Mini 738: The Town of Merrin - Game Over

[Dourgrim]

It was accidental. I was thinking you were scum while typing, and I mistyped twice. I will be extra careful from here on out. Let's drop this.

The above two quotes appear to me as if you are trying to make this emotional; let's keep it based on facts. When we start voting with emotion, the scum win. I am not trying to upset you.

I tend to play somewhat viscerally, as I mentioned before, and sometimes emotions do creep in. Consider the issue dropped.

I'm glad you voted even though you thought I might find it scummy. I only think unvoting me is appeasement because you haven't convinced me that you really did think the reasons you presented for voting for me were valid.

You don't even have to convince me that they really are valid; just that you thought they were. Unvoting me before this is resolved looks like you are hoping I drop the subject. But I will not drop it, as the vote on me wasn't the issue; the logic behind it was.

I thought the issue

was

resolved; I've agreed with your analysis of my vote at least twice in the thread now, albeit conditionally because I still think my point was somewhat valid in light of my thought processes at the time, which I have tried to explain. I'm not wildly interested in appeasing you, to be honest. I'm much more interested in trying to catch scum, and when I unvoted you I did so because I was no longer convinced you were scum in light of our conversation.

How do you ever get to the point that this must be distancing? Someone makes a valid point, and probably the one that created some discussion, and you manage to make from possibly the most protown statement till now a scumtell.

I honestly don't know what this paragraph means. No sarcasm here, I've just read it four times and can't decipher it. Maybe I'm just tired, but can you please explain it again?

[Goatrevolt]

I actually understand what Panzer is trying to say, although I don't think he's explaining it very well.

@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.

@MacavityLock: What about Panzer's overreaction to mykonian's RV do you think makes Panzer more likely to be scum? Is proposing bad mafia theory something scum are more likely to do than town? (is being wrong scummy?)

@SL: Why is bad play indicative of scum?

[springlullaby]

It is not always indicative of scum, but you must assume that town will always play in the interest of town to base scumhunting on, and in absence of attenuating circumstances, bad play is always scummy.

[Goatrevolt]

It is not always indicative of scum, but you must assume that town will always play in the interest of town to base scumhunting on, and in absence of attenuating circumstances, bad play is always scummy.

A mislynch is not in the interest of the town, but that doesn't mean everyone on that lynch is scum for making a bad play.

Townies won't always play in the best interest of town. Townies will play in what they perceive to be the best interest of the town. There's a huge difference.

[mykonian]

How do you ever get to the point that this must be distancing? Someone makes a valid point, and probably the one that created some discussion, and you manage to make from possibly the most protown statement till now a scumtell.

I honestly don't know what this paragraph means. No sarcasm here, I've just read it four times and can't decipher it. Maybe I'm just tired, but can you please explain it again?

I think I'm the one that is tired. I'm sorry, but I'm going to try to explain tomorrow. I don't think it will get any better tonight.

[GIEFF]

You are still on the scummy side of the scale in my eyes Dourgrim, but are no longer the scummiest.

unvote

Vote Panzerjager

@GIEFF: Panzer isn't saying that his vote on mykonian was a joke, just that he understood mykonian's post was a joke.

I know this. Panzer's vote for mykonian reveals the fact that Panzer took mykonian seriously.

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie. Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

[springlullaby]

It is not always indicative of scum, but you must assume that town will always play in the interest of town to base scumhunting on, and in absence of attenuating circumstances, bad play is always scummy.

A mislynch is not in the interest of the town, but that doesn't mean everyone on that lynch is scum for making a bad play.

Townies won't always play in the best interest of town. Townies will play in what they perceive to be the best interest of the town. There's a huge difference.

This is an interesting argument, I'm not sure if it is scummy or not, because here you seems to be saying that a mislynch is always bad play, which is not true. Sometimes someone is scummy despite being town, and there is little reproach one can make on people being on the lynch. It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.

Agree/disagree?

[Dourgrim]

This is an interesting argument, I'm not sure if it is scummy or not, because here you seems to be saying that a mislynch is always bad play, which is not true. Sometimes someone is scummy despite being town, and there is little reproach one can make on people being on the lynch. It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.

Agree/disagree?

Oooh, I disagree. Your statement that someone can be scummy even if he's protown is bizarre. I thought "scum" meant "anti-Town", so how can someone be scum and be pro-Town at the same time.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

[Goatrevolt]

I know this. Panzer's vote for mykonian reveals the fact that Panzer took mykonian seriously.

I asked if Panzer's vote was a joke, because if it WAS a joke, it would no longer tell us anything. But Panzer has confirmed he was being serious, and has thus exposed himself in a lie. Because Panzer's vote was serious, he really did think mykonian thought I was scum, which means he didn't think it was a joke.

Only scum need to lie about their reasoning for voting.

Panzer didn't think Mykonian was serious about you specifically being scum. Rather, he felt that mykonian's statement that you were scummy specifically because you were hunting for mafia was a slip and a glimpse into mykonian's mindset that hunting mafia is bad. In other words, he knew mykonian wasn't serious about you being scum, but thought mykonian's reasons for even joking about you being scum was a slip and a revelation into how mykonian views things.

Make sense?

This is an interesting argument, I'm not sure if it is scummy or not, because here you seems to be saying that a mislynch is always bad play, which is not true. Sometimes someone is scummy despite being town, and there is little reproach one can make on people being on the lynch. It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.

Agree/disagree?

Agree to some extent. A mislynch is unhelpful to the town, but isn't necessarily bad play on the parts of the people involved. Ironically, I think you just proved my point.

A better example is this: Someone claims cop in their first post of the game. That is bad play. They've set themselves up to be night killed. However, it's not scummy, because scum claiming cop in their first post is a pretty stupid play. This person exhibits bad play, but that bad play is more of a townie bad play than a scummy one.

In other words, I disagree entirely about your assessment of dejkha. You're saying he's scummy because he's attacking early aggressive play (which is pro-town). I agree with you that doing so is wrong, but I don't see how it's scummy.

[springlullaby]

Agree to some extent. A mislynch is unhelpful to the town, but isn't necessarily bad play on the parts of the people involved. Ironically, I think you just proved my point.

A better example is this: Someone claims cop in their first post of the game. That is bad play. They've set themselves up to be night killed. However, it's not scummy, because scum claiming cop in their first post is a pretty stupid play. This person exhibits bad play, but that bad play is more of a townie bad play than a scummy one.

In other words, I disagree entirely about your assessment of dejkha. You're saying he's scummy because he's attacking early aggressive play (which is pro-town). I agree with you that doing so is wrong, but I don't see how it's scummy.

But you see, the thing here is that I did not attack djekha solely on the ground of his play being poor.

[GIEFF]

It is the quality of the argument put forth to explain a vote that is important.

I agree completely. Vote from your got all you want, but if you can't convince others that your reasoning is sound, I don't see how you can expect to ever get enough votes for a lynch.

The quote post above is a variation OMGUS: suspect someone by seemingly defending someone else for an action one has/is going to commit, the effect of which is to justify one's action.

This is further scummy because, if it is my prerogative to play as I wish, I certainly don't see anything remotely recommendable in my random vote. It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.

I disagree with this post, but want to let djehka respond before I say why.

[Goatrevolt]

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

[mykonian]

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

You are right. You need to look at what the people assume to see if there is something going wrong.

[GIEFF]

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.

I feel this way as well. I don't think good logic is an indication that someone is pro-town. Nor do I feel that bad logic indicates scum.

If you merely lynch the person who is wrong the most or has the worst logic, then it's simply a game of "'let's kill off the worst player" which really says nothing about whether or not he's actually scum. If the scum are the ones with the strongest grasp on logic, they'll win.

It's one level further removed from that. If people BELIEVE their logic is good, they are town. If they don't believe their logic is good, they are faking logic, as scum do.

[springlullaby]

Agree/disagree?

Oooh, I disagree. Your statement that someone can be scummy even if he's protown is bizarre. I thought "scum" meant "anti-Town", so how can someone be scum and be pro-Town at the same time.

Also, you seem to be arguing that only logic carefully explained in the thread is a good reason to vote for someone. Am I really the only one who doesn't always expect perfect play and sometimes votes from the gut here? If so, that makes me kinda sad for the game.[/quote]

I disagree with you, anti-town is a descriptive which can qualify a behavior on top of being a descriptive for a role. Scum is solely a role description.

Likewise for 'pro-town', and the point of scumplay is to appear pro-town despite one's role.

As for logic, I'm not proselyte zealot of all things logical and play very much by guts myself, but even so, the quality of a vote should speak for itself. The thing with 'gut play' is that people with good intuitions are often of the same mind.

[springlullaby]

I messed up the tag editing, the above is in reply to dourgrim's 107.

[Goatrevolt]

GIEFF: Top half of post 108. Thoughts?

[GIEFF]

Dourgrim and mykonian seem to be much more interested in the meta-discussion about theory than the discussion about who is scum.

Panzer didn't think Mykonian was serious about you specifically being scum.

Rather, he felt that mykonian's statement that you were scummy specifically because you were hunting for mafia was a slip and a glimpse into mykonian's mindset that hunting mafia is bad. In other words, he knew mykonian wasn't serious about you being scum, but thought mykonian's reasons for even joking about you being scum was a slip and a revelation into how mykonian views things.

Make sense?

First of all, I don't like you defending him. Let him speak for himself. I assume you were talking about Post 91, but I have unanswered questions to Panzer about that post, and for you to step in and try to clear him before he has a chance to explain for himself is scummy to the extreme.

Second of all, I disagree with your bolded sentence above. Look at the below post by Panzer:

@Dourgrim: SK has only one piece of info the town doesn't, and that is that SK exist. He has no information on who is scum and who is not. So Mykonian is simply saying, He wants to lynch Mafia, he must be SK

lynch him.

Everyone should be wanting to lynch Mafia. Also, it makes more sense to go after mafia then the SK, because SK has a chance to cross kill Mafiates.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt? Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

[Goatrevolt]

You're wrong. I'm not trying to clear Panzer or answer for Panzer. Everything I said in that post was basically a clarification or a clearer way of saying what Panzer had already said. I thought you were voting for Panzer based on a complete misunderstanding of what he was trying to say. It's not scummy for me to put a stop to that and clear up misconceptions.

However, it turns out I was wrong and you were voting him for more legit reasons. I see the point you're making. I don't think it's necessarily conclusive. I'll wait and see what Panzer has to say about it.

[dejkha]

Sorry for my absence. Here I go:

The quote post above is a variation OMGUS: suspect someone by seemingly defending someone else for an action one has/is going to commit, the effect of which is to justify one's action.

This is further scummy because, if it is my prerogative to play as I wish, I certainly don't see anything remotely recommendable in my random vote. It is also scummy because accusing someone of being 'too eager' in the random stage is piss poor play and just plain scummy.

I have read the last pages or so. My comment on them is that I don't particularly like the dynamic of this town, there is plenty of talk and speculation but not enough true aggressiveness IMO. Note here that the SK talk may be interesting in the future but not now. Right now I would like to suggest more focused fire, starting now with a djekha wagon for example.

What can I say, I think it's a little extreme to accuse someone right off the bat because of a joke in their confirm post and a joke vote as their first post. I think I've explained to Dour why I was suspicious of his reaction to both of those and no OMGUS was involved. As I said, it's my way of thinking and I think how he reacted to those was a bit much. I personally don't think it's scummy at all to think someones too eager when they go after someones confirm post. Not much other way I can say it.

As for this "bad play is scummy" conversation going on, I'm going to have to disagree. While that could be the case a lot of the time, it isn't always. In my particular case, it was a matter of personal preference/opinion of play style. Bad play can be scummy, but it doesn't mean you're scum. Same for "good" play and looking protown.

Finding scum is more of looking for verbal slip ups (such as possible knowledge of something you shouldn't know as town, but are able to know due to your role as scum), because a lot of the time, bad play can be personal preference. As I've explained, while I understood Dour's aggressiveness, I obviously didn't approve of it in the situation he was using it in. Look how many protown people get my lynched every game. A lot of the time people leave it up to things that don't really determine whether someone is scum or not (some of which Goat mentioned), rather than slip ups. While it can be hard to tell the two apart, the difference is there.

I have to, at times, had a gut feeling about people before, but it doesn't really matter if you don't have the evidence to back it up.

@Goatrevolt:

He is calling GIEFF anti-town

, for simply wanting to lynch mafia. Therefore, mykonian is mafia.

It is clear to me from this post that Panzer thinks that mykonian's vote meant mykonian actually wanted to lynch me, as shown by my bold emphasis. Do you disagree, Goatrevolt? Does ANYBODY disagree?

If not, please join me aboard this Panzer wagon. Lying is bad, and lying about having lied is even worse. If you do disagree, please explain to me what I am misreading about Panzer's above quote.

It says pretty clearly that he thinks so, so I'm gonna have to agree due to visual proof.

[PJ.]

His "Joke" was filled with bad logic. I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way. I truly think he slipped and was trying to put pressure on you because you were the first to "scum hunt". I truly think that he wanted to pressure you into a claim thinking you were anti-scum, either SK or a Power role.

At the very least, he mentioned SK first thusly could be SK.

I'm like Dourgrim, I don't "do" joke post or acknowledge them.

I'm on the verge of doing a Dourgrim-esque explaination of my playstyle.

[PJ.]

EBWOP:

MOD: Vote Count

[Goatrevolt]

His "Joke" was filled with bad logic. I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way. I truly think he slipped and was trying to put pressure on you because you were the first to "scum hunt". I truly think that he wanted to pressure you into a claim thinking you were anti-scum, either SK or a Power role.

At the very least, he mentioned SK first thusly could be SK.

I'm like Dourgrim, I don't "do" joke post or acknowledge them.

I'm on the verge of doing a Dourgrim-esque explaination of my playstyle.

So you acknowledge it was a joke, yet you're simply choosing to take it at face value in spite of that? You realize he was joking, but you're still pressuring it as though he was being serious? How does that actually help in catching scum at all? Why do you expect a joke vote to be backed with solid logic?

Also, why didn't you pressure me for my joke vote then?

[GIEFF]

His "Joke" was filled with bad logic. I knew that he meant for it to be a joke. I did NOT see it in this way. I truly think he slipped and was trying to put pressure on you because you were the first to "scum hunt". I truly think that he wanted to pressure you into a claim thinking you were anti-scum, either SK or a Power role.

At the very least, he mentioned SK first thusly could be SK.

I'm like Dourgrim, I don't "do" joke post or acknowledge them.

I'm on the verge of doing a Dourgrim-esque explaination of my playstyle.

If you knew he meant for it to be a joke, shouldn't you also know that he didn't really think I was scum? That's what a joke is; you say something because it's funny, not because you think it's true. It also doesn't make sense to "slip" and put pressure on somebody because they are hunting mafia.

You say mykonian brought up the SK thing first, which is true, but YOU are the one who keeps trying to push the "mykonian is SK" theory.

Do you really believe that a random joke-vote on the first page was meant to get me to claim?


Please do explain your playstyle.

[kloud1516]

Vote Count II

Panzerjager

(4): ting=), MacavityLock, GIEFF, Dourgrim

GIEFF

(1): mykonian

mykonian

(1): Panzerjager

MacavityLock

(1): Goatrevolt

militant

(1): subgenius

dejkha

(1): springlullaby

ting=)

(1): militant

Not Voting:

dejkha, Beyond_Birthday

With 12 alive, it takes 7 to lynch

Please notify me if there is a discrepancy in the list above

**Changed due to moderator error. I apologize.