Mini 1390: Game Over

[nhammen]

Vote Count 2.3

Thor665 (3): TheTrollie, Slandaar, _Sherlock_

Kinetic (1): toxictaipan

Not Voting (6): Thor665, Idiotking, Deltabacon, kwll, Kinetic, JacobSavage

With 10 players alive, it takes 6 votes to lynch.
Deadline is in

(expired on 2012-12-08 15:00:00)

[Thor665]

Cool - who is the second most likely scum after me?

[_Sherlock_]

You should vote someone not green in this list:

Abaddon
toxictaipan

Idiotking
Deltabacon
_Sherlock_
kwll
TheTrollie

Kinetic
JacobSavage
Slandaar

PEdit: After you? Toss-up between toxic and Kinetic. One is scum, one is not. At this moment, it's more likely toxic.

[Kinetic]

I'm an alt of someone you know.

Ah, so you're a liar. Who are you an alt of?

[_Sherlock_]

I made this account to be able to play a different style. I'm not claiming. I will say that I have experience with Cheery, Abaddon, Slandaar, Trollie, and [absta]. (and both Parama and JasonWazza)

Add Thor to that list.

[Kinetic]

I made this account to be able to play a different style. I'm not claiming. I will say that I have experience with Cheery, Abaddon, Slandaar, Trollie, and [absta]. (and both Parama and JasonWazza)

Add Thor to that list.

Boo. I solemnly swear not to figure out who you are until after the game then.

[_Sherlock_]

Thanks.

[Thor665]

PEdit: After you? Toss-up between toxic and Kinetic. One is scum, one is not. At this moment, it's more likely toxic.

Skimming just this page feels like Toxic is more town adn Kinetic more scum - what am I missing?

[Thor665]

Last page - whichevs.

[toxictaipan]

Kinetic is winning this battle. toxic, your arguments are starting to look bad to me.

Care to explain further? What are you specifically having issues with?

I believe we differ on what is considered a "valid" attack on your point. Your point is basically X did Y, and X did Z, and because Y and Z don't work (your "conflict"), that is scummy of X. While my point is that regardless of Y and Z, they are not indications of scumminess, therefore, finding X scummy because of them is invalid.

When put like that, I fail to see how my argument isn't valid.

But that's not what you said originally. You tried to imply there was some doubt over what was said and that people had to take my word for it. Again, if you disagree, that's cool and not scummy. It was your original attempt to discredit my point without actually providing an argument against it that I have an issue with.

Each is a specific point where you state that there is some minute difference as to why you are reading the reactions as you are, compared to anyone else in the game. Twice, in both posts 133 and 191 you said almost word for word the same thing: "[w]hat's important is getting those reactions, and reading them accurately." You are hung up on that. Reading them accurately. And each time someone makes a different idea on how its supposed to be done, you change it slightly, tweak it. And in the end, when you don't have the answers, you fall back to:

Okay, this discussion about my reaction test has gotten way out of hand. Let's not forget the core subject here: Slandaar brought up the issue about Sable Tip's alignment. I had to clarify my point that my test

is not

dependent on Sable Tip's alignment. Some players had a problem with the way I originally explained this, and I admittedly didn't do a very good job.

I am not knocking anyone's interpretation of any of the reactions, or anything like that. What I'm saying by, "reading them accurately," is that this test is based on interactions -- associative tells. Considering that we knew nothing of Sable Tip's alignment, or anyone else's alignment at the time, there's a certain amount of caution you have to take when analyzing the interactions. Can we agree that it is hard to read associative tells before the flips of those involved have been seen?

I'm not saying anyone is reading the reactions inaccurately, and I'm not saying that I am the only one that can read them accurately. Here's what I've been trying to say this whole time:

1. My reaction test is not dependent on Sable Tip's alignment.
2. The reactions are valid and informative in any given case.
3. The information gained was not expected to be of immediate use, because it is hard to read associative tells accurately before you know the alignments of those involved.

I really can't make it any clearer than that. You need to show where I have specifically criticized someone's view or opinion related to the matter, instead of just quoting, "read them accurately," over and over.

So basically, your "reaction test", doesn't test scumminess, it simply provides information that may, or may not, be used later in the game, to possibly draw conclusions. The issue I have is that you're the one holding all the cards, and what you declare is HOW the reaction test was supposed to fall out... But what use is that AFTER the fact? Again, you're the only one apparently capable of "reading it accurately".

This is absolutely not true. All of the interactions are there for anyone to read and draw conclusions on, and I'm not stopping anyone from doing so. If I say something regarding an interaction and someone disagrees with me, they can call me out on it. I don't see how you can say I hold all the cards. The information is in the interactions, and I'm looking at the same flips as everyone else. You say it like I'm trying to withhold information or change things to my liking, but everything about this reaction test is public.

What does town have to gain by baiting you into voting me? What does anyone have to gain. Generally though, when someone dangles bait in front of my eyes, I'm going to be more cautious, not less. Either way, it's my decision. I'm not voting anyone right now. Period. Drop it.

You still haven't explain how it is even bait in the first place. You act like I'm trying to trick you into doing something I want you to do, like I have something to gain by you voting for me. However, when I ask you to explain it, you can't. You're just rambling on nonsensically about how I'm trying to bait you.

The worst case scenario? How is that of any relevance at all?

Because you have nothing to lose by voting for a scum read. "I don't want to," isn't a valid reason for not voting.

[Kinetic]

In post 718, Kinetic wrote:
What does town have to gain by baiting you into voting me? What does anyone have to gain. Generally though, when someone dangles bait in front of my eyes, I'm going to be more cautious, not less. Either way, it's my decision. I'm not voting anyone right now. Period. Drop it.

You still haven't explain how it is even bait in the first place. You act like I'm trying to trick you into doing something I want you to do, like I have something to gain by you voting for me. However, when I ask you to explain it, you can't. You're just rambling on nonsensically about how I'm trying to bait you.

In post 718, Kinetic wrote:
The worst case scenario? How is that of any relevance at all?

Because you have nothing to lose by voting for a scum read. "I don't want to," isn't a valid reason for not voting.

You asked a question, and I answered it.

(Why didn't you vote me? Because I haven't read completely and I don't feel it would be wise to do that until I'm fully caught up.)

End of story. The bait is you

KEEP HAMMERING THAT FUCKING POINT

. You keep asking, and hammering, and asking, and hammering. Drop. It. It has been asked and answered.

Whether you like my answer is up to you, but it is a VALID answer and reason. You may believe otherwise, but your opinion means absolutely zero in this regard. Whether you understand my answer means absolutely zero in this regard. I want to digest ALL of the information available before making and INFORMED choice. You're correct, the first 15 pages and the last couple have you as my number one suspect, but I still have nearly half the game to read. I've given any TOWN player a lot of information on why I'm not voting, and plenty of other information on what I believe the state of the game is. You hammering me on this point is one of the scummiest things you're doing because its not like I'm avoiding the question. I've given you several VALID reasons why I'm not rising to your bait.

But you still keep baiting, and still keep hammering. Did you watch that Youtube video I linked? Its like you're constantly calling me chicken for not voting you. I'm not some punk kid where that is going to work on me. I will wait until I choose to act, and then I will act.

[toxictaipan]

Dude, you called it bait after the very first time I mentioned it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I am being persistent on that point. You need another explanation.

What do I have to gain from, "baiting," you to vote for me? You have not answered this question. You simply countered with irrelevant, rhetorical questions.

[Kinetic]

Dude, you called it bait after the very first time I mentioned it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I am being persistent on that point. You need another explanation.

What do I have to gain from, "baiting," you to vote for me? You have not answered this question. You simply countered with irrelevant, rhetorical questions.

*rolls eyes* And I'm done. Tuning you out for your inability to act reasonably.

[nhammen]

Prodding kwll

[Slandaar]

Thor; Have you have claimed conftown after replacing in before?

also; I am pretty sure I solved the mystery of who Sherlock is a while ago.

[Thor665]

1. Yep.

2. Don't really care - who is your 2nd top scumspect and why?

[kwll]

sorry about that mod.
we have toxic and kin going at it like cats and dogs...
addodon being replaced by thor who self claims he is town.
I am not quite sure what to make of all this.

I am willing to vote yet and I will be coming up with some questions.

[kwll]

EBOTP

correct my last statment to I am NOT willing....

[Thor665]

sorry about that mod.
we have toxic and kin going at it like cats and dogs...
addodon being replaced by thor who self claims he is town.
I am not quite sure what to make of all this.

I am [not] willing to vote yet and I will be coming up with some questions.

Yeah, someone claiming to be town and two people fighting - *highly* irregular and strange play here on mafiascum.
Just remember to take a few deep breaths and steady yourself before you wade into this utter InSaNiTy!

[kwll]

Thor ...why do I get this feeling your making fun of me?

[Thor665]

Because I am.
Have you managed any reads yet?

[kwll]

I am reading and rereading the cat fight....I get this strong feeling one of them is scum

[TheTrollie]

A bit under the weather today, I am going to try to post soon but in case I don't just wanted to let you all know why

[TheTrollie]

now to our new segment:

random sickly thoughts of TheTrollie as he ponders this game in bed

thoughts on Slandaar/thor/kinetic team? Random thought i had after skimming some of the newer posts but i am not exactly sure what caused it. Will look into it.

Don't have a problem with Kinetic waiting to catch up before voting. I actually appreciate that.

@sherlock

I do not think Delta's referencing to a read on Tommy is a townslip. It is inconclusive but it is definitely not a town slip. Scum spends the whole game pretending to not know the alignment of players, and would probably be even more likely than town to make that mistake. Ok, i forgot that tommy was the NK so that would be a pretty silly mistake, but I am still unwilling to call this a town-slip.

I am interested in this "bait" deBAIT (lololol). I haven't read the toxic/kinetic stuff in full but bait is a loaded term so reactions to it/reactions to reactions are likely to give me something to work with.

think we need to do more work with the flips. I haven't seen any good attempts at using our 3 conftown slots to support someone's reads. I didn't vig my null-scum read over my scum read for nothing last night. I want to see someone make something of these flips. I will try to when I recover and catch up. oye. lots to do

[nhammen]

Prodding JacobSavage