Mini 1390: Game Over

[Slandaar]

Slandaar, just because my scumhunting is not as one-dimensional as yours doesn't mean you get to apply your standards to me.

Quite frankly, I felt Radelle's early vote on Toxic for a nonsense reason was pretty obvious to anyone with experience, and you don't get Townpoints for pointing out the obvious. This is especially true in the first page or two, when scum are looking for cheap and easy ways to distance themselves from each other without really committing to it.

I'm quite capable of separating logic (this looks suspicious) from emotion (hey! you agree with me! I like you!). Why aren't you?

I don't feel like getting into a huge theory discussion with you about this but I am quite happy with my methods as they clearly work.

@Absta: No. Why would it? it is completely different to what I have been saying.

@Cheery and Toxic: neither of you want to know why I think you are scum? I have not said it till now so surely you should want to know?

[nhammen]

Vote Count 1.7

Radelle(4): Abaddon, _Sherlock_, toxictaipan, TheTrollie
Abaddon(3): Slandaar, Radelle, absta101
TheTrollie(3): JacobSavage, Idiotking, Deltabacon
absta101(1): Tommy
Deltabacon(1): Sable Tip

not voting (1): Cheery Dog

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

(expired on 2012-11-17 17:30:00)

Mod: Please replace me.

Working on it.

[Tommy]

Looks like it's time to admit defeat on my absta101 campaign for now. For the record, he's still my strongest scum read.

UNVOTE: absta101

Guess my lynch choices are currently Radelle, Abaddon or TheTrollie. I have strong town reads on Abaddon and TheTrollie, so I'll hop on the big wagon.

VOTE: Radelle

Maybe we'll get lucky.

[JacobSavage]

@Jacob:

(1) I don't get ur spreadsheet thing very much but I will ISO you tonight and see if I can understand. I know you've been answering questions about it so idk if its just that I am not paying enough attention or if I still have unanswered questions
(2) your read on me does not make logical sense. You think I am likely scum because you think I'm defending CD because CD and I are buddies, yet you have

a stronger scum-read on me than of CD

. see how that doesn't make sense?

@Jacob: ISOd you. was focusing only on understanding your chart. If you are going to use this system to determine your reads I want to understand it fully. ill start with a few questions:
(

3

) do you rate the scummyness of each post by a player and then like average it or something? that is my best guess but I see no explicit explanation of your process.
(

4

) is there a formula or like are there certain behaviors that = point values (i.e. do you have some formula where backtracking = X scumpoints, scumslip = Y scumpoints)?
(

5

) is each post given a score, or are posts binary (scum/not scum)? Does each post count just as much as any other, or does your system allow you to give certain posts more weight?
(

6

) if each post does get a score, is that score just a rating of scummyness from 1-10 (like the final scores are) or do you rate those differently?
(

7

) how many times have u used this method?

(

8

)@jacob: one more issue I have with understanding your reads (which you can address when explaining your method):

How does the scale work? You have a 10-point scale but you seem to be making very strong claims based on differences in tenths of a point. how large of a difference is there in a 4.6 read and a 4.7 read?

i am realizing that i actually just have no idea how to go about understanding your system. i really need a comprehensive explanation of your system otherwise i have no way of understanding your reads at all

First off I renumbered your questions just to make it easier for me that is all.
(2) First off it wasn't totally based off the fact that CD and you were buddies. It was also based off that and some of your other posts. (#196 I think)
(3) Yes, I assign a score of 1-10 for scumminess and then it works out an average and i can also track how that changes over time (although that's in another sheet)
(4) And no, unfortunatly, that would be clever, but instead it is purley based on what I think of that post, and if I want to make a specific comment about a certain post I stick it in the Comments coloum for future reference.
(5) Yes its just 1-10, which explains why the scores are so close. Because they're a very few posts that are at either end of the spectrum most of the scores are clustered around the 5 mark. So the tiny differences are very important.
(7) only once or twice
(8) My reads are not strictly based on peoples posts but the numbers are used as a guide for me to make my own judgement.

Does that help?

@absata

I am more than happy to explain my method because it helps people understand where I am comming from.

[toxictaipan]

@Cheery and Toxic: neither of you want to know why I think you are scum? I have not said it till now so surely you should want to know?

Honestly, no. If you've got something against me, make a case and come at me with it. Playing games isn't useful, and I shouldn't have to ask you to explain your reads.

You asked for absta101's take on Radelle before taking a stance on her, and then give no reasoning for your read whatsoever. What I want to know is why you have a town read on Radelle. How do you feel about the conflict between Post 184 and Post 213. What do you think of Radelle constantly shooting down my points against her?

[TheTrollie]

@jacob, I think you need to reconsider some things about this method, but unless I find a reason why this affects my reads in this game, I will discuss it with you post game. For now though, I will pay very little attention to your reads because I think your methodology makes systematic rules that prevent you from making reads. I feel that it actually distances the reads you share with the rest of us from your actual reads. Again, we can discuss this post game.

The reason this might be scum motivated btw, is that it allows him to distance himself from his own reads, while at the same time making those reads seem less objectionable/more legitimate. I guess what I'm saying is that it would be a good scum tactic, but its not really a scumtell

[absta101]

@Toxic

Why do you constantly pressure me on one or two points that go unanswered, and then blow off 3/4 of the content in my posts with the following excuse (quoted below)? I am not going to give you the satisfaction of addressing every single one of your points when you cannot extend the same courtesy to me.

I need the answer to that question if you want to convince me she's scum. I don't see the scum motivation in her voting Abbadon over someone like Parama.

While I understand the importance of considering all information available, I don't see why you need to wait on her response to take a stance here. Do you not agree that there is a vey clear conflict between those two posts?

I agree that her attack was scummy. I don't see why she would say that after post #184.
UNVOTE:

[nhammen]

kwll replaces Sable Tip effective immediately.

[kwll]

hey all...let me finish reading and will post some info...but hugs to you all and thanks for letting me join

[Radelle]

I don't really still have time to reply, but I'll say what I can.

The only point I'll concede on Toxic on was that he said scummy. I guess what I was trying to drive home (not reading back what I wrote), is that I haven't really gotten the feel that I was scum at all from Toxic until I made a post explaining how I found Abaddon scummy and how I think he is scum sitting on a vote and not doing much else. Toxic's replies directly afterwards seem to be focusing more on defending against what I said about Abaddon instead of saying how I myself am scum for it. This is apparent in post 135 regarding his feelings regarding the conflict between wanting me to provide evidence (which I did) vs Abaddon having none. His reply in post 139 was not answering the question, but instead answering on his behalf and essentially just trying to defend him again.

The only

potentially

valid point Toxic has tried to push has been this notion that scum-me jumped ship to go over to Abaddon's wagon because his wasn't going anywhere. Not only was this idea not brought up at any point between my vote for Abaddon and my post explaining why I think Abaddon is scum, but if my pure scum-motivation was to just jump ship to hop onto a more viable wagon, it wouldn't make sense to jump ship onto one of town's
more townie reads vs the more viable Sable and Parama bandwagons.

I've slowly been turned into some sort of aggressor in the conversation between Toxic and I, when it's Toxic who first tried to attack me directly in post 134 and not my case. From this point on, it's been me mainly addressing

his

attacks and explaining my thought process. His whole conversation with me has been ridiculous, from saying I should have presented a case for why Abaddon was scummy with my base vote (I did along with some things leading up to it), meta reads are useless and I should present more than that (which I did in my "why is Abaddon is scum" post, and I explain how things lead up to that post), and that I should provide evidence against Abaddon (but

only

within a certain time frame, and only I have to, Abaddon's evidence is just "there"). Just look at our responses. Even when I point out how I did everything he has been trying to accuse me of, it either doesn't matter or he tries to point something else to direct the conversation to.

Scum aren't scum due to scummy posts though. Everyone makes scummy posts, what you have to keep in mind is

why did someone makes a post and what purpose did they hope to achieve

. I really don't know what Toxic is hoping to achieve. It's obvious with his first attack against my case on Abaddon that his purpose was to try and defend Abaddon through discrediting my vote and why I thought he was scummy - but

why

. This could be scum defending scum, scum trying to gain town credit from defending town, or town trying hard to defend a town read. I honestly can't tell. Some people are just horrible arguers, and I think he feels he has some sort of "catch" on me and is trying to damnedest to reel me in with anything he can throw at it. I've actually been holding onto a town read of Toxic because I don't think scum would go so out of their way to push a lynch on someone they know is town only to probably take the downfall for it the next day.

What purpose did I hope to achieve when I made a serious vote on Toxic page 1? To get out of RVS because it sucks, and I got a somewhat scummy vibe out of Toxic at the beginning so I rolled with it. It wasn't supposed to be some MASTERFUL

REALLY SERIOUS

case on Toxic, and I don't know how anyone would reasonably expect it to be so when just basing things off RVS. I moved off of Toxic because I thought his attitude for asking a stupidly simple question was townie and his responses were null so I moved on.

I'm just done the arguing though. I'm not going to vote Toxic today so I'm not going to bother arguing anymore. Arguing between two others in wall posts are anti-town: barely anyone reads them and there are more than one scum in the game anyhow. I've been slowly trying to die the walls down but there has been no relent.

I plan to give reads late late tonight or tomorrow and respond to a few then. I'm just out of steam.

[_Sherlock_]

Alt or Newbie, Radelle?

I'm making a post right now.

[Abaddon]

Slandaar, just because my scumhunting is not as one-dimensional as yours doesn't mean you get to apply your standards to me.

Quite frankly, I felt Radelle's early vote on Toxic for a nonsense reason was pretty obvious to anyone with experience, and you don't get Townpoints for pointing out the obvious. This is especially true in the first page or two, when scum are looking for cheap and easy ways to distance themselves from each other without really committing to it.

I'm quite capable of separating logic (this looks suspicious) from emotion (hey! you agree with me! I like you!). Why aren't you?

I don't feel like getting into a huge theory discussion with you about this but I am quite happy with my methods as they clearly work.

@Absta: No. Why would it? it is completely different to what I have been saying.

@Cheery and Toxic: neither of you want to know why I think you are scum? I have not said it till now so surely you should want to know?

You don't "feel like" getting into a theory discussion, but you feel perfectly happy to condemn me for exactly that. You think I'm scum because I'm not a hypocrite.

[_Sherlock_]

I'm a fan of the opinion in toxic's Post #134. Radelle's "why Abaddon is scum" only included posts from

after

her vote. Normally, this wouldn't really be suspicious as much as confirmation bias. However, in Radelle's follow-up in the next post, she makes the point that "I didn't realize that scum just stopped being scum after the vote," when there's no substantial evidence from before the vote compared to after. And, she

still

doesn't provide reasons for Abaddon being scummy before the vote, besides the little meta issue. I doubt that that was really the most suspicious thing in the thread at the time to her.

Move to Post #142. Radelle changes the story from "I don't

have

to give reasons from before!" to "Oh, I already gave an earlier reason for him being scummy!" I don't like this. Why was this never mentioned before now? She makes it seem like it was clear, yet she doesn't include it as part of her case on Abaddon or her previous requests to give prior evidence. I personally think that she realized it while making the post and thought she could make it work to her advantage.

I also agree with Abaddon's Post #144.

Like I said earlier, Slandaar is being a total spectator, asking questions but not responding to anything himself.

Trollie's defense of Cheery in Post #162 looks slightly town, but it's terrible logic for calling him town.

@Trollie:

Have you looked at Cheery's scum meta, if any, to verify that it makes Cheery look town? If so, why did you not provide it?

Delta has a point in Post #165. Cheery does need to do more scumhunting as well.

Okay, Trollie's Post #166 doesn't add up. He earlier specifically stated that Cheery was safe, but now says that he doesn't have a town read on him.

(I'm going to go a bit fast at this point. I have to go soon, and this was at the point I replaced in anyway.)

I don't like the fact that everyone kinda ignored my points. Unless I'm just a master at explaining things, there should be commentary.

Trollie's Post #229 is good. He genuinely believes everything that he's saying.


That's all I can do.

As of now, I feel very strongly town on toxic and Jacob, pretty good town on Tommy and Trollie, and leaning town on Abaddon and Sable. I feel pretty strongly that Radelle is scum. Cheery would be my second pick, and third is a toss-up between Idiotking, absta, Delta, and Slandaar.

I still like my vote.

[JacobSavage]

@TheTrollie. Fair enough, I would love to hear your opinion on how to improve it afterwards. (Just to clarify that is a genuine statement not passive aggression)

@kwill, hi welcome thanks for coming at such short notice. hugs all around.

@all did we ever get a consensus on whether to address radelle as a male or female.

UNVOTE:
Trollies recent additions I feel are slightly more town motivated and as such I think my previous read may of been off.

[Deltabacon]

Trollie is definately looking more town than he was, granted, but I'm still leaning scummy for his pointless case for Town Cheery. I don't see why town would so fiercely defend another players chance of innocence, whereas I can see scum actually doing that.

[Deltabacon]

Everyone makes scummy posts, what you have to keep in mind is

why did someone makes a post and what purpose did they hope to achieve

. I really don't know what

Trollie

was hoping to achieve. It's obvious with his attacks against my case on Cheery that his purpose was to try and defend him through discrediting mine and others' votes and why I thought he was scummy - but

why

. This could be scum defending scum, scum trying to gain town credit from defending town, or town trying hard to defend a town read.

Hypothetically, why would 'Town' Trollie defend someone who they seem to stress they don't see as definitive town? There is no logic to this course of action, but if we look at it from the viewpoint that Trollie and Cheery are scum (which I am still very much thinking), then Trollie seems to have chainsaw defended Cheery (a weaker player) to get votes onto him, not cheery, then suddenly pulled out a load of town-posts to make the argument die down. I'm not buying it, I'm not falling for it.

[TheTrollie]

i feel like i am talking to a wall. I dont know what it is that I am doing that is making my logic so un-relatable, but let me address this CD issue again:

Trollie's defense of Cheery in Post #162 looks slightly town, but it's terrible logic for calling him town. @Trollie: Have you looked at Cheery's scum meta, if any, to verify that it makes Cheery look town? If so, why did you not provide it?

Delta has a point in Post #165. Cheery does need to do more scumhunting as well.

Okay, Trollie's Post #166 doesn't add up. He earlier specifically stated that Cheery was safe, but now says that he doesn't have a town read on him.

(1) have i looked at cheery's scum meta:
No. I dont have to.

this is what people seem to not get

lets assume that scum-cheery does these scummy things in his play.

that doesnt matter

because insofar as town-cheery does the scummy things that are being pointed out, THOSE SCUMMY THINGS ARE NOT CHEERY SCUM TELLS

(2) for the last time

I HAVE NEVER, EVER DECLARED A TOWN READ ON CHEERY

next person to say I did this better quote a post of mine where i say anything of the "CD is town" variety (before you go wasting your time--ill give you a hint: i never said anything like that). Also lets not keep misrepping me on the "safe" rhetoric. I explicitly said "safe for now" AS IN: I am not going anywhere near him with a noose right now because there is absolutely no substantive case against him. One of the reasons im harking on this point is that im LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A GOOD ARGUMENT AGAINST CD IF THERE IS ONE.

(3) for people asking "why is Trollie going so hard for the CD issue" I answered that question somewhere already. A lot of it is personal. A lot of it is that i wont stand by while scum or misguided town use faulty logic to string someone up.

I am going to table the argument for now because CD doesnt even have any votes on him. if it becomes an issue later on we can talk then.

Until then, key takeaways/

tl;dr

Stop making any arguments that stem from "trollie called CD town" until you can show me where i said that. If anyone is able to find a post where i call CD town I will post pictures of me wearing a mascot Bear head while MattP beats me with a broomstick

[Cheery Dog]

@Cheery and Toxic: neither of you want to know why I think you are scum? I have not said it till now so surely you should want to know?

I had though you had actually already explained, either that or you were using other peoples cases.
I'm not really concerned with what your reason is at the moment, but if you do vote me, then I would like to know this reason.

[Cheery Dog]

Stop making any arguments that stem from "trollie called CD town" until you can show me where i said that. If anyone is able to find a post where i call CD town I will post pictures of me wearing a mascot Bear head while MattP beats me with a broomstick

This was easy - I expect those pictures now

Cheery & Abaddon both town

[Cheery Dog]

I'm also confused why you're saying you didn't look at my scum meta because you didn't have to - yet you looked at my town meta, when you didn't have to do that either.
and the fact if you looked at my wiki, or all my games, you'll see that I don't actually have any scum meta..

Looks like you wanted to have me as a town read when I flipped town and looked at my last game to find reasons for me to be town, and now that you've been pressured you decided to rid yourself of calling me town by saying you're defending me only because the case against me is crap.

VOTE: thetrollie

[Slandaar]

You asked for absta101's take on Radelle before taking a stance on her, and then give no reasoning for your read whatsoever. What I want to know is why you have a town read on Radelle.

VOTE: Toxictaipan

For randomly voting when he could have put down a more serious vote when questioning Cheery Dog.

Good RVS vote

Our friend Parama is posting in every other thread but here. Where are you?~

Good Posting; shows initiative to try and find scum.

I've seen a town Cheery before and he was equally as worthless as I'm seeing here.

Town Posting; But they could be buddies? na, with the amount of heat Radelle has; the very real possibilty she is lynched from her POV means it is very unlikely she defends a buddy so blatantly.

How do you feel about the conflict between Post 184 and Post 213. What do you think of Radelle constantly shooting down my points against her?

What is your point? Even if I am wrong and Radelle is scum it wouldn't be because she is trying to shoot down your arguments against her as that is clearly completely neutral.

I like how you abandoned the Sable wagon when your super serious issue turned out to be not so serious as you hopped back onto Radelle at the earliest opportunity.

[Deltabacon]

Phonepost - You havent said specifically that CD is a townread - so why defend him so throughly based SOLELY on meta? You haven't got a legitimate reason to defend him so aggressively as town, and insisting that you dont have a townread doesnt change the implication that you probably have. If you have, why do you have it?

[Slandaar]

You don't "feel like" getting into a theory discussion, but you feel perfectly happy to condemn me for exactly that. You think I'm scum because I'm not a hypocrite.

It is nothing to do with agreeing it is to do with reactions and reading reactions. There is no point debating it though, you are trying to say my methods are wrong when I know they are not, arguing logic/theory is literally pointless.

I have no idea what you are saying re hypocrite.

I don't see why town would so fiercely defend another players chance of innocence, whereas I can see scum actually doing that.

Do explain. Why shouldn't town defend town reads?

Trollie: lol

I might be wrong on Cheery that is quite good posting.

[Deltabacon]

Trollie consistently says he doesn't have a townread on Cheery, yet consistantly defends his chance of innocence. If trollie genuinely believes Cheery to be town, I understand, but he 'doesn't', so I'm not seeing his reasoning for defending Cheery.

[absta101]

Trollie consistently says he doesn't have a townread on Cheery, yet consistantly defends his chance of innocence. If trollie genuinely believes Cheery to be town, I understand, but he 'doesn't', so I'm not seeing his reasoning for defending Cheery.

What do you make of post #55 by Trollie?