Mini 1390: Game Over

[nhammen]

Vote Count 1.3

Abaddon(4): JacobSavage, Cheery Dog, Slandaar, Radelle
Radelle(3): Parama, Abaddon, JasonWazza
Parama(2): Tommy, Sable Tip
Sable Tip(2): toxictaipan, Deltabacon
toxictaipan(1): TheTrollie
Cheery Dog(1): Idiotking

With 13 players alive, it takes 7 votes to lynch.

[Abaddon]

I was expecting smart/cautious townies to react much like Abaddon did, saying something along the lines of, "Yeah, I think I see what you're saying. However, I want to see if our thoughts corroborate. What are you seeing?"

Assume Sable is town.

Does this still stand?

Yes.

Toxic's alleged reaction test is not dependent on Sable Tip's alignment, it's dependent on how people reacted to Toxic's strange behavior.

@Abaddon

:

Radelle, I don't need to be unfair to find you scummy. Attacks on scum that are just plain bad only give you ways to worm your way out of it by calling foul.

You're still scummy, but I won't abide no-logic attacks just because they're aimed in the right direction. That's hypocrisy of the worst sort, and I won't put up with that.

You have a very unique way of looking scummy as hell when you're calling everyone idiots and generally being a jerk, but when you calm down and explain things I really want to agree with you. Problem here is, I think it's more probable that a town Abaddon would be more aggressively going after me

while

calling out others.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Abaddon

Strawman argument.

[toxictaipan]

What specifically did you get from the reactions of players as of now? What are your thoughts on Abaddon and Parama?

Town on Abaddon. Post 72 and Post 82 are both really good. I take it that your suspicion of him for those posts stems from meta? I was starting to lean town on Parama, but he went absent soon after. Once he comes back with some input on recent events I'll be able to give you a more solid read. Tommy's reaction also affirmed my town read on him.

[JacobSavage]

surprisingly enough this is my Sixth (technically Seven but the first one was abandoned due to mod error) but yeah analysis was never my thing, hence the reason why I have resorted to spreadsheets to organise my thoughts

[Radelle]

Strawman argument.

I think you can do better than that.

@Toxic

: Yes.

[Radelle]

It's like Parama forgot the game, because he's been definitely actively posting around the forums but not here.

[Abaddon]

Strawman argument.

I think you can do better than that.

There's nothing to respond to. You posited an opinion, not facts. It's a strawman argument - you created a target made out of your imagination, and attacked it.

[Tommy]

JacobSavage, I recommend the 'display posts by user' option at the bottom of the page. It would be quicker than trying to get a read of everyone at once with your spreadsheet. Look at someone's posts one by one. For each post, ask yourself 'Does this post make sense if the player is town? Does it make sense if they're scum?' Then summarise your thoughts and let us know.

It's also fine to agree with things that people have already said. Better to say which bits are most convincing and which bits aren't, but the town should act like a crowd - there's no requirement to stay original at all costs.

Now, I forgot a tasty rasher of Deltabacon from earlier: Sable Tip, can you explain what 'little tiff' referred to?

[Idiotking]

Sorry I've been out guys, the weather's been interesting.

UNVOTE: Tommy
VOTE: Idiotking
RVS is pretty much over, dude. Why the seemingly random vote instead of something a little more substantial?

I can never tell these things. I don't really pay attention to RVS.

I've been leaning scum on Cheery Dog because his flimsy case on Abaddon looks artificial. But this admission of potential fault has a townie feel:

Confusion, though that may actually have been caused by me.

I don't think it's a town tell, it just isn't a scumtell. Scum have no reason to be bullish about things. Townies actually do sometimes, when they're sure about a case they're making, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

I'm liking Abaddon so far. His post 64 is right up my alley. It's always important to explain your arguments when you make them. Waiting for others to do it for you or withholding them intentionally is utterly anti-town.

I do not like Parama's posts for that very reason. He's making a lot of quotes and such and acting as though everything he thinks is obvious (post 47 for example, implying that toxictaipan had contradicted himself, but not explaining how and reacting with sarcasm when questioned), but there's remarkably little in the way of argumentation. I'd point out that he's gone MIA from this thread, but then who am I to talk?

Unvote

Vote Parama

I'm going to keep rereading the thread to get better reads on everybody else. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what's going on for the most part.

[Sable Tip]

I've been having a really hard time reading Sable Tip. I heartily dislike the wishy-washy argument in his 57 which seems to not contribute anything, realistically. It strikes a middle ground between Cheery and Abaddon who were arguing at the time quite wildly, and puts scumreads on both of them, whilst jumping on what is effectively a continuation of a statement made in RVS to try and justify a vote on Parama.

Um. I pointed out the individual posts that seemed off to me, and those two made posts that looked off. For the record, the reason I voted Parama was because how he tried to make Taipan’s position look self-contradictory when, to my mind, the context of Taipan’s two statements were completely different. It looked like he had removed vital context, which made Taipan look worse, and in the absence of a reason to presume it was a mistake, it set off my scumdar.

He seems to hint at there being a correllation between Parama's and Abaddon's RVS 'argument' when in fact Abaddon's #17 pretty much agreed with Parama's #16. What I don't like about this is he contradicts himself here, calling it the start of a 'tiff' between them when there has been no such argument.

I did misspeak (mistype?) there; I meant to say that posts 16 and 17 were the start of

the

little tiff, not

their

little tiff, referring to the little argument involving Parama, Cheery Dog, Radelle and Abaddon, which seemed to basically die out around post 35.

Also, for the record, when you say I hinted at a correlation, what precisely was that supposed to be a correlation between? By definition, you can't have a correlation in a single thing; a correlation is between two things. Similarly, while I agree I misspoke about the disagreement, I don't see where I contradicted myself.

Whilst this may simply be an oversight and lazy towntelling, I'm more inclined to say that it's scum trying to mislead town, since it doesn't take a huge amount of effort to look at the posts in isolation and realise that there is no such argument. Now, he paints them both as scum, which I believe is laying the groundwork for his cases later on, since he leans heavily on Parama being scum.

If it takes so little effort for town to realise there was no argument directly between Parama and Abaddon, how would I as scum benefit from so blatantly trying to misrepresent the situation?

I can see why you may have interpreted my actions as “leaning heavily” on Parama, but it was my strongest scumread at that point – still not particularly strong as the game was still young.

In addition to this, he tries to call people out based on their contribution. Now, I realise that I'm not exactly the flag-bearer for punctuality and consistent contribution in this game so far, but

he calls out two people who have posted quite a bit more than I had at that point in the game, considering I was on zero posts thus far. Calling people out for inactivity is one thing, but realistically, calling people who've posted out more than people who haven't?

Wait, what? I didn’t call anyone out for not posting in my first post, so you must be referring to my second post here.

Let’s look at the

actual

facts here. In my second post, I stated:

I also want to see some content from Idiotking and JacobSavage (and to a lesser extent TheTrollie and Deltabacon)

At that point, Idiotking, JacobSavage and you had each made one post, while TheTrollie had made two (one of which was just a vote.) TheTrollie is on V/LA, and the post was made about two and a half hours after you had posted promising imminent content, so I felt there was less need to call you two out – though I still did mention the both of you.

How precisely do you reconcile these facts with the bolded portion of your post? I can’t see how I could have called out two people who “had posted quite a bit more than [you] had at that point” when you actually had more words posted than those two

put together

.

Other people I don't like at the moment include JacobSavage, who (again, whilst I can't really call others out on it given my record this game) has contributed little to nothing, and has posted only what could be construed as a jokepost when we are arguably knee-deep in discussion. It looks to me like mafia who is trying to avoid prods, in all honesty. If we don't see a post with real contribution in within the next 8-10 hours I'll be inclined to FoS him.

Now you call out one of the two people I had called out. Here, however, you seem to realise that he hadn’t posted much, despite your earlier assertion (in this post) that he had posted a fair bit more than you.

I'm swinging mid-town on Tommy and toxic, since the posts they both make seem to be clear and easy to understand, rather than wrapped in fluff, which to me indicates town-freindly play. The only exception to this being Toxic's 'reaction test' attempt, which whilst I can see the potential benefits of such a strategy, I think was poorly executed. I don't think he's any less town as a result though.

No offence, but this reasoning seems… well, bull. It feels like an attempt to get on a townie’s good side by praising their posts without actually saying anything about their position, as it is all to do with the posting style and nothing to do with the actual content.

UNVOTE:
VOTE: Deltabacon

Taipan: I don't like to look for scum pairings early in the game, as there's simply not enough data to work from. Add in the fact that sometimes scum might want to post suspicion of other scum (i.e. distancing), and I don't see any reason for my scum suspicions to influence my reads on other players as yet.

@Sable

: Is English your main language?

It is, though I am often told that I have an unusually florid, purple-prose way of talking, and unfortunately this is only accentuated when I post online.

[Cheery Dog]

UNVOTE:
My small semblance of a case about forgetting a vote isn't enough to leave my vote there at the moment.

Ithink this is basically a prod dodge post, currently the only players I read as having got out of being null are Tommy & toxic both of whom have headed town.

[Idiotking]

UNVOTE:
My small semblance of a case about forgetting a vote isn't enough to leave my vote there at the moment.

Ithink this is basically a prod dodge post, currently the only players I read as having got out of being null are Tommy & toxic both of whom have headed town.

Why do you have a null read on Parama?

[Cheery Dog]

because I don't know what to make of his posts.
Nothing has stick out to me and therefore it makes it null.

I realise this is theory stuff and probably not what you're looking for, but if I had found something that stuck out I woyld have had a read. I don't have any specific posts that make him be the null read, he just is

[toxictaipan]

UNVOTE: Tommy
VOTE: Idiotking
RVS is pretty much over, dude. Why the seemingly random vote instead of something a little more substantial?

I can never tell these things. I don't really pay attention to RVS.

I really don't believe you. RVS is not a hard concept to grasp, first of all. Secondly, you're honestly saying that you couldn't tell RVS was over after

four

serious votes were dropped

in a row

? Give me a break.

[Slandaar]

Toxic's alleged reaction test is not dependent on Sable Tip's alignment, it's dependent on how people reacted to Toxic's strange behavior.

You are telling me scum will not react differently depending on Sables alignment? You are wrong. Clearly. (It also depends on Toxic's alignment)

Assume Sable is town and someone says 'Yeah, I think I see what you're saying. However, I want to see if our thoughts corroborate. What are you seeing?' Do you agree with Toxic that is a good indicator of town?

Absolutely. Townies are just as capable at looking scummy as scum are. That doesn't change the fact that you investigate logical inconsistencies when you find them.

Abaddons response although the question wasn't aimed at him made sense in context.

I have literally no clue what you are saying here and how it relates to what I said at all. Explain it to me.

[Tommy]

Tommy's Case on Parama

(1) He votes and pushes lynches without giving any reasons:

^Scum #1.

unvote, vote: Radelle

2 more to go. Who are your buddies, Radelle?

Lynching Radelle first either way

A town player should be sharing his thinking so that the whole team can consider it - both because he wants to persuade them and because he needs them to check it for him. A scum player needs to avoid getting pinned down. If you check out the context of these posts, you'll see that they appear close to Abaddon's attack on Radelle despite never explicitly endorsing that attack, which does give reasons. So if Parama is challenged later, he has options - he can decide to say it should be obvious he agreed with Abaddon's case, or he can deny the association if necessary and claim some other explanation for voting ought to have been obvious.

(2) He puts words in people's mouths:

So I'm an idiot for calling you out for doing something idiotic like leaving your vote in rvs while attacking someone?

You just admitted that what he did was dumb, but not scummy.

What Cheery Dog says here is subtly different from what Parama says he says. There is no town motivation to muddy the water in this way. As scum, Parama's purpose could be to defend Abaddon (if Abaddon is his scum-buddy) or to smear Cheery Dog as an early part of a mislynch campaign.

(3) He refuses to answer questions.

To pick just one example from my many options here, here's how he enlightened me when I asked why he wanted to lynch Radelle:

'cause he's scum.

It's in the interest of the town to share information; it's in the interest of scum to stay opaque.

(4) He accuses his challengers of stupidity:

don't expect me to spell things out that should be COMPLETELY OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain

This has two purposes: to discredit his attacker, and to put other people off asking questions. Note that this second purpose is particularly insidious because it doesn't only affect people questioning him - it changes the whole mood of the town to one where people are afraid to share their ideas. Ideal for scum.

(5) He doesn't scum-hunt.

Of his twelve posts to date, I would say only post 48 contains meaningful analysis - and even then it's meagre. Scum don't need to scum-hunt because they know who the scum are.

(6) He's lying low.

He hasn't posted for three days. This can often work as a scum tactic if you want to avoid taking heat - someone else is bound to do something scummy and then the attention will shift to them. Don't let him get away with it!

[nhammen]

Prodding Parama

[Parama]

What the hell
This somehow got unbookmarked

And I don't have time to catch up any time soon,

replace me

:/
Sigh...

[Abaddon]

Toxic's alleged reaction test is not dependent on Sable Tip's alignment, it's dependent on how people reacted to Toxic's strange behavior.

You are telling me scum will not react differently depending on Sables alignment? You are wrong. Clearly. (It also depends on Toxic's alignment)

Assume Sable is town and someone says 'Yeah, I think I see what you're saying. However, I want to see if our thoughts corroborate. What are you seeing?' Do you agree with Toxic that is a good indicator of town?

Absolutely. Townies are just as capable at looking scummy as scum are. That doesn't change the fact that you investigate logical inconsistencies when you find them.

Abaddons response although the question wasn't aimed at him made sense in context.

I have literally no clue what you are saying here and how it relates to what I said at all. Explain it to me.

You seem to be completely missing the point.

Yes, there will be a small variance depending on whether Sable Tip is scum or not, but let's follow that postulate the rest of the way. You're tacitly saying that the only real purpose of the reaction test was to catch Sable Tip's scumbuddies geeking out based purely on a bald declaration of suspicion. That's utterly absurd.

Like I said, you're completely missing the point. The reaction test, as stated, has very little to do with Sable Tip's alignment, or with which alignment Toxic assigned to him. Toxic took a thoroughly neutral post and made a bold declarative statement, then refused to back it up. The reaction test was for peoples' reactions to

Toxic's

actions, not Sable Tip's post. He could have emphatically declared Sable Tip Town while refusing to explain why for a near-identical effect. The slight variance of whether Sable Tip was scum or not utterly pales in comparison to the far more distinct question of how people would react to Toxic's actions.

Get your head out of your ass, Slandaar. This is obtuse and narrow-minded, even for you.

[Cheery Dog]

Townie reactions would be the same no matter what the alignments concerned were. I don't know what scum reactions would be like in either case (but it's not my reaction test go I wouldn't have had something in mind)

Anyway that argument is going no where.

I am finding it odd that parama couldn't catch up 3 pages - smells faintly of caught scum
VOTE: parama

[Abaddon]

^This absolutely reeks of opportunism.

Seriously rethinking my NewTown position on Cheery Dog.

Bah, this thread has way too many scummy players and far too few Townie ones.

[Abaddon]

Just for giggles:

Town

Abaddon

Leaning Town

toxictaipan - I've come around on his reaction test, or maybe just convinced myself through shooting down bad attacks on it.
Idiotking - Generally positive behavior, nothing scummy of note.
Tommy - I disagree with a lot of his positions, but he seems to be making genuine effort.
Slandaar - Even moreso than Tommy, I disagree, but he's making efforts.
Deltabacon - Need more content, but what we've seen has been reasonably well-conceived.

Neutral

Sable Tip - Getting mixed signals here. There have been a few cases made, but the degree to which they're ineffective suggests there's not much there.
TheTrollie - Who?
JacobSavage - No content whatsoever.
Parama - Plenty of room for a replacement to redeem. This is a mostly null slot, honestly, given Parama's track record.

Leaning Scum

Cheery Dog - I've reread his ISO and I'm more strongly getting a newscum vibe now. He wants to attack anything that moves and doesn't listen to any kind of advice.

Solidly Scummy

JasonWazza - See below.
Radelle - Strong, strong gut response to her early vote on Toxic and clumsy defense of it. Creates strawman arguments against her biggest opponents, and goes out of her way to cast others in questionable lights.

Okay, so there's a lot less scum in the thread than I thought...maybe I'm mixing up overall impressions with other games.

You didn't actually present any kind of cogent case for her to engage with. I read it as barely better than an RVS vote. Perhaps you should improve your position before issuing a challenge for refutation.

My position is fine as is, it doesn't require any more clarification, and should have been addressed by Radelle when she (is it she or he? just to stop confusion) posted.

I am questioning her posts and trying to get answers that determine her intents, why should i improve my position?

While ISOing, I noticed that I never responded to this.

Your post 52 was irrelevant. You didn't post any kind of real reason for voting, then got in Radelle's face when she didn't respond to it.

Given that this is your only real content, it was a weak attack to start with, you never clarified nor pressed Radelle for a response, and that this is what you're hanging your hat on so far, this is solidly scummy. It looks a LOT like weak bussing, then coasting. It's really hard to look at your ISO and not break the usual "no scum team assembly on Day One" rule, but

I'm going to call a Radelle-Jason team.

[Tommy]

Parama - Plenty of room for a replacement to redeem. This is a mostly null slot, honestly, given Parama's track record.

Could you briefly address the six points of my case, saying for each one how you came to decide that it wasn't a scum-tell?

[Abaddon]

Your case is largely a trumped-up attack on lurking and Parama's personality. Meta is largely bunk, but personality profiles are not. This is indeed how Parama frequently acts, regardless of his alignment. I'll address the other points when I'm not phoneposting

[Abaddon]

Trumped-up is too harsh. Your points are fair, but out of context