I'll read up and post my thoughts shortly. (I am in the middle of my exams right now, so don't expect me to go too quickly
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
bionicchop2 wrote: for sure unvote:pyro ; vote:vollkan.
Obviously you will be given a chance to say what you can to try to salvage the day for yourself. 2 links of examples where she quit as scum when there was heat put on her is pretty damning.
Zounds! Not a single vote on BG. In fact, we even get this little exchange just before she replaces out:Mod from Amish wrote: Mellowed Man: babygirl86, riceballtail, Celebloki, Mr. Incrediball
riceballtail: Surye
Alabaska J: Marmalade, evilgorrilaz, Mellowed Man, Battle Mage
Evilgorrilaz: Alabaska J
Battle Mage: The Fonz
Not voting: Killa Seven, nswhorse, Inquisitor JL, Rigel, DizzyIzzyB13, q21
Now, one player than suggested, as has essentially been done here, that:MellowedMan wrote:Jesus Christ. That same attitude, and you're not even under any pressure! I hate your playstyleBG wrote: A) you must not know how to read because I've explained my actions numerous times. and B) I'm not gonna say this is right, but I'm definately not the only person not posting here so dont even go there. I have a life outside of mafia and if my amount of posting isn't up to your standards, deal with it. I'm not changing my lifestyle to get a vote taken off of me.
More on the incorrectness of that later.Dizzy wrote: Classic "scum giving up after failing to lurk to victory".
Again, nothing on BG. She was being heavily (and justifiably) criticised for being a crap player BUT not suspected.Mod from Family Guy wrote: vote count:
reborn537 2 votes: (LlamaFluff, Save the Dragons)
LlamaFluff 1 votes: (reborn537)
Inspector Godot 1 vote: (RestFermata)
thinktank 2 vote: (Inspector Godot, babygirl)
Elvis_Knits 1 vote (xtoxm)
Not voting:
Elvis_Knits
kmd4390
GhostWriter
kloud1516
With 12 people it take 7 votes for lynch
Day 1 ends August 28th, 4:00pm PST
"heat put on her"? Really? Because, from where I am sitting, there was very little suspicion on her in both of those games and her quitting basically just reflects her laziness and inability to read up. It spins a nice story to make out she cracks under pressure, but you ignore all facts.bionicchop2 wrote:for sureunvote:pyro ; vote:vollkan.
Obviously you will be given a chance to say what you can to try to salvage the day for yourself. 2 links of examples where she quit as scum when there was heat put on her is pretty damning.
Xtoxm wrote: Her play corroborates game I played with her as scum (Family Guy) and contradicts her play as town in a game I played with her (PYP3).
I'm happy to claim, but I refuse to do so until people have a look at what I have said. I have the distinct impression that none of you have given two seconds thought to the broader picture here and are drawing general conclusions about what BG does as scum based on just two games whilst ignoring her play more widely. Since I think my argument is strong, and you have certainly not dented it one iota, I don't think a claim is warranted from me at this stage.Xtoxm wrote: Volkan, what is your claim?
It's interesting that you of all people are asking me this - it shows the level of homework done by my accusers. I admit I haven't looked at all her games yet, and only the two you identify are where I can see that she actually voiced a quitbionic wrote: Do any of your links contain games where she quit as town? I already knew she was a poor player and I don't care to read more examples of her playing poorly. It is the quitting whenever she is not town and somebody puts heat on her (yes you can have heat without votes).
1) You don't need a "good reason" to unvote. You just need to have your attacks rebutted. NOBODY has refuted what I have said. In other words, the wagon on me is effectively baseless.bionic wrote: What confuses me is there is no good reason for anybody to unvote, so your request for this to happen is very odd. Most claims are done at L-2 or L-1 without the removal of votes. The fact vollkan is stating it in a manner where he won't claim unless someone unvotes is doing nothing to persuade me.
See above.CKD wrote: vollkan are you refusing to claim?
So what? You're now basically shifting the entire ground of your case to nothing more than the fact that she has previously quit as scum. As I have said, rather than drawing an alignment link, there are other reasonable explanations when you look at things more globally - most obviously that she doesn't like being pressured to post.bionic wrote: I see where she lurks and gets replaced in games (maybe mods should just not allow her to join), but I only see one instance of her getting pissed and asking to replace out when she is called on her lack of activity - in that case she was certainly not town.
Uh? Being satisfied with a claim is one thing...but we shouldn't even be having a claim unless and until the case against me is actually established. Thus far, I have seen no tenable defence of it.mrfixij wrote: That said, I still want voll to claim. If we're happy with the claim, I'd like some additional suspicion turned towards pyro. If we're not, we lynch BG/voll.
Yeah, but it strikes me as very misleading to paint it as though she only leaves games when she is scum under heat. You were totally wrong about the "heat" bit, and I've shown that she doesn't just leave games as scumbionic wrote: My 'homework' has shown no such game where she has a little hissy fit and leaves as town, hence the question for you. If you found something I did no, then it is your responsibility to enlighten me.
You're ignoring my point - where she quits, the common element is that she is under pressure for lurking. Your whole argument depends on saying that "the reason she is quitting is because she is scum who is worried" when that's basically just a cherry-picked interpretation, based only on two games, which ignores the fact that she abandons regularly and just happens to tend to quit when people call her out for lurking (which, by coincidence, occurred in two games where she was scum).bionic wrote: I don't doubt she likes being mafia. I also don't doubt she throws a hissy fit when she is called out for lurking and twice it has shown her to be anti-town. Any examples where she is town and did the same would help balance this (see original request). If a player does 'x' twice and both times turns out to be scum, then 'x' generally becomes a scum tell. There is limited information to work with in the world of mafia. Repeated behavior when one is not town (and behavior which is not present when the player is town) is a pretty good indicator of alignment.
No. The onus is always on the person who votes to justify their vote. If you cannot defend having a vote upon somebody (ie. if you lack a vote-worthy case) then the only reasonable thing to do is unvote.bionic wrote: 1) Reasons to unvote are just as important as reasons to vote.
This is really twisting what I said. I am not "surveying others". I'm saying that "I am not going to claim unless there are good reasons to do so" (ie. imminent danger of lynch). The ONLY way that danger can be judged is based on the opinion of other people. I have my own view of the case against me, but it would be wrong of me to refuse claiming until the very end just because I held that view.vollkan wrote: It is your call on how you need to act. Depends which action you feel helps the town more. Surveying others for how you should act?
bionic wrote: I can tell you I likely won't unvote if there is no claim.
I am more sympathetic to this; I appreciate that having an impending deadline forces awkward choices. But, since the case against me is dismally weak, surely there has been some other person who has committed scummy actions? (I am asking genuinely - I haven't read the game yet)bionic wrote: We have a deadline in 3 days (+x) and there is no other wagon equally appealing.
What game are you talking about?bionicchop2 wrote:The game where she called everybody an ass for suspecting her even though mellow was doing the same thing is quitting because she was pressured to post?vollkan wrote:You haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying.
I said she quits when pressure is placed upon her to post - (because of said pressure, not because of alignment). As opposed to where suspicion pressure is placed upon her.
I forgot the vote by Dizzy (I was wrong to say she didn't have a single vote), but I wrote what I did before in knowledge of his post. Dizzy's post is just my point - the pressure on BG was not "suspicion" in the usual sense of the term. As you identify, she did get called out - but that's just it: as I keep saying and you don't seem to be understanding, the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said). That she is a lazy player. As Mellowman said, and I quoted before, she wasn't under pressure - by any standard there were no arguments against her. It was just that people wanted her to post.bionicchop2 wrote:She got voted once and called scum. She then flipped out and quite.
DizzyIzzyB13 at 1:42 AM wrote:Hi there. 'Lay, so, I'm going to open my posting in this game with a vote: babygirl86, on account of her lack of an explanation for her hammer on Zombie yesterday, plus teh generally lurkerish way she appears to have played the game so far. She's the scummiest player here, in my estimation.babygirl86 at 3:36 AM wrote: A) you must not know how to read because I've explained my actions numerous times. and B) I'm not gonna say this is right, but I'm definately not the only person not posting here so dont even go there. I have a life outside of mafia and if my amount of posting isn't up to your standards, deal with it. I'm not changing my lifestyle to get a vote taken off of me.DizzyIzzyB13 at 6:59 AM wrote: Point out to me exactly where you actually made a case against Zombie. Or indeed mentioned him before voting for him. Or did anything other than jump on a wagon without explanation. Then decide to post genuine content other than filler on the rare occasions you post. I mean, it's okay to be too busy to post often as long as you actually help. You aren't.babygirl86 at 7:40 AM wrote: you know what? screw you people.
mod please replace me
It doesn't seem to just be Dizzy that is misunderstanding me...shez wrote: I'm not really liking how you took Mellowed Man's post out of context to prove that there was no pressure on her.
That's just it! As I said "the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said)." She'd given a lousy explanation for the vote and people wanted her to explain it. She is, as I keep saying, a "lazy" player - so she got pissed off.bionicchop2 wrote:You are focusing on half the case against her. She was under suspicion for her hammer the day before and Dizzy brought that issue up anew upon replacement.vollkan wrote: the attack was centred on her level of posting (rather than the actual substance of what she had said).
DizzyIzzyB13 at 1:42 AM wrote:Hi there. 'Lay, so, I'm going to open my posting in this game with a vote: babygirl86, on account of her lack of an explanation for her hammer on Zombie yesterday, plus teh generally lurkerish way she appears to have played the game so far. She's the scummiest player here, in my estimation.babygirl86 at 3:36 AM wrote: A) you must not know how to read because I've explained my actions numerous times.DizzyIzzyB13 at 6:59 AM wrote: Point out to me exactly where you actually made a case against Zombie. Or indeed mentioned him before voting for him. Or did anything other than jump on a wagon without explanation.
I missed the p 10 votes, when I went to the thread eventually (because I did so by viewing babygirl's posts in isolation and looking at the posts closest to her lurking).bionicchop2 wrote:Start on page 9 of that game vollkan. You will see she got up to 5 votes on her then semi-lurked. She then posted about her lurking when Mellowman voted for her lurking (he was the only one on the wagon to do so). She made one post, then made a post later in the day where she flipped out in CAPS LOCK. She then disappeared and did not show up again until she had no votes on her. When attention started to turn back to her, she flipped out again.
I'm not too sure what the point you are making here is. Her lurking is pretty much a constant in her play - no matter what alignment.Dizzy wrote: Now you will notice another similarity in this game. When there is no attention on her, that is when she has internet problems, family issues or school issues and just pops in to say as much. Whenever her name is brought up (posts 210,218) she is always on shortly after to respond (posts 216,217, 219, 223). This was Thursday and she claimed her mother went into the emergency room that Monday. She then disappears for 3 days while the conversation goes elsewhere. Then when Xtoxm is asked if his vote on BG is because she is still inactive after getting her internet back, she has her post about how she already told us her mom was in the emergency room and uses a huge appeal to emotion in an attempt to make people feel bad for suspecting her.
And add in all the other games where she lurked and was lazy and it becomes only slightly incriminating.Dizzy wrote: Even if you excluded all other games and this was her first game, that would be scummy. Add in the other games where she got emotional and angry as support and it is more incriminating IMO.
I kind of answer this above, but I'll address it directly since it frustrates you.Dizzy wrote:
NO, no, no, no, no, and no. Read the damn game. The attack was centered on her hammering ZS the previous day. How can you say people wanting her to explain her vote is having an attack centered on her level of posting? The attack was centered on the hammer.
I'll say at this point, that the above is all correct and I see nothing to dispute here. I have no intention of defending her actual behaviour in this game on the basis of it not being atrocious. My defence, like the case itself, is meta-based.Shez wrote: First, in the absence of a meta read of babygirl86, I found her actions in this thread highly suspect.
a) She made only a single post that demonstrated pro-town reasoning (individual post 8), made against a player who has now claimed mason.
b) The second half of her time spent here puts forward an excuse for future low posting habits, moving, up until the second excuse, one for past low posting habits, her mother's health, but completely fails to account for spotty posting behaviour following this second excuse.
c) Over-reaction to a simple question made by me, including an appeal to emotion. I'm not sure what to make of the actual circumstances. I can say that either something happened and she unjustly expected us to know and act on that information or nothing happened and she used a past excuse to defend present behaviour.
That's simply not true. To be honest, I think this is partly because, when an entire case is based on meta, it becomes necessary to get a clear picture of a player. I've tried going over every single one of her posts in the games you identify. Because your latest post is the most comprehensive yet, but it still completely misrepresents BG. I'm not suggesting you're at fault here, btw; this is one of the inherent problems with meta-based cases - that they are pitched at such generality that they risk obscuring the finer details.Shez wrote: Second, in reading her meta, I believe that...
As town, she's most likely to:
a) behave apologetically for her lurking consistently.
b) "fade away," i.e. stop posting and fail to respond to prods.
As scum, she's most likely to:
a) ask for replacement.
b) provide an excuse for her departure.
It's not her meta. It's a deceptive account of her meta that excludes the bulk of play.fixij wrote: As it is, I am still leaning towards a vollkan lynch, if only for BG's meta.
I know. I will definitely get back onto the read. The thing is, the BG case was consuming your own discussion, and I was able to become involved in that debate because it didn't depend on me having knowledge of everything in this game. I don't like the fact that you say I am not being a significant help. I have been doing my best to show why the meta case against BG is a load of rot. That doesn't help find scum directly, but it prevents one grossly erroneous lynch.fixij wrote: As it is Vollkan, I would much rather have your thoughts on who is and is not scummy, as opposed to trying to justify BG's meta. I know you gave that in your initial synopsis, but since then you're cutting away at strawment in the attack against BG, and failing to provide any significant help in scumhunting. My vote stands. If Vollkan continues to strawman and cease to provide an alternative, I suggest a claim and/or a lynch
Ixfij, I've replaced into almost as many games as I have joined on this site. At this point in time, I cannot strike out at others very meaningfully (though, the results of my defence should be read as a serious criticism of those that led the case against me and those who uncritically accepted). I daresay that, after I do a reread, faults in the case that I have uncovered , put in context, will be valuable for scumhunting. Doing a full reread is absolutely important, of course, and I am in the process of doing one.mrfixij wrote:It's not Vollkan's place to provide an alternative. It is his place to contribute if he is town. I don't consider it a good strategy when under pressure to simply defend yourself. In fact, I've seen vollkan debate, he retorts effectively, placing suspicion elsewhere while simultanously defending himself seamlessly. Whereas here, he is not contributing to town, he's contributing to not getting himself lynched.Rhinox wrote:I completely disagree with you. It is not Volkan's place to simply provide an alternative just to find a way to shift the pressure off of himself. In fact, I would interpret doing so as avoiding the issue and deflecting.mrfixij wrote: As it is Vollkan, I would much rather have your thoughts on who is and is not scummy, as opposed to trying to justify BG's meta. I know you gave that in your initial synopsis, but since then you're cutting away at strawment in the attack against BG, and failing to provide any significant help in scumhunting. My vote stands. If Vollkan continues to strawman and cease to provide an alternative, I suggest a claim and/or a lynch.
That's absolute garbage.Bionic wrote: Did I say he was scum for not making mistakes? I have pointed out cases where I think facts were intentionally skewed
Anybody who has played a game with me before knows how much IBionic wrote: and Istrongly that BG was scum. I just feel the further away we get from the scummy actions of BG, people will be more likely to forget them.feel
bionicchop2 wrote:lol @ obliterating the case. You can overstate your awesome defense as much as you want. Ifeelyour defense was scattered and weak. I have read your awesome outline of your standards of play (you listed them clearly in one of the games I read where you were scum) and I honestly don't care how much you love or hate someone using the word feel.
My defence wasn't scattered and weak. I made the same point from the beginning and stuck with it. The fact that you were able to point out that some observations of mine about other games were not completely accurate didn't at all undermine my defence itself.Orange wrote: I still think vollkan is scum. He is definitely a better player than babygirl, but I think the meta suggest that she is scum, on top of the reasons I voted for her. vollkan is putting up a good fight, and his responses are pretty good, except I don't trust him or agree with his arguments. So my vote stands.
Oh for crying out loud. Just because somebody expresses suspicion of more than one person doesn't mean they are "setting up future lynches". Surprise surprise; more emotionally-charged innuendo from orangepenguin.orangepenguin wrote:So you're already setting up future lynches? ...mrfixij wrote:And naturally I hit submit before i finish my thought. I'm not sure about Vollkan, I'm not yet comfortable with a lynch on pyro or schehera, but I do want information out of them,as they're on my backup chopping blocks.![]()
Oh dear.
Well, I assume I will get to BG's player in my read. I am expecting it to be atrocious. But, for now, I'd just ask to you to reflect on whether it is manifestly more scummy than her behaviour universally.Shez wrote: babygirl86's behaviour is enough to keep you at the top of my suspect list, if not enough to want you lynched without further ado
Fair enough. As I've said, I missed the p 10 votes for BG. Short of reading every game from beginning to end (which would be totally unreasonable), we can't be expected to have complete accuracy in everything we say on meta.vollkan wrote: Mostly it was a simple oversight. I wasn't as thorough reading the mods' posts as I tried to be in reading babygirl86's.
Justifying yourself with the poker analogy isn't going to work.Bionic wrote:I have provided reasons for my 'feelings'. Don't forget that suspicions are rooted in feel as there is no concrete evidence in the game of mafia. There are no finger prints, no DNA, no video surveillance. The game is not a simple equation of x + y = z. There is a human element which is constantly changing. I have to decide how I think you would act as mafia based on limited information. Gut and feelings are all a simplistic way of expressing a subconscious understanding of the events going on around you. I am a poker player, so things like 'gut' which is really just a flash recollection of a player (or the collective of all opponents) and how they respond to certain actions is crucial - even though the game has many statistical factors to it. I will admit I am fairly new to playing mafia and I have not translated those instincts to the game yet. With that said, I used the word feel in the instance you quoted in the same manner I would use the word 'believe' or the phrase 'in my opinion'. I just felt like poking at you because you jumped on it with your code of vollkan.
You are correct that it is absurd to let a replacer begin with a "clean slate". I should be judged based on BG's play, which should also be judged in light of her meta (and I will have critical analysis of Shez's case once I have properly done my detailed read of everything; I am posting this giving Shez the benefit of the doubt that his case is not as ephemeral as that meta case which seems to have suddenly dropped off the radar). And, on that note, I take issue with you distinguishing "inexperienced" from being "universally poor". The relevance of experience is that it can reflect the expected capability of a player. However, if a player is universally poor, their experience becomes irrelevant. Experience is only ever relevantmrfixij wrote: Given the portfolio of games which BG has played and been replaced out of, I find it hard to call her inexperienced. She's more experienced than you or I, at least on this site. She may be a universally poor player, but she is not inexperienced. Letting Vollkan start with a clean slate is a fallacy. Yes, it is a bad thing for him that he can't explain what was going through BG's head, if anything.
But we have to realize that Vollkan is a better player than BG on both sides of the spectrum. If he is, in fact, scum, then he's going to slide his way out of it better than most will. That is why I would like a claim or a lynch, because from every way I see it, BG was scummy. Vollkan carries the same scumminess over from the sheer fact of BG's play, and he cannot justify it because he cannot know why she played the way she did. It's an immense handicap for Voll, but the fact still remains that if you thought BG was scum, you CANNOT let Vollkan's excellent play stand in the way of your first read. If Vollkan is town, then BG's scummy play is null. If BG's scummy play is legitimately scum, then Vollkan's attempts to defend himself are null. End of story.
What possible protown reason could you have for wanting to rush the lynch of somebody who hasn't even had an opportunity to challenge the case against them?Xtoxm wrote:I think maybe we should just go for it.
Vote Volkan
This is a completely illegitimate reason for justifying any stance against anybody.Xtoxm wrote:The fear of coming so close and letting him get away if he turns out to be scum is a factor, yes.
Tell me, RBT, what other method of scumhunting would you have expected from somebody who replaces into a game?Riceballtail wrote:I want to state that I'm completely for a vollkan wagon still, hence why my vote is still there. I'd also like him to complete his read of the game, since that's the only real method of scumhunting he's done so far.
Okay, I agree.Shez wrote: Until page five, nothing about her seemed particularly scummy. At worst, I'd say that she didn't share her thoughts much. Someone noted that her poor reaction to Erratus Apathos' vote and "I love wagon" comment might be noteworthy, but even in my short time here I've seen people react that way to early wagons often enough to think it's innocuous.
I make two points here:Shez wrote: On page five, she tells us that she's in the process of moving and won't have internet access for a while. She gets it back on Sunday, 26 October. Unfortunately, her mother had to be taken to the emergency room the following day, preventing her from posting her thoughts Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.
As I said in my read, BG's post 217 showed she had done very little reading at all - her attack on X was by no means linked to anything specific, other than his generality (which has been fairly consistent throughout) and an attack on his list of top 3 scum, which was way back in post 77. She did also give an answer (albiet a completely vague one) to Rhinox's post 125 question to her. That would be entirely consistent with lazy skim-reading, of course - which is exactly what we would expect from BG.Shez wrote:
When she's called on it, she gives a very odd non-explanation of her past behaviour. In fact, let me quote the exchange in full:
X wrote:Unvote Vote BGBG wrote: reasoning?OP wrote: He claimed mason with rice. You just voted him. After the claim. So I figure that's why he is voting you.
Speaking of..
unvoteJuls wrote: I am not sure I understand what your whole objective was with your little scheme but I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.
UnvotePyro wrote: Wait, what? people are buying the mason claim? I'm not sure i understand. On N0, you guys picked someone at random to attack? Color me confused.
I have never been in a game with masons,how likely is it that they are both scum? Or would that just be way to huge of a gambit for scum to risk?Not only is this a bad post, because it fails to show justification for voting post-claim, acknowledgement of the post-claim vote, response to the claim or any other recognisable, rational link to the game. Instead, she responds to a question raised in the post immediately preceding hers without answering it in the least and to the identity of Xtoxm, whom she recognises from a past game.BG wrote:
I've played games with masons before, and also games with lovers where one was scum- I was part of that pair... come to think of it xtoxm was my partner too. nonetheless, unvote at this time
It certainly isn't "good town play" - but that doesn't make it scummy, ESPECIALLY for BG.Shez wrote: I have a hard time saying if her play is scummy or just undesirable play so far. I can certainly imagine a mafia player posting this kind of response to a mistake like trying to lynch a claimed mason. I think that the three/four vote range is generally a very safe point for mafia to jump on a wagon against a player given the number of votes to lynch--neither so early nor so late that a mafia player must provide good reasons for a vote. Perhaps it's the town's fault for not reacting more strongly to this play, but she doesn't provide much for me to decide one way or the other. I'm comfortable saying it isn't good town play.
Hmm...You're completely correct here, and I am honestly a bit annoyed with myself that I didn't pick this up earlier. I am as skeptical as you are about her excuse, but I would make two points:BG wrote: She refers to an event that occurred a week ago as an excuse for not posting frequently and attacks me for, in her mind, requiring her to put the game before her family. The post is completely illogical.
At first, I thought it was simply because she was genuinely upset about her mother and angry at me. But that doesn't excuse the fact that her excuse is odd. She nowhere indicated that she had obligations in real life which might interfere with the game in the period of time between Thursday, 30 October and Sunday, 02 November. She refers to a post she made which referred to an event that in the past, Monday, 27 October, prevented her from posting. A short run of posts on Thursday indicated to me that she now had time to contribute but chose not to.
Based on the information provided, I cannot have been expected to know what she clearly expected me to.
1) If her excuse was genuine, then she might have been understandably annoyedShez wrote: I think that this was an unsubtle attempt to confuse the issue, her posting habits, with a different, apparently related one in which she held a clear advantage. It's an disgustingly effective tactic which I have seen used in far too many formal debates.
Also, I honestly suspect that she capitalized on sympathy to discredit me after I indicated interest in a wagon against her. Bad town players over-react to wagons against them, too, I know.
Nothing she says suggests she was at all aware of OP's claim. I don't think that is a prospect you can discount, given this is BG we are talking about.Shez wrote: In the same post, though, she does something which looks more calculating than an emotional town player. First, she adopts Rhinox' reasoning to justify a vote against orangepenguin, a claimed vigilante. Second, and more importantly, she makes an exaggerated effort to say "look how reasonable and pro-town I am" when she casts the vote.
If she was seriously angry solely for stated reasons, then she was obviously cooling down by the time she wrote the second paragraph. This makes me think that she intentionally left the flawed appeal to emotion in the first paragraph. It also indicates that her nod in her final sentence to her earlier emotion was calculating--she knew that she should vote based on reason, but leaves in and flaunts a tirade which she knows will sway players to let emotion dictate their response to her.
I'll respond in the format you give:Shez wrote: 1) She contributed little to the game, much less to scum-hunting.
--One read: Scum doesn't like hunting for scum.
2) Her votes both explicitly referenced other players' reasoning.
--One read: Scum cloaks itself in town reasoning.
3) Her votes both landed on players with previously large bandwagons against them.
--One read: Scum hides in the crowd.
4) Her votes both landed on claimed pro-town roles, which she failed to acknowledge.
--One read: Newb scum is excited to hear that townie power-role could get lynched.
5) She reacted terribly to a bandwagon against her.
--One read: Scum stands to lose more than town when under scrutiny.
6) She used an appeal to emotion, illogical arguments and deceptive play to work against the bandwagon.
--One read: She didn't have a real defence.
7) She asked for replacement after her effort to prevent a bandwagon against her spectacularly failed.
--One read: She didn't have a real defence.
I said this before, but it bears repeating:
I'm not completely sure this is worth a lynch. It really could be all explained away by extremely lousy play. But as it stands, her play in this game, before any question of her meta was raised, is enough to keep her at the top of my list of suspects.
Yeah. Her play definitely warrants suspicion, objectively speaking. I do, however, think there is enough ambiguity about what she was doing that it shouldn't be enough to carry a lynch.Shez wrote: I'm not completely sure this is worth a lynch. It really could be all explained away by extremely lousy play. But as it stands, her play in this game, before any question of her meta was raised, is enough to keep her at the top of my list of suspects.
Most of that 10 pages was on the meta case. Shez's case was one I couldn't really rebut unless I had reread. And I accept that I took way longer than others - but that's because of my pbp. I hold myself to the same standards of transparency as other people - which requires that I give full and frank disclosure of my opinion on the game.Rhinox wrote: ummm... unless some weird disruption of the space-time continuoum occured, your lynch has been considered for the better part of about 10 pages. There's nothing rushed about that. You even commented once on sche's case previously. I won't sympathize with you for taking, what, almost 2 weeks now to get caught up on the thread. I know its big, but thats more than enough time. I don't recall anyone asking for a PbPa (which would take longer), so making a PbPa is also no excuse for not actually reading the thread through once before going back for the PbPa. (for the record, with every new game I play, the more I start to think a PbPa doesn't serve much of a purpose).
1) Nothing I have said should be taken as soft-claimingRhinox wrote: So, you've basically now soft-claimed townie, and you're explaining bg's actions as lying to avoid posting... I don't think any townie - even a poor playing inexperienced one - would want to or have to lie to avoid posting.
Your reasoning here attempts to draw an equivalence between not wanting to post and not wanting to play at all. BG is always lazy, but the very fact she has played a cluster of games reflects, bizarrely, that she likes being in games but doesn't like actually posting.Rhinox wrote: If she's townie, she was probably telling the truth, because if she didn't want to post (as townie), that implies she didn't really care, and wouldn't have bothered to try to avoid her lynch by lying to explain her lurking.
Rhinox wrote: I realize some players use "townie" and "pro-town player" interchangeably as meaning the same thing. If your use of townie was meant as a general descriptive word for town players, then ignore everything above this paragraph (for now). I do see how some town roles would want to lurk a little as a strategy and it might be acceptable to lie about it to avoid their own lynch if their role is powerful enough. Just please be more careful of your use of "townie" in the future, because calling somebody "townie" means something completely different than calling someone "pro-town".
What do you mean by a "forced/framed pairing"?mrfixij wrote:At this point, I'm looking for material. If I get a case, I'll present it. As it is, I've been silent these past few days because I haven't been able to find it, and when I noticed something funny, I pointed it out (re: Biochop). Then Schez asked for my opinions, and I explained what I've been thinking so far.vollkan wrote:I've already explained my decision not to claim. I am of the view that claiming is basically an "any last words" sort of thing. Seeing as I hadn't even gotten to rebutting the case against me, it struck me as, well, absurd to think that I should claim in such a situation. I've seen enough premature claims in my time on this site to know there is nothing wrong with holding back.
Also, it was actually Bio who brought up the whole point about the quotes being out of context. And, in any event, I hardly see why pointing out something like that should be at all problematic.
I figure the odds of ONE of you two being scum are pretty good. After reading the mason claim post-replacement, Pyro struck me as funny as I've already explained. Being that you were in the spotlight and pyro refused to take action on you made me more suspicious of him, and curious as to a pairing, or a forced pairing. As it is, it looks like a forced/framed pairing, under the assumption that pyro is scum, but I want to be sure before I let you off the hook vollkan.
It's completely illegitimate that you think you can rely on the fact that you voted me pages back. Your vote must be justified at each point in time.bionicchop2 wrote:No.Scheherazade wrote: Do you feel that you have anything new to bring to the vollkan case?
Currently I am not interested in pursuing any other avenues. I will continue to look for scum, but my vote is on my top suspect. I feel he is the best lynch for the day and the reveal on his affiliation will be very informative.Scheherazade wrote: If not, what other avenues are you interested in exploring? We have more than one mafia player, so I suspect you have more suspects than vollkan.
I am not sure what this last question is referring to.Scheherazade wrote:
@bionichop2 and mrfixij: Any comments, responses, concerns, etc.? You two seem to be around.
Rather than just treating me as the default candidate, how about actually justifying why I should be the lynch?ixfij wrote: Oh wow, i didn't even realize how long this had been going on for before I replaced in. If Vollkan isn't our man, I advocate a pyro lynch as well.
I wasn't thinking of anything specifically, but what I did mean was that my reread found a number of things which were scummy and which discussion could take place on. Obviously, the mason claims through a spanner in much of that, but what I guess I am trying to say is the idea, implicit in some of the recent posts, that the time has come for a compromise lynch is invalid.Schez wrote: 1) Things such as what? Did you have anything specific in mind when you made that statement?
Well, first off, my PBPA speaks for itself in that, next to the masons, I find bio scummiest (which means Bio would be my pick for lynchee, seeing as I am prepared to accept the claims). There are a number of points where I criticise Bio in my read, my rebuttal against some of his arguments have also shown my issues with him, and his recent posts have had this implicit idea that, somehow, I am today's default lynch. In essence, more than anybody else, the manner of his attack is less directed towards legitimate questioning and argument and more directed towards securing my lynch. His argument has shifted from BG's meta, to my being shifty, to your case on BG, and now to this weird sort of "shrugging of the shoulders" compromise/information lynch, interspersed with ad hominem attacks on me being a "skilled debater" and "grandiose" and so on. I think the term is "tunneling".Schez wrote: 2) You don't think that your lynch might help us to lynch bionicchop2? You haven't said it in so many words, but the tone of your posts, especially when directed against bionicchop2 seem to go beyond mere resentment of his attitude and dogged pursuit of you. Do you think that bionicchop2 is unlikely to be scum? I notice how high his score is by your system--the highest score of any player not claiming mason. If your lynch could expose bionicchop2, do you think it's valid? Isn't a one to one exchange a gain for the town? Or is it not likely to be one to one in your eyes?
Good question. The scores I give are reflective of "How scummy is this person's conduct?" not "What are the chances of this person being scum?" The reason for that is partly because the only way discrepancies usually arise is because of claims, which I can factor in my head - I don't need to have a numerical record thereof. The other reason is meta-based: to make me see whether what I identify as scummy actually is on review by me (that is to say, it's meta for my own research benefit in the future)Shez wrote: 3) The two players with the highest scum score on your list have claimed mason. What exactly do you think of that claim, if you don't mind me asking?
My hope was that each person would go through the PBP and challenge me on specific points, with debate ensuing. I have the title "The Interrogator" for a reason - that I rely on questioning and arguing as my principal means of scumhunting. Usually, the way I do things when I don't replace is to compile a PBPA on each player and then debate my findings - with the way people conduct themselves in the debate further influencing my suspicions. I've been doing the same sort of thing here from the beginning. I don't see a black-and-white distinction between "defending" and "attacking" because, in the course of defending, the scummy nature of certain attacks is revealed (bio most obviously as an example). What I would like at this stage is for people to end their self-fulfilling prophecies of the day having reached its standstill and to have a look at what I've put forward (not restricted to Bio either).Shez wrote: 4) Now that you've completed your read-through, we can see who attracted the most of your attention. However, I don't think that's really a case. Do you intend to do more to scum-hunt? If so, what? And what have you waited for thus far?
Fair point.Rhinox wrote: Vol: i'm not a fan of your numerical list. For one, its easy for you to use it as a manipulation tool if you're scum. Especially on such a large scale like a 0-100 thing, and you arbitrarily assigning point values to certain scummy actions, it wouldn't be too dificult for you to shape the way we would think about players just by making small numerical changes. Look how much the 9/10 of a cent changed the perception of gasoline prices.
I do lists/replacement PBPs in pretty much every game I am in. I'm happy to debate this point if you think it's necessary, but my meta for it makes it a nulltell for me.Rhinox wrote: And even if you're town, as I've argued early on in the thread, I'm not a big fan of publishing lists with your thoughts on every player in the game, especially on D1. I'm sure you read my posts during your readthrough, so I'll spare the group by not posting THAT wall again. The reason I didn't call you out on it is b/c players in this game have played with you before and have seen your list in action before and didn't think your list was too big of a deal.
I was trying to make this as part of my argument in my previous post. There's a debate which needs to be had on bio, and which doesn't require either of us to be lynched. As I said, I don't think Bio is necessarily scum, and I don't like the idea that a chain should be set up whereby a lynch is predicated on a set-up of future lynches.Rhinox wrote: I also want to say that i dislike the thinking that vol's mislynch could help us lynch bio, or visa versa this early in the game. For all we know, its just as likely that they're both town or they're both scum, as it is that they're 1 of each. yes, Vol showing up town would make bio the opportunistic D2 target, but planning bio's lynch for tomorrow by first making a mislynch on vol today seems incredibly scummy to me...
I could rant and rave right now about how absolutely stupid this is. On the other hand, X, you've proved my point about the whole idea of a default lynch and the problems with the wagon on me better than I could ever have.Xtoxm wrote: Posts in this thread are starting to get too long. I find this usually causes most of the players to become disinterested. I haven't read the latest batch, i'm not looking forward to trying it, infact it's unlikely that I will.
I think we should just lynch Volkan.
Okay, good. That should make proper use of it. And I have no problem with you treating as a potential case (obviously bearing in mind that the PBP is a very abbreviated sort of format).Shez wrote: It's certainly fair to ask me to respond directly to your post by post analysis. I'll treat it as the potential case against every player, if I may.
Frankly, I figured as much. You didn't strike me as dopey enough to be seriously advocating a two-fer lynch, so I figured you were probably just trying to determine my attitude towards Bio more closely. Of course, I didn't want to pre-empt your defence against Rhinox in case you had actually slipped.Shez wrote: That's a reasonable enough vote, though the major point was to probe vollkan's precise level of suspicion of bionicchop2. Frankly, I never expected vollkan to accept the lynch merely because I asked him questions. I asked the questions to figure out exactly why he wouldn't accept the lynch, which I assumed included doubts about bionicchop2's scumminess.
Weird...I had it typed out.Shez wrote: And, sadly, you didn't answer my most burning question: what is ixfij?
I am not saying that you need to make a new case in every single post. What I am saying, though, is that "I voted for you on page X" does not inherently justify the continuance of that vote on page (X+Y). In the case of this game, I have made detailed responses to the case against me and have posted fresh content of my own, with some of my wagonners only meeting this with what is basically just a shrug of the shoulders. And it's not about making yourself "look town". It's about making the best lynch decision possible which, almost by definition, cannot occur unless you consider all relevant matters - of which my defences rank very highly in terms of importance.Bio wrote:Vollkan wrote: It's completely illegitimate that you think you can rely on the fact that you voted me pages back. Your vote must be justified at each point in time.
I completely disagree with this. If I still believe in my decision, I don't have to make up some new reason at each point in time just to appease people. Expecting that would lead to people forcing reasons into the game just to fit their opinion. I am not going to nit pick every point you make just to try and make myself look town.
This is pure bullshit. We argued over the meta case. You haven't argued with me on my subsequent defences or material. There's no issue of arguing in circles here. Again, you are just posting a justification for a resigned default lynch of me.Bio wrote: Not all of us are as convinced as you are by your own arguments. I just choose not to argue in circles with you.
Okay, so we move to the next point:Bio wrote:At this point, I would agree. Things do change, but I don't think any direct action of you discussing something with me is going to convince me.Voll wrote:
The sense I am getting here is that nothing I can say or do could possibly avert the suspicion that you have of me.
Hmm, I would have hoped you would understand the logic.Bio wrote:I would like to understand this jump in logic. Just because you feel you have defended something to your satisfaction does not mean the original points do not exist and others no longer believe in them.vollkan wrote: That's very important because it shows that the suspicions you have simply aren't based on anything.
I've rebutted this already. It's not a question of "our own opinions". I missed a set of votes on BG which made some of what I had said wrong but, in a classic case of missing the forest for the trees, you blew it out of proportion because it had little to do with the point of my argument.Bio wrote: I have also shown that I disliked your defenses and felt you changed arguments and twisted words. We both have our own opinion on that though.
I know I am not scum (useless for the rest of you), but I freely admit my suspicions could be completely off. I'm open to discussion and debate on the points I've raised and I am open to having my mind changed.Bio wrote: I also see a PbPa by you which has 3 claimed town roles listed near the top and I see myself there. Since I know my affiliation and I am comfortable with the claimed roles at this time (masons first and vig 2nd because of the outside chance he could be SK) it means you are either a townie off your game or you are scum on your game.
This merits a (+2). You're playing the trick here of drawing an equivalence between the fact that we cannot ever know things for sure with a kind of "anything goes" attitude. See, Bio, the impression I am getting of you is that you think that having a suspicion at one point in time justifies you clinging to that rock unless you are absolutely convinced otehrwise. That's both scummy and obscenely anti-town - it avoids having to engage with any material post-vote. GF, in stark contrast, is playing properly: that is, with a willingness to change his view based on a reasonable doubt.Bio wrote: I have no problem with your opinion the meta case is unreliable. My question to you would be - what is reliable? Any scum 'tell' is just an indicator of something scum do more often than town. It is still a percentage play. Your 'unwillingness to gamble' is a little unsettling. It gives the impression that nothing short of a cop investigation will convince you who is scum if you are not going to gamble on something which a player has done more often as scum than as town.
Also, I don't think anybody has said anything was definitive. Yes I am assertive in my belief, but I understand this is a game of mafia and nothing is concrete. I simply feel this is my best chance at catching scum on day 1. Nothing out there has convinced me somebody else is a more viable lynch.
And we have 1 player with 5 votes on him who also has no overwhelming case against himBionic wrote: Now people can say they think the case against him is whatever - and are welcome to their opinion. I believe in what I have said though. The only thing that will move my vote is seeing something I feel is more suspicious that moves somebody up to the top of my list. We have 5 players with 1 vote on them, so obviously there is no overwhelming case against any of them.
I don't think that's true at all. Bio, RBT and X stand out as the obstinates, but I think that others (eg. yourself, Shez and GF) have shown a continued willigness to adjust your thinking.Rhinox wrote: I do agree the vol/bg discussion has run its course. all players seem now locked into their beliefs regardless of whats being said.
Okay, to begin with you say that you haven't given a single reason to explain why you are voting me. Then again, the way this game is going, that doesn't seem to be a problem.PyroDwarf wrote:time for me tounvote
I agree with some of the others when they say we are reaching diminishing returns. Vol says he considers claiming as "any last words".
Vote: vollkanI am assuming that scum has alreasdy slipped their vote on him, so that would mean bio, mrfixij or OP. Or i could be wrong, wich is equally as likley.
I agree with Xtoxm's post 520.
I don't know if vollkan flipping town will be a guaranteed Bio lynch, but that will probably be where a lot of people start looking. Bio has already said, he is just voting for his top suspect, what else should we do on day one, wait for some to slip up and claim scum?
You're completely misrepresenting my posiiton. I've been over this so many times now. I never said "I don't need to claim". I see claiming as an "any last words" sort of thing. That avoids things like the premature claims we had here. I'd also love for you to explain what is actually scummy about the fact I didn't claim.Pyro wrote: I didn't like vol's repeated "i dont need to claim" attitude.
Hold on.Bio wrote: Since I think you are scum, reasons like claiming not to see something do not convince me that there was not an ulterior motive for your actions and argument.
*sigh* I was going to see whether my last post changed anything for you, but it seems not. I've done my best to dissuade the wagon against me, but I cannot refute emotional recalcitrance:Bio wrote: You are at L-1. It is time for you to claim
This much we can agree on.bionicchop2 wrote:OP - you know what to do if a doctor gets lynched today.
Nice try, but this is pure bullshitBio wrote: For the town - remember that scum is almost always the initial claim and the counter claim is almost always town. There is no incentive for scum to counter claim and out themselves trying to get a doctor lynched. Scum have guns and can kill doctors at night since this site frowns on self-protecting doctors.
Two docs is extremely unlikely. We already have two claimed masons, and a claimed vig. Unless the masons/vig are fakeclaiming, or the scum is ridiculously powerful, it's probably reasonable to assume that there aren't two docs.Ixfij wrote: Either one of you two are lying, or we have two doctors, which makes for an interesting closed game.