right now. If your assumptions and reasoning are well-founded, it will give me something to work with. If not, then I fail to see the harm in having that exposed. And, frankly, policy-wise,I refuse to accept that it is legitimate for a player to scumhunt by posting quotes from the mod and stating powerful conclusions with no evidence, all under the appearance of it being based on some kind of objective set of rules.

You seem to be playing devil's advocate a lot. Please at least get your vote into play, a suspicion list would be even better.

I have a suspicion list all the time: my scores, which show exactly who I suspect and the extent to which I do so.

Fact is, nobody is playing in a way that is scummy enough for a vote from me to have any real meaning beyond "you've got a couple of points" (My "Devil's Advocate" mode is partly a product of me not agreeing with any of the attacks that are being made, and partly me trying to dig up meaningful content). And I'm not going to vote for the strongest of my incredibly weak suspicions purely for the apparent purpose of enabling wagon analysis; I don't agree with wagon analysis as a method generally, but I can't see how it can possibly have any value if the data it is using is in part a consequence of everybody playing to an artificial rule of "You must vote your highest suspect no matter how trivial your suspicion".

[vollkan]

Saying there is no evidence when clearly the evidence is the placement of votes frozen by those counts is... well... just wrong

You are right. It would have been more accurate to say, as I did in my second-to-previous post, that there was a lack of

reasoning

rather than

evidence[/u]. As in, I can't as an outside observer undestand how you reached your conclusions

Tacit assumption that Esp is town based on my D1 read. He had stated that moving one wagon ahead of the rest would be considered a scumtell and, in context, it seemed like he meant that the wagon would be on a town-aligned player. If you are scum, you probably don't respond to that by voting a town-aligned player. Voting a buddy would be a reasonable move. If you are town and you voted scum, I'd expect his buddies to either pile on behind you or apply pressure somewhere else soon thereafter. However, if you are town voting town, I'd expect them to hang back and see if you got yourself in trouble. The voting climate got stagnant after yours. So, chances are, you're either both scum or both town.

That clarifies it. Why do you think that a scum player (especially in a game like this populated by experienced and, thus, less-easily-intimidated players) would react that way to one player (Espy) stating that something was a scumtell (I don't recall much agreement with Espy)?

I've only played with vollkan-scum, twice. I'm leaning town on him due to the activity et al, but reading him is always hard because his mafia philosophy generally is quite alien to me. The point system and not believing in towntells except very rarely. Everyone is at 50, someone with close to no contribution equals someone with a bunch of posts but nothing he rates as a scumtell. And all the stuff about legitimacy - I get the hyperlogical mindset, I think I do. But I just can't help thinking that getting "legitimately" caught (without setup info etc) requires scum to either not be paying attention to staying consistent and logical or be a weaker player.

On that last sentence, my test for determining whether or not an action is a scumtell (ie. more likely to come from scum than town) is a kind of "rational basis test": if a hypothetical townie with the known characteristics of the person I am analysing* could, thinking reasonably, do a particular action then I will not consider it a scumtell.

(* Thus, meta and a player's weakness are accounted for).

I also think this is why Ythill's and my playstyles grate on each other. Ythill focusses on the patterns of vote movement, whereas I am only interested in whether each individual vote or action was reasonable in the circumstances.

[vollkan]

And he does it again. Oman is quite scummy. I have found in my past experience that joking on a regular basis and jovial dismissal of things and basically just a simple sense of nonchalance usually points to scum. He showed this quite a few times day 1 and has just done it again.

Scum usually do this to discredit townies so that people don't listen them. When someone does this once or twice it could mean nothing. When it is done on a regular basis however, it usually points to a scum peep.

Oman is a jokey and social player. Even if humour was generally a scumtell (it isn't), it isn't one for Oman

Town: Mike, Espeo, Oj, Richard, Para, Ythill, Fishy
That leaves...Volkan, Seol, Oman, and Tripod...
There are 1 or 2 I'm less sure of on the Town part of it, but bleh, deal with that later.

Untrod Tripod (5): Luchris, RichardGHP, Fishythefish, Espeonage, Ythill
^^^Which means this looks all town

Porochaz (5): Vollkan, Parama, RichardGHP, Seol, Ojanen
^^^And {Volkan/Seol}

I can't decide whether Oman's stuff is scummmy...usually I would auto-say that posting elsewhere and stuff is yes...But for some reason the way he's doing it is making me doubt myself.
And Tripod looks like legit not here right now.
Actually, ignore the first line.

Vote: Oman

What is this I don't even...

I can't find the case on Oman. What post number is it?

Ditto

[vollkan]

I am aware of the amount of work that goes info convincing.people, and I didn't have The time causing a flaw in any wagon I push. Realism > hope any day.

More to the point I stated why I didn't vote Luchris straight up.

How do you respond to this guys: Ythill is town.

How do you respond to this:

Scum-driven? His only real suspect, Esp, had finally joined the wagon eleven hours prior to this statement. Oman prefered several others? Why didn't he vote for any of them when the opportunity presented itself? Why he didn't he assist me in voting for Oja or Luch? Hell, why didn't he try to rally on Esp?

[vollkan]

Following from the above:

+2 Oman

and

Vote: Oman

, contingent on response to the previous.

[vollkan]

unvote, vote: vollkan

Because?

It's intersting that, to me, MBF looks like a UT buddy in one scenario whereas Oman looks like scum using UT-town in another. Combining them would lead me to a MBF-Oman scumteam conclcuion with UT as the town pawn, if not for the vote-grouping caveat. Thoughts?

You're right about MBF. I just ISOd him and he goes from completely unsure and neutralish to OTT certain on RGHP. His subsequent explanation of it ("Well, there was a lot of reason for me to go after Richard. I had a case and everything") doesn't do much either, since it doesn't explain the sudden spike in passion.

MBF+4

(not changing vote yet since not sure of the VC)

As for Oman, as somebody who also had problems with the UT wagon, I don't see the way he rejected the UT wagon as scummy

Hey, at least I tried. If RGH was scum, I'd be super-confirmed now.

The fact you "tried" is kind of the problem; it was inconsistent.

If UT and I were scum, then my sudden, uncharacteristically loud jump from UT to RGH would have been a dumb move to make, since it is abnormal behavior for me (so far this game), and nobody else really showed an interest in lynching RGH. Essentially, I would have chosen an uphill fight that, if I lost, would have heavily implicated me.

You're only looking at one side of the issue. RGHP's wagon was small, but I know by that stage both Oman and I had both expressed scepticism about the UT wagon.

[vollkan]

Yay, my exams are over so I can actually pay this game some proper attention now.

Now this I like! I love the aggressiveness!

This tells me that this town is serious about catching its scum and ridding ourselves of the venom and the bile that is plaguing us all. There is no time to hold back, there is no time to submit to the fear and the chaos that the scum try to instill into our very hearts. Oh no, we are much more resilient than that. Our wills are strong and our virtue is true. We will not give up, we will not accept defeat. By the end of this day, scum will be hanging before us. We will cheer triumphantly, knowing that the day of reckoning lingers for the rest of the scum.

Is this part of your meta? (anyone who has played with IS before can answer as well)

Without going into wall-o-text, which isnt my style, I can see that several arguments have already been made as to the certain villainy of this Luchris. He lurks a bit too much, and when he does speak, he says nothing of substance. Throws baseless accusations and tries to ride only bandwagons that are doomed to fail.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record:
- lurking is not scummy
- what do you mean by "riding wagons that are doomed to fail"

I'll play Devil's advocate here.

That's my schtick. Get your own.

[vollkan]

I think I need to start doing ISOs of everybody; my reading hasn't been nearly as solid as I would like due to exams.

I'll begin with Luchris, seeing as he is the largest wagon and so the most useful to get my perspective on.

For reference, if I don't address a post it means I see nothing alignment relevant in it.

Luchris ISO

23: Unclear why, but switches position on Oman (whom he previously said was town) and votes him to L-2. The stuff about Oman lurking in this game is incredibly weak, especially given his previously stated town read. This plus the immediate qualification of "I'm doubting myself" (why?).

Luchris+4

31: Noting that he lists myself/Tripod/parama as the scumteam. If Luchris is scum, this increases the likelihood of one of UT and Parama being scum

+

(for Ctrl+F purposes)
34: Since this is current, I'll respond to it fully:

I don't like volkan on an iso.
He seems to be as nothing as me...but with a lot more words.
I remember thinking he was scum in a previous game too but I forgot the reason, might be a playstyle thing...need to check.

The following post from a recent recently-finished town game of mine may be of interest

Luchris:

54

[vollkan]

MBF:

9: As I said in my ISO48, this got 4 points.
16: Interesting. MBF has an utterly inconsistent history on UT. In ISO3, UT is off-limits; votes him in ISO5 over the fact that UT is second largest wagon to Espy whom he thinks is town by gut, which is odd given that, as was pointed out, the deadline wasn't for 5 days. I can't see a pro-town perspective which, faced with having to choose between two people who are apparently off-limits would make that choice based on gut without even so much as acknowledging the difficulty involved, which suggests he isn't being genuine.

MBF+3

. Then we get to ISO7, where his attitude to UT's lynch is simply casual

MBF+1

(would be +2 but for the fact that it may be a playstyle jokiness, but that still doesn't explain the inconsistency with ISO3.
17: above attitude persists

[vollkan]

EBWOP: Counted scores and MBF is now at 58. That's significant enough for me to

Vote: MBF

[vollkan]

I can completely understand being disengaged from this game, but I can't see how that leads to you playing "inconsistently and recklessly" (reasonably summarises my points against you). Not knowing is very different from not caring.

[vollkan]

@vollkan: Last time I played with you was a long time ago, we were both town and we disagreed about almost everything. Now you seem to be reaching all of my conclusions a day or two after I do. It's strange. I really don't think you're mafia, but I'm wondering what's changed. Any idea?

Not sure, My playstyle has changed since then so that I have a narrower view of what constitutes scumtells and essentially no belief in towntells, but if anything I'd imagine that would create more disagreement between us.

[vollkan]

@Vollkan: Do you remember why you missed your usual Thursday gaming on the night Oman was lynched?

At the risk of sounding diary-ish:

From my timezone (AEST) that his claim was at 9.34am and the lynch was 1.00am on Saturday. I know I had work from early in the morning on Friday, and having had an exam on Thursday I was pretty exhausted. I think I did some combination of studying for my next two exams and napping after work, before crashing asleep at around midnight (FWIW, my natural sleeping hours during semester are like 3am-11am, which is why a combination of late exam and associated mental exercise plus early work is not a good combination)

[vollkan]

Espeonage:

8: @Espeoage: Why did you unvote me here? At face value, your actions look like a reaction-seeking vote, but I'm not sure what exactly you were after or why the fact that I OMGUSed you was an 'acceptable' response.
11: Following from the above, here you say that the vote on me came to nothing - which only makes me more confused about the above.
12: You say you have two suspects just from the reactions on that page. Can you name them now and explain why?
13: Here you say your vote targets were chosen on the basis of being the most likely to result in useful reactions - well, what did you learn?

I get nothing. Espy's play has been content-light and crypticness-heavy.

50

[vollkan]

@vollkan: Maybe you missed my question at the end of #657. IS has based his loudly-supported votes on weak reasoning. The vote on Oman was especially bad. You should be on him like white on rice. Why aren't you?

From what I've read, I agree - but I wanted to ISO him first.

Meh,I'll break order and do it now since you asked:

Internet Stranger

Budja

zip

Seol

nada

IS

0: The vote here is bad. In essence, he is voting Oman because Oman is the biggest wagon.

IS+3

2: There's unnecessary and inconsistent use of conspiracy here. Even if we granted that this sort of "Lynch anybody, it's all cool" thing is a playstyle trait, the cautioning about Parama being potential scum is at odds with such a gung-ho attitude. The seriousness of the inconsistency is exacerbated because of the large incentive for scum to engage in this sort of behaviour - encourage following of a player but also plant the seeds for future suspicion.

IS+2

4: Basically a combination of 0 + 2 in this post. Still plenty of words but no original thinking, and goes out of his way to attribute "his" suspicions to their original sources.

IS+1

13: The first paragraph is exactly what he should have said on joining the Oman wagon; it's measured, realistic and reasonable. Fact is, he didn't say this at the time. Instead, despite the fact that he clearly was aware that he wasn't up to speed with the game, he insisted on rallying the troops.

IS: 55

[vollkan]

Yeah. I'm starting to get mixed feelings about the Interrogator.

I'm not asking why you didn't agree right away, or suggesting that you should agree now. I'm wondering why you didn't speak up sooner. Demanding logical, evidence-based stances is kinda your gig, isn't it? IS has been loudly doing the opposite and you've been mostly ignoring it.

Go back and look at how people reacted to my earlier pushing for reasons. Fact is, I've got no desire to re-engage in that process. IS's playstyle has been made pretty clear, and I'm not going to be able to change that.

[vollkan]

So you're chalking it up to playstyle? That's strange because you seemed to think it indicated his alignment two posts ago. And people have been reacting poorly to your pressure for years, changing it mid-game here seems too convenient.

Crumple up my Vollkan town read and throw it in the dumpster. Vollkan-IS scumteam suddenly seems

really

obvious. I'm going to go back and check my past analysis for caveats.

Ythill+2

You're conflating two completely different things.

As I just said, I didn't jump on IS with the sort of "Reasons?", "Why?", "Because?" questioning because I'd been rebuffed earlier and his playstyle seemed to indicate he wasn't the type to supply reasons even if asked.

That's got nothing to do with the fact that his voting was brazenly opportunistic and relied on passive linking.

I don't think you could reasonably misinterpret my posts to suggest such a thing.

[vollkan]

Well then answer the question. Why didn't you jump on him for that when he did it? Or at any time since? Why did it take me asking you about him for you to comment on a guy who should be obv-scum from your PoV?

Have a look at my posting since the Oman lynch. I've been in review mode. This game has largely coincided with my exams (see diary post), so I've been needing to do my ISOs while I also keep up with current events. I hadn't read or analysed his post until my ISO, which I did because you indicated that you wanted my opinion on him.

[vollkan]

Not true. You addressed him mildly once, in #588. The post began with, "Yay, my exams are over..." Why didn't you note that "his voting was brazenly opportunistic and relied on passive linking" in that post? Why didn't you follow up on it?

In that post, I am responding to a post that IS made on the same page as my own - ie. I had not yet gone back over what I'd missed/hadn't paid enough attention to

[vollkan]

Player	Points
mikeburnfire	58
Espeonage	51
Ythill Jdodge	52
Parama	50
Luchris	54
Untrod Tripod	55
Internet Stranger Seol Budja	55
Fishythefish	50

Having posted that table, I would also like to point out that in my most recent games, I have altered my points system so as to double scale the points - the basis for this being that I first began using my points system when I had a less limited view of scumtells, meaning that there was a greater spread of numbers because there were more tells and I was probably also more liberal with how damning I considered those tells. The scaling doesn't alter the system in any substantive way, but I think it gives a clearer impression of how serious my suspicion is.

Using that scale here:

Player	Points
mikeburnfire	66
Espeonage	52
Ythill Jdodge	54
Parama	50
Luchris	58
Untrod Tripod	50
Internet Stranger Seol Budja	60
Fishythefish	50

[vollkan]

@vollkan: Why are you still voting MBF? Please put IS @ L-1.

Because MBF has the highest score.

I'm willing to change to IS (60) to avoid a Luchris (58) lynch, though (or to change to Luchris to avoid anybody lower, obv)

[vollkan]

Roleblocker.
Blocked tripod and volkan

Please explain both these choices.

[vollkan]

I thought you guys were scum...

Skimmed your ISO and this is true. Absent CC, I won't vote you

[vollkan]

Im extremely suspicious of Vollkan and his superscum scoring system. I still think its full of crap.

Why is your dislike of my scoring system at all relevant?

He had Luchris up near the top of his list, but yet he never voted for him. At the time, he couldnt have known that Luchris was actually innocent. Or did he? He felt it more necessary to glam up to Ythill and get in on his good side. I can see why, Ythill was rabid and ferocious when coming after me. I was mildly suspicious of Ythill, and was going to pretty much hand his ass to him today had Luchris turned up scum, but yet he turns up dead. Why? Its clear to see that Vollkan is trying to setup a quicklynch on me today. He knew Luchris was innocent, only the scum know that, hence his hesitation to vote for him. Why else would be try to hide by off-voting on MBF instead?

The attack IS is making here is a classic example of a conspiracy argument. He doesn't explain why my actions are

more likely

to come from scum than town. Instead, he takes a satellite view of my actions (ie. devoid of any consideration of my arguments or reasoning) and then constructs a narrative that fits his broad observations which is consistent with me being scum.

Shooting these sorts of arguments in their metaphorical feet is one of the reasons I use my points system, which functions as a sort of precommitment strategy. In a nutshell, IS claims that my refusal to wagon Luchris was opportunistic avoidance (not wanting to get tarred with the wagon). However, that's patently false. MBF took the highest position on my charts well before the Luchris wagon reached its last throes - and anybody can scan my meta to see that my rule of play is to only vote my top suspect (absent extreme circumstances such as those I mentioned in ISO63, namely where I need to vote somebody lower to avoid NL/a lynch on somebody even lower down).

Since, you haven't given any analysis whatsoever to the effect that my reasons for suspecting MBF (or, for that matter,

anybody

) are in any way dodgy or unreasonable.

So what you are basically arguing is

that it was scummy for me

not[/u] to depart from my established meta for the purposes of lynching a townie

.

IS+5

By killing Ythill, Vollkan and the scum can easily set me up by turning my aggressiveness and vigor against me. What a load of crap. I am so not falling for such tactics. I have caught tons of scum before trying to play this little game with me. It didnt work then, its so not going to work now.

lolwifom

It's particularly egregious given that if you genuinely believed what you are saying here, then surely it would make more sense to wait and see if I actually used Ythill's death in the way that you are preemptively accusing me of.

IS+5

[vollkan]

Vollkan, youre still using the useless point system to try an incriminate me, arent you? Thats how its relevant. Its like youre some catholic school nun handing out demerits to the kids, trying to pump them up full of guilt and repentance. Everytime you pump in points into your arbitrary system as if youre collecting points in a video game, youre throwing another accusatory barb in my direction.


All youre doing with your system is creating an arbitrary crutch to lean on to excuse your actions. Its not pre-commitment, its the equivalent of the curtain for the Wizard from the Wizard of Oz. You really believe that you can excuse such blatant scummy behavior by using a railed system? How can you use points that you set arbitrarily as a method to auto-determine your actions when you yourself are setting the points? Its crap, plain and simple.

Confining my response to game-relevant stuff, rather than a theory defence of my system: You are again attacking me for an aspect of my play which I do regardless of alignment. Enough said. It's even worse that you are completely smearing the system as some ploy to "pump them up full of guilt and repentance" when any reasonable observer, even those who detest my system (of which there are many), would know that it's simply the way that I express my suspicions

Youre right, it is a conspiracy argument. I already see through your trappings and if im not the only one not falling for it, then so be it. In the end, I shall have my vindication when you turn up to be scum. You cant sit there like some Ken doll, throw a wink and a smirk and just try to dismiss me and expect that to be the end of it. You expect me to con jure up your own defense for you either. All youre basically saying is that you get to lean on some point tally that you created, so you have free range to do whatever you want.

I dont need to create some detailed point by point analysis. All youre doing is trying to put the burden on me to do all the work, so you can just say "No, I didnt" and demand for more. Did you not see how Ythill was trying the same on me the previous day and I didnt bite? Its quite unfortunate that I was wrong then, but im definitely not wrong now.

Its quite simple really. You KNEW that Luchris was a townie, so of course you didnt want to change your points crutch around, because that would make you look too obvious. So by keeping your points inflated to MBF, you have an excuse to not be involved in the lynch. Like I said in the first sentence, you cant suddenly use hindsight glasses against me because only scum knew Luchris was innocent. Which is precisely what youre doing now. Of course youre not going to depart from a established meta, you purposely set it up to be that way in the first place. That means that there is no analysis to be made, you cant analyze made up scoring.

Why should I wait around and let you gather crazy fervor against me first? Youre the one trying to make me look bad and I can clearly see it, even if no one else does. Like I said earlier, you cant just wave your hand around like some jedi mind trick, throw a wink and a smile and assume that what I say doesnt have merit when it clearly does.

This isnt anything new, I am a constant daytime target. I been called an easy lynch before because Im not afraid to lay it out there for all to see. Im here to catch scum and its plain to see that youre trying to set me up here. I dont need to sit here and wait for you to shoot me. I see the threat against me and this town and its easy to see that you have been part of the scumteam all along.

My vote stays, im sure on this one.

tl;dr version:

My argument is crap, but I've got great rhetorical skills.

Vollkan, I agree that your point system is no good. I can understand doling out points for scummy behavior, but if you reduce it to a point system, it loses a lot of context that is subject to change. Also, you never seem to subtract points that you have given, so when I've explained my actions that seemed scummy, I don't change in your ranking like I should. Additionally, the difference in points that you have assigned is very slim, so much that a few townie mistakes or speaking missteps could swing your opinion.

I don't want a theory debate, but for my interest I would like to know what "context" you think it ignores.

Where did you explain your actions?

As for the difference being slim: the point you make here can equally be said of any player. A few missteps might throw their suspicion onto a townie. As always, this relies on me not having the bad judgment to see mistakes as scummy.

Relevant:

Like when you repeat things over and over to brainwash people.

Right now, Vollkan is clearly the scummiest.

I got me the Vollkan scum pegged right there.

The scum is Vollkan, im sure of it.

Vollkan is the scum.

And, more broadly, his "case" on me to date is repeating in a hundred different ways the same BS unfalsifiable conspiracy theory.

[vollkan]

The fact remains that Vollkan still tries to dismiss my claims with a chortle and a smirk. You cant sick back, wave your hand like some Jedi mind trick and expect everything to simply go away. The fact is that youre trying to smear me here and making me look bad. You claim thats the way you play, but the exact same thing can be said against me. Except im here actively trying to catch scum. I dont hold back, I dont throttle down. Vollkan just sits back and watches the townies attack each other until he and his scumbuddies come out on top. He uses his points system to hide behind.

Also, it's simply ridiculous to imply that my reasons for suspecting you are directed at your playstyle. Go to my ISO and search for + .

I have nothing to hide and always explain my actions. Vollkan says that he does what the point system he himself generates says he does. He might as well just say that he is following orders.

Which of my actions have I not explained?

Your mantra of "Vollkan was setting me up" is bullcrap. Vollkan wasn't voting you yesterday, I was still higher on his list.

I'd add to this that my reasons for pushing IS above you were entirely a consequence of his attack on me. So it makes no sense for him to accuse me of setting him up.

I don't like is ISO 47/48. In 47, he votes Oman (the currently tied with UT for head wagon) on the basis of the fact that ythill put the two leading wagons to 3-3 and he wanted Oman to respond to a question he quoted from Ythill about 15 minutes earlier. I guess in order to get him to respond. In the same post he gives Oman a boost in points as the second highest at the time was 51, thus making him the “scummiest” of his suspects.

You disagree with my reason for increasing points on Oman?

In 48, he gives MBF +4, thus making him the scummiest. He refused to vote him because he didn't know the current VC, which if he took 3 minutes, he could deduce as the last VC was a page earlier.

What's your point? I really can't see why delaying my vote by a few posts to get an official votecount and not spending my time trying to add votes up is unreasonable.

If he unvoted and switched to MBF, it would be Oman 3, UT 2, MBF 3. MBF would be tied and have a chance at lynch, so would Oman who he gladly put into the head spot. The only person in danger that Vollkan hasn't said was scummy was UT. Again. I think this was a guise to defend UT from a potential lynch.

Again, what's your point? UT wasn't my highest suspect. I also think it's bizarre that you'd make an argument which is premised on UT being scum, and yet you end up voting me

[vollkan]

EBWOP:

Points for Batt contingent on response

[vollkan]

Vollkan- It's more to the fact that it seems like you added points to Oman so you can be consistent (between votes/points) and vote him. I don't know why you gave him points, as all you wanted was a response.

Not true at all.

In ISO 46, I asked Oman to respond to a point that Ythill had made against Oman, which Oman had not yet addressed. In ISO 47, 14 minutes later, I put two points on him.

The reason I did this is a simple matter of policy/theory. As you can see from this google search, when I see something that is prima facie scummy but which I want a person to address, I apply points before they answer. The reason for this is that it's clearly bad policy to ignore something I think is scummy and then possibly allow people to avoid it by me omitting to follow up, should they not address it (or, if I am skimming, as is not infrequent, if I forget that the issue was important to me).

Vollkan- It just seems off. You could have easily found the VC. You didn't. That leads me to believe that you didn't want to vote, but still wanted to say MBF is scummy. This also leads me to believe that you didn't want the vote count to change from Oman 4, UT 2, MBF 2 to Oman 3, MBF 3, UT 2. Why? MBF was in the lead with points, followed by Oman (who you had no qualms putting into the lead with votes). The only reason would be that you either a) wanted Oman lynched regardless of your points, or B) you were trying to protect UT and/or MBF (If MBF, making him scummy then not following up with a vote at a later day seems like distancing).

You haven't challenged the validity of the reason I gave, other than asserting that you don't believe it. Again, I couldn't see the harm in delaying.

There's not much more I can, since your argument is premised on me not having the motivation that I had.

[quote="Batt"}
Vollkan- UT wasn't you highest suspect? Really? So, you'd vote someone at 52 points, even though you have someone else on your list that is at 54 points, but you wouldn't want to danger someone who has 50 points (aka null). Is 2 points really that important, and I still don't see why you didn't vote MBF based on your townie point system. [/quote]

I've explained why I didn't vote MBF that day already.

As for the 2 points: A points system isn't much use if I decide the points don't matter. As I've explained in my argument with IS, it's meant to function as a precommitment tool. If it becomes subject to my own discretion, it becomes non-existent.

And why am I voting you over UT? Well, you are the one making all these connections to UT. I ISO'd you, not UT. Why do you want me to shift my attention to UT over you?

That's not what I asked you to do.

I asked why you were suspecting me based on an argument which assumed UT was scum.