Mini 542 - Game Over

[vollkan]

Vote: KradDrol

- die scum

[vollkan]

Not a random voter. I'd rather jump start the game. How about some meta?

Interesting idea.

Let's see:
I am ultra-aggressive towards lurkers, and to people who don't post things if I demand it (I will tolerate intentional secrecy). And if I get stuck in inquiries I may resort to traps.

[vollkan]

I really like past games with more than one current player in them. Meta information on the players and the dynamics of their interactions.

You may be interested Mini 495 then, since both Spurg and I were town in that game.

I replaced in on D2 as vanilla. Spurg was there at the beginning as vanilla, died, and then replaced back in on the last day as a tracker.

[vollkan]

Let's get a wagon rolling

Unvote, Vote: Spurgistan

[vollkan]

Unvote

We've already got some stuff to work from now.

Okay, I will also Vote: Spurgistan but let's hear something from him soon, because this puts him at four.

What precisely did you want him to address?

About that wagon on Spurg: voting without a reason, bandwagoning, and following are all a bit scummy. What are you trying to accomplish here?

Why is a wagon scummy?

Unvote
Vote:Death's Door

I'm getting off this spurgistan bandwagon because it was never my intention to start one on him in the first place - I just wanted him to explain his initial vote.

I didn't like Death's Door's vote for spurgistan. Not because it was a second vote (because at some point on the first day, someone will have to make a second vote inevitably) but just because I didn't like really like the tone of the OMGUS. It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game.

Even if it wasn't your intention, why would you want to leave the wagon?

Moreover, why is DD's (Death's Door's) "random" (obviously, no vote other than stupid dice votes are random) vote even worthy of comment, yet alone scummy? If it was OMGUS, why is that scummy at this stage?

[vollkan]

Cross-posted with Hypatia.

Ideally, something like "I'm here, here's why you shouldn't vote me, this logic is flawed, etc.": a defense (even though I'll admit it's hard to defend against a first day pressure because they're not based on a lot).

Bandwagons do reveal important roles, but they also give scum a huge opportunity to trip up.

And since he was a few votes away from being lynched, I wanted to call attention to it, so that others wouldn't pile on and get him really close, and so that he could get a chance to say anything he was going to say.

(bolding mine)

1) What "flawed logic" (or equivalent) was there for him to address? You say "not based on a lot" but what arguments were there against Spurg? You seem to be trying to construe this as a serious wagon.

2) That bolded sentence - could you explain what you mean?

3) Why did you not want the wagon to reach close to a lynch?

[vollkan]

1. Why would I want to be on a wagon to lynch someone if there is nothing to suggest they are scum? Where I come from, we don't start bandwagons on people that quickly with absolutely no scum tell. I didn't want to come back the next day to find him lynched and have everyone say "Uh Oh. I guess we were wrong. But I guess that's what happens when we bandwagon someone for no reason! Better luck next time chaps!"

What a coincidence! Because we don't form random lynching wagons here either!

Joking aside: The point of a random wagon (such as the one I began) is not to move towards a lynch; it is to generate reactions from people. There was never going to be an "Uh oh" because the whole thing is just to see how people react to act to it: Whether people join for serious, or obviously random reasons; whether and how people attack those who did wagoned, etc.

Lynching randomly is very bad (*shock*) but wagoning randomly is very good.

You immediately assumed that the wagon was for the purposes of lynching and jumped off asap. What does that mean? It could mean one of many things: such as (but not restricted to) that you have no idea of how random wagons work, or that you are scum who was fearful of being associated with a wagon which you perceived to be getting into dangerous territory.

2. I was implying that his vote might not have been random - not in the sense that "no vote is random" but in the sense that I felt he wanted to vote for spurgistan and needed a spurious reason to do so (ie. OMGUS, past game context). Obviously, if I felt this about Death's Door's post, it would be worthy of comment by myself and subsequently worthy of my vote. Henceforth, we arrive at my previous post in which I did both of these things.

So...casting an OMGUS "random" vote is a scumtell?

[vollkan]

Regarding your second suggestion, I find this somewhat ludicrous. While it is certainly possible that I am scum (just as it is possible that I am town) and while it is certainly possible that spurgistan is town (just as it is possible he is scum), your deduction here doesn't really follow. Allow me to use a (flawed) induction proof in saying that I have never taken part in a game where a scum who voted for a townie FIRST (before a bandwagon was even likely to occur) then got off the said bandwagon because he was afraid of being associated with it. Why would any scum want to get off a bandwagon here if they were the FIRST to vote? Only a moron would associate the first person to vote as 'part of the bandwagon'. A scum would usually be able to wash his hands of responsibility by being first on a bandwagon because it wasn't a bandwagon at the point that he got on. Again, that's not to say that my alignment or spurgistan's alignment is in any way proven by this particular occurence of events, but it does make it pretty clear that this second particular deduction of yours is pretty ill thought-out.

Not true.

The first person on a wagon is equally as culpable and responsible as the last. The first always has the opportunity to unvote (unless scum quick-hammer, but then the scum are outed anyway). If they choose not to, they are supporting the wagon. My idea is not at all ludicrous

Plus, if you read what I wrote:

You immediately assumed that the wagon was for the purposes of lynching and jumped off asap. What does that mean?

It could mean one of many things: such as (but not restricted to)

that you have no idea of how random wagons work, or that you are scum who was fearful of being associated with a wagon which you perceived to be getting into dangerous territory.

I was not inferring ANYTHING. I was basically saying that at this stage we can't really analyse it to any great extent - but that what I posited was a feasible probability. Why should I bring it up at all if it is one of any number of possibilities? Simple - to see how you responded.

I probably should have mentioned earlier when we discussed ourselves for meta purposes that I get frustrated when I have to keep re-explaining something which I find particularly clear (especially after the second explanation). But I digress and in the interest of pleasantries, I will once again explain since you have missed the point for a second time.

No - an OMGUS vote is not always a scumtell.

No - a "random" vote is not always a scumtell.

No - an OMGUS "random" vote is not always a scumtell.

Yes - voting for someone because you want to (no doubt for nefarious purposes within the context of the game) and passing it off as OMGUS and/or "random" is a scumtell.

I believe that this last case is what is occurring here based on the general tone and structure of the post. It's what I personally feel and I don't expect everyone to interpret the posts by players in the same way. Subsequently, you may not agree with my particular interpretation but that does not mean that I am any less entitled to it.

Okay, so now "voting for someone because you want to (no doubt for nefarious purposes within the context of the game) and passing it off as OMGUS and/or "random" is a scumtell".

I must be missing something:

Oh yeah? Well, 2 can play at THAT game...

Vote: Spurgistan because we NK'd a vanilla instead of a power role. (Jordan thought we might wanna lynch you but we figured Petunho was town-ier and was on to us in a way)

I don't know how you can read anything into that other than him jokingly casting an OMGUS for Spurg because of meta experience. Yes, he

wanted

to vote for Spurg for meta reasons.

I might just as easily have said:

vote: Spurgistan for being skeptical of me at the end of Mini 495

If Spurg had voted for me for meta reasons, then I could have made it OMGUS said:

Oh yeah? Well, 2 can play at THAT game...

vote: Spurgistan for being skeptical of me at the end of Mini 495

That's essentially the same as DD's. I don't get what makes it scummy in any way at all.

What "nefarious purposes" can you possibly construe out of DD's vote?

[vollkan]

I'm not explaining a fourth time. You've obviously missed the point on both issues.

No I haven't. Look, I will ask this in the most simple way possible.

You said:

Yes - voting for someone because you want to (no doubt for

nefarious purposes

within the context of the game) and passing it off as OMGUS and/or "random"

is a scumtell.

I believe that this last case is what is occurring here based on the

general tone and structure of the post.

It's what I personally feel and I don't expect everyone to interpret the posts by players in the same way. Subsequently, you may not agree with my particular interpretation but that does not mean that I am any less entitled to it.

What is it, presumably in the "tone and structure", which conveys any sort of "nefarious purpose"?

Also, the wording of the first paragraph seems tautological. If I break it down, it basically says that doing something for a nefarious purpose is a scumtell. Unless you draw a distinction between scummy and "nefarious", in which case I ask why doing something for such a nefarious purpose is a scumtell.

In the forums where I have played before, town has relied on bandwagons, and on bandwagoning basically everyone, waiting for someone to trip up. A good playstyle? Well, it's different from the playstyle current on this forum.

It's a day one wagon. It's not a serious wagon, unless he somehow does something incredibly scummy, or the town decides he is worth lynching; then it goes from a non-serious wagon to a serious one.

True. But you aren't addressing what I said:

Cross-posted with Hypatia.

Ideally, something like "I'm here, here's why you shouldn't vote me, this logic is flawed, etc.": a defense (even though I'll admit it's hard to defend against a first day pressure because they're not based on a lot).

Bandwagons do reveal important roles, but they also give scum a huge opportunity to trip up.

And since he was a few votes away from being lynched, I wanted to call attention to it, so that others wouldn't pile on and get him really close, and so that he could get a chance to say anything he was going to say.

(bolding mine)

1) What "flawed logic" (or equivalent) was there for him to address? You say "not based on a lot" but what arguments were there against Spurg? You seem to be trying to construe this as a serious wagon.

2) That bolded sentence - could you explain what you mean?

3) Why did you not want the wagon to reach close to a lynch?

Could you please number your responses to these questions.

Put one and three in your post beside each other. Let them speak to one another. What could they each teach each other?

Has he completely tripped our scumdars yet? Do you want to see him accidentally hammered by a townie, or "accidentally" by a scum? I want to pressure him for information, not lynch him.

I don't see your point. One was addressing the fact that you clearly indicated that you wanted Spurg to respond to something. Three was simply highlighting the fact that if the wagon had gotten to L-1, or lynch, we would very likelyhave been handed the scum on a platter.

Okay. I'm done talking about this for now, since our conversation is basic mafia-playing principles hashed out in excruciating detail. Anndd... have we gotten any information about Spurg? Nope.

The point was not strictly to gather information on Spurg but, rather, on everybody else. The reactions of other people are just as important.

[vollkan]

One and three either cannot coexist or they answer the question of each other.

1) What "flawed logic" (or equivalent) was there for him to address? You say "not based on a lot" but what arguments were there against Spurg? You seem to be trying to construe this as a serious wagon.

3) Why did you not want the wagon to reach close to a lynch?

They do coexist.

You said that you wanted Spurg to respond to things with a "defense". Question one was getting at the fact that such a wagon, by its very nature, does not require defending against.

The meaning of "serious" (I admit my meaning was ambiguous here) is "based on suspicion". Thus, it is possible to have a non-serious wagon reach a lynch.

If you use this definition, I think the problem is cleared up.

Oh, and about #2. Do I really have to say that:

RESOLVED: Bandwagons are a major way of getting information on the first day

IN THAT: Scum can get caught in them and do something stupid or counterclaimable; and they also get people talking about the particular bandwagon.

SOME MAY SAY: "Oh no! There is a drawback, we may out a power role!"

BUT I COUNTER: "That is a risk we should take; it is a day start so we have no other info; persons rarely have incentive to give up information unless they are pressured."

It is not a "risk we should take". If anybody put the wagon to the point of soliciting a claim, they would be pretty much of obvscum. The correct response would (I am talking very broadly here) be to insist that the wagonee does not claim, and to instead lynch the wagoner.

And at the risk of being juvenile, you started the "bandwagon" anyway. Please, illuminate your purpose in doing so.

I already have (in post 40). But, since you asked, I shall illuminate it for you:

The point of a random wagon (such as the one I began) is not to move towards a lynch; it is to generate reactions from people. There was never going to be an "Uh oh" because the whole thing is just to see how people react to act to it: Whether people join for serious, or obviously random reasons; whether and how people attack those who did wagoned, etc.

Bright enough?

[vollkan]

I am voting to say that this is my current suspect. The reasons may be limited to something as unfortunately wishy-washy as gut feeling but given how recently the game has started and the lack of real information, I do not think that such a vote is necessarily inappropriate.

I still don't agree with your reasons for voting, but the vote itself is not inappropriate - mainly because a single vote on D1 is just innocuous.

Yeah, the first few pages are really just a bunch of arguing, but you can get some stuff out of it. Ill post my analysis of it later.

Looking forward to it.

[vollkan]

First off, we're nowhere close to lynching anyone, so whatever.

That is not the point. At all. You hadn't posted anything, which gives rise to a legitimate concern that you are intending on lurking.

Second, there is very little if anything for me to build off that hasn't already been brought up. You guys post quickly, there's very little I can do about that, especially since I'm either working or sleeping during the normal times you'd be posting.

That may be the case. I would still prefer you to say why you agree with what has been said (since that is the presumption that arises if you say you do not need to comment), rather than just saying nothing.

Thirdly, would you rather that I post constantly with very little content, or only when I actually have something significant to say? If you want me to mentally masturbate on this thread, I'd be happy to do so, but I don't think anyone wants to be party to that.

False dichotomy.

One can post frequently without going into "mental masturbation" (I don't think I'll inquire as to why you associate extreme frequency with masturbation ).

Lastly, I have noticed that you seem to be votejumping a lot (AKA the DD vote, leaving the spurgistan wagon). Also, you seem to be fomenting confusion among the thread by trying to derail conversations of actions taken in thread with attempts at starting meta discussion. Thanks, but I'd rather not discuss the merits of FoS as opposed to voting in the middle of an active thread.

I used the Mafia Parser (click here to use it as well) to see just how serious Mills' alleged vote-hopping is.

voting activity

Actions by vollkan:

* vollkan votes kraddrol in post 3
* vollkan unvotes in post 29
* vollkan votes spurgistan in post 29
* vollkan unvotes in post 37

Actions by mills:

* mills votes spurgistan in post 8
* mills unvotes in post 34
* mills votes deaths door in post 34

Actions by mookeh:

* mookeh votes vollkan in post 14
* mookeh unvotes in post 53

Actions by hypatia:

* hypatia votes jennar in post 17
* hypatia votes spurgistan in post 30
* hypatia unvotes in post 54

Actions by deaths door:

* deaths door votes spurgistan in post 27
* deaths door unvotes in post 57
* deaths door suspects mills in post 57

Actions by spurgistan:

* spurgistan votes deaths door in post 5

Actions by dean harper:

* dean harper votes mr president in post 7

Actions by jennar:

* jennar votes mookeh in post 13

Actions by mr president:

* mr president votes hypatia in post 15

Actions by kraddrol:

* kraddrol votes ythill in post 16
* kraddrol votes mills in post 73

Actions by ythill:

* ythill votes mills in post 49

Needless to say, Mills is not a unique offender in respect of vote-hopping (If you really want to call 2 votes vote-hopping). True, both of his votes were serious ones, but I don't see how that bears any contingency on his actions being scummy.

As for your suggestion that he was trying to "derail" the game with his question on FoSes, let me just say that you are stretching things. It wasn't as though his few meta remarks actually caused any tangible disruption. Also, I don't like that you instantly use the word "derail" to imply perfidious intent, with no evidentiary basis for saying so.

Votecount up to Post 75

Death's Door (2) - spurgistan, Mills
Mills (2) - Ythill, KradDrol
Hypatia (1) - Mr. President
Mookeh (1) - Jennar
Mr. President (1) - Dean Harper

Not Voting (5) - Death's Door, Hypatia, klebian, Mookeh, vollkan

7 to lynch.

[vollkan]

I just want to quickly point out that my first vote for spurgistan was not a serious one.

Indeed, how could it be at that early stage? As I have said, I voted 'to get information' because it is how I am accustomed to playing. It was not serious in the sense that the vote was placed because I thought he was scum.

I will also reiterate that my vote for Death's Door was a serious one - albeit with what I freely admit is a weak reason (in the sense that it is only a gut feeling).

Like I said, I don't expect everyone to agree with my vote when it is based on an inherently personal reason.

Sorry to rehash but I wanted to make it completely clear again since the both of you recently suggested that the first vote was serious and/or part of vote-hopping.

Thankyou for clearing that up Your vote "was not a serious one" but it "was a serious one".

Don't worry, I know what you mean. When I said your vote was "serious" I just meant based on some form of suspicion (Basically just not completely jocular or random) - not that you actually suspected DD.

[vollkan]

I think he just wants us to be careful with our BBCode so that we always say who we are quoting. Some quotes above mention who we quoted, some don't (ie. they just say "Quote:").

If the amount of quotes-within-quotes is getting too much for you to manually write out the coding, just click the little button which says "quote" at the top right of every post (I think this is what Dean was referring to).

Clicking the button opens up a fully coded quote of a post, which you can then just copy all of into your post as you type, to save time and effort (and to prevent writing the wrong player names in)

[vollkan]

In #49, I wrote:

@ vollkan... Of the three people you questioned, who do you see as the most suspect and why? Will you back up your early suspicions with a vote?

I would still like an answer to at least the first question here, either in context (as of #49) or a current read of your most suspicious person.

Sorry, I didn't see this at the time.

I questioned Mills, Hypatia and yourself I believe. It's difficult for me to say who I find most "suspicious" (either in context or current).

In context: Probably Mills for wrongly suggesting I had inferred something and the random/OMGUS issue. I would not back this up with a vote because I do not think it is voteworthy (or even FoS-worthy). My questioning at that stage was basically to open up a line of debate.

Currently: KradDrol for what seems to be a contrived upon Mills (and contrived attacks are something tangibly scummy). Voteworthy? Not yet, but it is the first thing I seriously take issue with.

[vollkan]

Basically, you are all scum. This not a case of innocent till proven guilty but rather guilty till proven innocent. It is the safest basis for an opinion and is how I play. You need to prove to me that you are town. Now on this site this playstyle does not sit well with many so I won't be hurt if you want to rip into me about it.

I don't have a problem with this playstyle.

My own system is to have a % rating (which I give when I make scumdar posts). Each person starts at 50% and shifts accordingly based on what I think of their behaviour, though I admit that I am usually very reluctant to accept things as so-called "town tells", which means most people end up above the 50%.

Thus, my system is sort of "neutral until proven innocent or guilty"

As much as I hate to get back into the whole Wagon is/is not scummy debate I feel the need to point something out here that bothers me. anytime you set down a label of what should and should not be considered a scum tell you are setting a bad precedent. The reason being is that you are giving the scum a pattern to follow by which they can not arouse suspicion. Bandwagoning can be a scum tell as can following. They can both be passed off as pressure for the sake of information but they can also be a means for scum to hide amongst town for cover.

So the question becomes Dean and Volkan is in this case do you feel that the wagon was legitimate means of pressure or a means to hide more nefarious intentions?

Bandwagoning and following can both be tells, but they usually require other factors in order to make them so (ie. evident opportunism). Bandwagoning itself is harmless and, in my opinion, highly productive - the trick is to know when any particular vote is scummy, or when the maintaining of a particular vote is scummy (hypothetical example: if somebody keeps their vote down when a player is at L-1, despite not having raised any lynch-worthy arguments).

So, basically, I think wagons can be legitimate or nefarious, depending on the size and purpose of the wagon and the nature of the votes.

[vollkan]

vollkan: I don't like how vollkan has been playing. I may be alone in this, but he seems to be way too aggressive in his posting. When he sees something scummy he jumps on it with a vengeance. This may or may not be scummy, but I'm not liking it right now, even if it did jump start our discussions. In particular, how he catapulted the theory discussion with Mills and how he has questinoed many player's first responses so intensely.

You'll find this is pretty much consistent with how I always play.

If you want easy proof, just look at my title. I got "The Interrogator" for the very fact that I am inquisitorial and aggressive.

Votecount up to Post 100

Death's Door (2) - spurgistan, Mills
Mills (2) - Ythill, KradDrol
Hypatia (1) - Mr. President
Mookeh (1) - Jennar
Mr. President (1) - Dean Harper

Not Voting (5) - Death's Door, Hypatia, klebian, Mookeh, vollkan

7 to lynch.

[vollkan]

Thoughts?

I see your point, but is it scummy? I mean, Mookeh wasn't defending himself or anything, so I don't think he had any real reason to lie in this matter (unless he was scum with Mills, but even then it doesn't seem very sensible because Mills was not under any real attack).

[vollkan]

I really don't see how you jumped to the possibility that me and Mookeh are a scum-pair from that series of events. I'm seriously boggling at your conclusion so I figure you misunderstood in some way.

Let me be clearer then.

As you said, Mookeh cited a post which did not support things.

The effect of that citation was to render what you had said as a null-tell. Now, the most obvious reason he would have for knowingly lying in this manner would be to defend his scumbuddy, in this case Mills.

As I said, though, that doesn't make sense because you had not come under attack or anything, so I can't see the rationale for lying.

So, basically, I really reject the idea that I jumped to any conclusion. I simply gave what I perceived to be the most feasible explanation for him knowingly lying. Obviously, however, I consider even this infeasible. Thus, I think this is a good case where cock-up before conspiracy ought to apply.

[vollkan]

Gah. I just reread over things and I see what I have been confused over.

I had Dean and Mookeh entirely mixed up.

I thought that Dean had attacked Mills and that Mookeh had stepped in to refer to the other game and say that it was a null-tell.

[vollkan]

In this case, I feel vollkan’s mistake is a little more suspect, but only because I read him as otherwise intelligent and thorough. None of this is enough for even a FoS, but I wanted to mention it.

Fair enough. I would note, though, that whilst inconsistent (in that I don't usually make mistakes - though I have made a few over time) there was nothing actually 'scummy' about my mistake itself. Confusing two players obviously is not a good thing, but it is just as likely to come from town as scum, so it is a null-tell.

I also hate to make this post now since the timing will look scummy right after Ythill's post but I have become a little concerned about vollkan for a different reason.

Throughout that whole exchange, he took the time to make relatively long posts and analyse my initial argument (albeit with a major misunderstanding along the way). This resulted in me having to re-explain 3-4 times what I was thinking and I think this made it look more and more like I was attacking Mookeh over and over again. When the misunderstanding was finally resolved, he simply posts to say that he misunderstood and provides no further analysis now that he does understand. This seems strange given how diligentyly he has been playing and given that he had given proper (incorrect) analysis before, I wonder why he would choose not to give proper (correct) analysis now.

Actually, the reason I did not post anything more - and it was deliberate - was to wait for responses and so that I could reread the exchange to post the correct analysis.

Now, the situation as I see it is this:

Mills attacks KradDrol for being a lurker (I agree with this attack).
Dean suggests that Mills' behaviour is a town-tell (I disagree with this)
Mookeh says it is not a town-tell, but is a null-tell, by referring to another game (I agree it is a null-tell).
Mills argues that the reference does not support the argument.

I am aware this has since been resolved, but shall look at these 4 facts in context anyway, as the premise for my analysis.

If the reference does not appear to match the argument, then we have two immediate possibilities:
1. ERROR (from either Mills or Mookeh) - we can now see this was the case.
2. DELIBERATE LYING - In this case, Mookeh (presumably scum if he has lied in this way) seeks to prevent Mils' actions being seen as a town-tell. Tbh, this seems a pretty ridiculous argument - the risks for scum in lying about a reference greatly outweigh the benefit of not having a town-tell recognised. It simply is not a viable scum move.

I'm wondering if the misunderstanding was set up for the purpose of making it seem as if I wanted to crucify Mookeh.

How do you reason to that idea? My misunderstanding was that I thought Mookeh was defending you.

[vollkan]

@Vollkan:

I didnt say specifically that i thought Mills was town because of his posts. I said that he gave me a slightly protown feeling. I believe i also said that I was still keeping an eye on him. Not an attack on you, just trying to clear that up. I can see where you would think that i am just defending him, but im not. Really, im trying to gather my thoughts before i post something important about the game.

I didn't say that you thought he was town.

Dean suggests that Mills' behaviour is a town-tell (I disagree with this)

A town-tell is behaviour that gives, as you say, "a slightly pro-town feeling" - as oppposed to absolute confirmation (in the same way that a scumtell does not mean an automatic lynch)

[vollkan]

KradDrol, you have yet to respond to my post 75.

[vollkan]

Don't take it personally but I agree with him. If you can barely find time to read the game and the best we can expect are mostly short posts in the abominable text-speak then I too would prefer you to get replaced.

Am I the only one who noticed that under her name, in the location field, Mr. Pres has written:

Location: On Break, so you might want to replace...

[vollkan]

Hot off the presses! Hot off the presses! Spurgistan hammers as mafia, endgames Dean in Newbie 509. The town definitely loused this up without much help from me and my partner, and this isn't really how I play as scum, but hey, more meta never hurt anybody.

I agree with Ythill that it would be nice to hear something non-meta from you. "More meta never hurt anybody" but nothing but meta doesn't help.

[vollkan]

I shall take up the role of content-maker and do as many PBPAs as I can, beginning with Dean. (going down the list on p1) and then forming a scumdar.

All post numbers are from when viewing the player in isolation in "oldest first" ordering.

I will give each player a percentage ranking. 50% is by default. 0% is absolute town and 100% is absolute scum. Do

not

think that a 50% ranking means I have no position on that person - a 50% ranking means either than someone is unreadable, or that I see nothing in preponderance either way. I will specify why a 50% ranking is given.

PBPA of Dean

0: nothing
1: nothing
2: nothing
3: Thinks Mills is pro-town enough "that i dont suspect him a lot. "
4: Slightly contrived suggestion that Hypa was warning scumbuddies. I dislike this suggestion for the simple reason that it assumes as its premise that Hypatia is scum. He agrees with me about the purpose of bandwagons. Suspects Mills for de-wagonning (rightly imo). Questions Mills' weird "structure and tone" thing.
5: nothing
6: nothing
7: nothing
8: Believes the wagon was for info, and no nefarious
9: Clarifies he was not defending Mills
10: nothing
11: nothing
12: nothing
13: nothing
14: nothing
~~~~~~~~
Of the four posts I find worthy of any comment, I get a mixed feeling on Dean. I really like his response to the wagon and to Mills, but I dislike his jab towards Hypa. I get no indications towards him being either town or scum, but I do dislike the fact that he posts so much but that mosts of his posts are mere noise so he gets a

55%

.

PBPA of DD

0: nothing
1: Thinks Mills is reading way too much into the random vote (I agree with DD here) and FoSes Mills justifiably.
2: He posts a large analysis and it seems reasonable
3: Explanation of something in the above
4: Suggests we start moving towards the noose - with nothing more to add
5: Asks for extension
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Minimal posting from this guy to the point that I get nothing on him. Given that he is lurking and seems to have no good reason

55%

PBPA of Hypatia

0: nothing
1: nothing
2: Joins the wagon. Notably, she says she wants to hear something from Spurg - it was a random wagon etc. so this doesn't make sense
3: Explains she wants Spurg to defend himself. Again, the wagon was baseless so this seems futile from her.
4: Again continues with this saying she wants to pressure him for information when there was nothing to pressure over. Also, doesn't understand why the wagon reaching danger zone is not problematic (hint: because anyone that pushes it that far is scummy)
5: More of this, and she ends my probing me as to why I started the wagon
6: Calls the debate to an end, but argues that my point about wagoners becoming suspicious in the danger zone is wrong because it assumes the innocence of the wagonee - this is true, but sane town will not wagon to the danger zone, thus, it can be assumed any danger zone wagoners are scum/my.
7: nothing
8: THinks she has explained herself well
9: Can only reiterate what she has already said
10: nothing
11: nothing
12: nothing
~~~~~~~~~~~
I disagree with her at a number of points and she had odd ideas about the way things were meant to be going wrt the wagon - specifically that she seemed to be seeking "something" from Spurg when it should have been patently obvious that it was only reactions I was interested in with the wagon. She said herself that she wanted Spurg to defend himself in some way - implying that she was treating it as a wagon which required defence against. I haven't encountered this sort of thing before, so I would be reluctant to call it "scummy", but I find it strange nonetheless and effectively taking the wagon too seriously. However, she seems to think she makes sense...Anyway, largely nothing problematic but the weirdness on that matter makes me a tad suspect because of the fact that her motivations for the wagon seemed a rather strange.

55%

.

PBPA of Jennar

0: nothing
1: nothing
2: nothing
3: Ironically, he opens by suggesting that theory discussion and so on is futile, but then proceeds to discuss: strategies of lurking and his personal perspective on guilt and innocence. That said, he does raise a legitimate concern about KradDrol asking how much to post...and he concludes with another theory point.
~~~~~~~
Obvious lurker. I dislike the fact that he seems to try and point the finger at everybody else for theory stuff when he himself only makes one point which is game-related (and it is hardly even an excellent point). For lurking and hypocrisy over theory discussion he earns a

60%

PBPA of klebian

Nothing at all and he clearly is not an active lurker. No read.

50%.

That's all for now...the rest will come in my next post.

[vollkan]

I would like to know why you feel more suspicious of me then a person that you agree with me on about his posting question and yet you offer no feed back on?

Where are Mills, Mookeh and Ythill on your list?

I didn't do anyone past KradDrol in that post. They come next. That took me over an hour. If the person you are referring to is KradDrol, be assured that he is my number one suspect right now, but my read will determine exactly the extent.

He’s taking the reins again, which is appreciated but says nil about his alignment. I’m assuming he’s not going to get around to a PBPA on himself, so I will try to do one on him soon.

It's what I do, regardless of alignment. For me, serious posting is not a town tell. Best example of this was Mini 500 (which just ended) where I was scum and basically took the reins entirely. It is not a scumtell either (see Mini 495 where I was vanilla and did the same thing). And thanks for volunteering to analyse me.

The percentage system he’s using is not clearly objectified and is therefore dangerous. So long as we all realize he is only stating his opinion (not factual statistics) with those numbers, there should be no problem. Not saying vollkan is scummy because of this, just reminding town that if he is mafia the percentages will be manipulated to mislead us.

@ vollkan: Are you using the % system as stated on the wiki, your own version, or a mix?

I'm not aware of the wiki system; I made this one up myself.

It is based solely on my personal opinion of players, yes. It works like this:

Each player begins at 50%, because obviously I have no read on them either way. Town tells (and I am extremely skeptical of calling things town tells) make that go down below 50%. Scum tells make it go above 50%. Generally, my voting threshold is 70%, give or take depending on relative levels of suspicion of people.

The reason I use this system is that it lets me clearly order players by my suspicion of them, and allows me to show easily the differences in level of suspicion. To explain what I mean, consider a simple list like:

Scummiest to towniest

X
Y
Z

This does not indicate who is suspected more or less and would require more explanation. My system lets me show it easily:
X - 75%
Y - 50%
Z - 40%

It makes it a whole lot clearer that X is REALLY suspicious.

The other reason I use it is to avoid accusations of being noncommital; because each number reflects a clear opinion. It allows me to make a clear identification of my opinion on people. Rather than something wishy-washy like "Slightly scummy" I can throw on a 55-60%.

People on this site take every opportunity to misconstrue every fact and point you make. I've tightened my playstyle to be less "in every conversation going" because of this. And no, I'm not lurking, there just has been nothing to comment on that isn't a semantics debate.

Translation: I’m lurking because people play too aggressively here but I’m not lurking, it’s just that people don’t play aggressively enough here.

This comment bothers me. It’s too early to tell whether the blame-dodging is just a facet of Jennar’s personality, so I’m not really picking on that aspect yet, but the apparent contradiction seems to indicate someone who is looking for the best excuse rather than the honest one. For the record, I think we have far worse lurkers than Jennar.

QFT.

It's effectively saying that he isn't posting because he doesn't want to be attacked, but that he won't post until

other

people get attacked.

Where does he state that there is a reason for leaving people off his list?

*sigh*

I shall take up the role of content-maker and do as many PBPAs as I can, beginning with Dean.

That's all for now...the rest will come in my next post.

Reading is a great skill to develop

Why are you making assumptions and excuses for him?

He only assumed what was obvious from my post itself, and what was most likely anyway (in respect of the lack of all 12 players). I'd like to know why you pluralise assumptions and excuses because I can't find him making any other occurence of him assuming things about my post.

Why do you knock me for not playing aggressively (i.e. lurking in your view) but then hash me for asking pointed questions?

Jennar, playing aggressively will pull suspicion onto anybody. The important point is to play with aggression where aggression is merited (ie. on things that are actually suspicious).

I'll do up my analyses in my next post, to avoid having it cluttered by the preceding stuff.

[vollkan]

PBPA of KradDrol

0: nothing
1: Says there is very little of substance to discuss. Criticises the theory/playstyle discussion
2: The attack on Mills. I won't go through this in detail again, since I deconstructed it not long ago. Suffice to say, it stinks badly. Votes Mills
3: Forgot to unvote so he unvotes and votes mills
4: With no mention of my attack on him, he proceeds to make a theory post (committing the same hypocrisy as Jennar)
5: Xmas greetings
~~~~~~~~~~~~
He does the same hypocrisy as Jennar and makes a scummy attack on Mills to boot. Add to that, his evident lurking.

70%

.

PBPA of Mills

0: nothing
1: Wants to know the meta reasons behind Spurg's vote
2: Explains he was just curious about the meta behind it.
3: Jumps off the wagon because it was never "his intention to start one". He evidently does not want to be associated with it any way. Makes a weird attack on DD's vote because he didn't the like the "tone" and it seemed to be trying to pass an OMGUS off as random. I don't get what he means here, since OMGUS random votes are common and not scummy, and there is no "tone" to speak of.
4: After getting attacked by me for these two points, he argues that on his site bandwagoning is a no-no and that thinks that DD "wanted" to vote for Spurg but used a "spurious reason" by making it sound OMGUS. This doesn't make much sense because, in the previous post, he says that it

"seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting"

- which clearly suggests the OMGUS nature is the problem. Now he seems to be implying that there was some nefarious motive.
5: Thinks my idea of him potentially being scum wanting to abandon a wagon is stupid because he was the first to vote and

"Only a moron would associate the first person to vote as 'part of the bandwagon'."

As I have already said, this isn't the case because the first is as culpable as the last in my books. Reiterates the weird nefarious purposes thing by saying that he tried to pass off a nefarious vote as random and OMGUS, which is apparently evident from his "tone" - still fails to make sense to me.
6: Thinks I miss the point.
7: Thinks the timing of his unvote was "unfortunate".
8: Explains that he didn't actually need to respond to a point of Ythill's
9: His vote was because he had the worst gut feeling on DD's vote
10: Asks whether FoS would have been more appropriate.
11: More playstyle stuff
12: Attacks KradDrol for lurking and potentially shirking accountability
13: Agrees with me on KradDrol's crappy vote
14: Explains his spurg vote was not "serious"
15: Agrees his attack on Krad was a nulltell.
16: nothing
17: nothing
18: nothing
19: nothing
20: The thing about Mookeh concocting a reference. This is fresh in our minds.
21: Wonders whether he found Mookeh lying, or he is just imagining it
22: An EBWOP
23: A post responding to my messed up view of the Mookeh thing. Reiterates what he said before
24: Again reiterates to me
25: Realises he was mistaken and that it does make sense, and rejects the accusation of straw-manning. I don't think it was straw-manning, so much as a misguided attack. Not necessarily scummy if the mistake was sincere, as I believe it was.
27: unvotes
28: Would like Bush to get replaced (:) the name makes it ironic)
29: Thinks that the text speak "hrsh mch" meant "harsh much"
30: Annoyed at lurkiness
31: Notes irony in hypatia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hmm...For starters, I don't hold the Mookeh affair against him, since I believe his mistake was probably genuine (I myself made a mistake as well there). My biggest problem with Mills is the DD affair - with his weird vote and explanations which pretty much made no sense to me.

55%

PBPA of Mookeh

0: nothing
1: game reference
2: notes the weirdness of hypa seeking some comment from spurg
3: thinks discussion is moving nicely, but that the mechanics discussion is getting excessive
4: Thinks Mills' attack on Krad is a nulltell (I agree) and understands how an opening wagon works
5: Another game reference - this the one which sparked the problems
6: Reiterates he thinks Mills' behaviour was a nullity, not scummy
7: Would prefer not to quote from other games
8: Thinks my hunting is refreshing, but a nulltell (an appropriate response). Thinks Ythill has been "sloppy"
9: He meant KradDrol, not Ythill in 8
10: Thinks the whole reference thing was weird
11: Suggests Mills was either sloppy or strawmanning
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nothing here stands out to me as suspicious, and I usually agree with what he says.

50%

PBPA of Mr. President

0: nothing
1: nothing
2: nothing
3: nothing
4: nothing
5: Asks who DD has in mind for a lynch
~~~~~~~~~
Useless lurker. Her only game-related post is to ask someone else who they want lynched (which is not helpful and seems to be trying to get another player to decide things so she can follow). She will need to be replaced soon, most likely.

55%

PBPA of Spurgistan

0: nothing
1: Random votes don't need explanation
2: nothing
3: nothing
4: nothing
5: nothing
~~~~~~~~
Useless lurker. No read. 50%

PBPA of Ythill

0: Suggests meta discussion rather than random votes
1: nothing
2: nothing
3: nothing
4: Thinks the Spurg wagon is scummy. Wonders what we were trying to accomplish. Here we see that Ythill reacts to the wagon by assuming it to be serious. Cannot say whether townish or scummish on that alone, but it is a fact nonetheless.
5: Prods me for some explanations of my views of the people I questioned. Doesn't like the way Mills reacted on the formation of the Spurg wagon and votes Mills accordingly
6: Asks what Mills hopes to achieve with his DD vote.
7: Asks hypa to answer his question
8: Asks Mills to answer his question
9: Wants to hear from the lurkers
10: Asks the lurkers to talk and questions some more people.
11: looks at noise ratios
12: nothing
13: Rejects the accidental accusation of sloppiness
14: Doesn't think Mills is as scummy now due to "The #112-116 exchange with vollkan"

Could you explain this please, Ythill?

Rightly pressure votes Bush
15: EBWOP
16: Prods lurkers
17: nothing
18: kicks the game
19: Wonders about my % system, doesn't like hypa's fishing or Jennar's latest post at that point (I agree with Ythill here)
20: Wonders why Jennar has been asking "pointless barbed questions"
21: Continues rightly questioning Jennar.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ythill tends to play more by questioning other people than attacking on his own accord. I don't have a problem with that at all, because it is a natural sort of D1 behaviour, but I would expect to see some proactive attacks later on (I believe we are already seeing the emergence of that in respect of his behaviour of late towards Jennar).

50%

The List

KradDrol - 70%
Jennar - 60%*
Dean Harper- 55%
Death's Door - 55%
Hypatia - 55%
Mills - 55%
Mr. President - 55%
klebian - 50%
Mookeh - 50%
Spurg - 50%
Ythill - 50%
Vollkan - 0%

* I was tempted to raise Jennar to 65% over the latest stuff, but I will wait to see how things unfold in the meantime.

Anyway, the standout for me is KradDrol:

Vote: KradDrol

I will be satisfied with either a KradDrol or Jennar lynch, assuming nothing majorly changes in the meanwhile.

[vollkan]

I'll repost that end bit with correct tags.

The List

KradDrol - 70%
Jennar - 60%*
Dean Harper- 55%
Death's Door - 55%
Hypatia - 55%
Mills - 55%
Mr. President - 55%
klebian - 50%
Mookeh - 50%
Spurg - 50%
Ythill - 50%
Vollkan - 0%

* I was tempted to raise Jennar to 65% over the latest stuff, but I will wait to see how things unfold in the meantime.

Anyway, the standout for me is KradDrol:

Vote: KradDrol

I will be satisfied with either a KradDrol or Jennar lynch, assuming nothing majorly changes in the meanwhile.

[vollkan]

Yay! An argument

In all fairness you only stated that you would post more later. Per readings of this thread alone we have had many such claims of "I'll read and post more later" so I have no guarantee of such and based upon how I play am unwilling to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Again, I quote myself:

That's all for now...the rest will come in my next post.

That's a pretty clear indication of my intention and it ought to have been obvious that I was going to go through with it.

Moreover, your initial criticism of me for apparently only doing a few people said:

I would like to know why you feel more suspicious of me then a person that you agree with me on about his posting question and yet you offer no feed back on?

Where are Mills, Mookeh and Ythill on your list?

It seems odd to me that if you are "going down the list" that you would leave them off. And no, I'm not lurking, there just has been nothing to comment on that isn't a semantics debate.

Here you make no indication of having been aware of the fact that I had promised content.

So which was it Jennar? Did you-
A) Completely miss my promise of conclusion and are now trying to say that it was meaningless anyway; or
B) See it at the time, but choose to disregard it

If it is the former, you must concede that it was wrong of you to jump down my throat when it was your own fault for not reading me properly. If it was the latter, than I think it rather sneaky on your part to avoid making any comment on the fact that I had in fact promised further PBPAs (whether or not

you

personally thought my promise to be worth taking seriously)

He only assumed what was obvious from my post itself, and what was most likely anyway (in respect of the lack of all 12 players). I'd like to know why you pluralise assumptions and excuses because I can't find him making any other occurence of him assuming things about my post.

And this is why I dislike getting into long posts here. You look past what I am saying to attack the fact that when I wrote the post the words without the (s) on them sounded wrong when I read it back. Would you like me to attack you for misspelling "pluralize" and "occurrence"?

This is blatantly evasive.

Not only do you avoid responding to whether or not (and why) Ythill's assumption that I would post more was un/reasonable, even though that was my main point, but you draw a false analogy between your pluralising and my mispelling of occurrence ("pluralise" is correct for those of us who use Commonwealth English). Pluralisation directly suggests more than one occurrence of the "assumptions and excuses". Since there was only one assumption made by Ythill (that I can see) this is an exaggeration of what he said which makes his actions seem stranger than they truly were.

My spelling has no effect on the extent of my argument, but pluralising things inappropriately does.

It's effectively saying that he isn't posting because he doesn't want to be attacked, but that he won't post until other people get attacked.

Now you are misrepresenting me. I did not post as I have stated before because you guys were arguing meta game and post semantics and not actively playing the game. Who is not reading whose posts now?

Jennar, you said:

People on this site take every opportunity to misconstrue every fact and point you make. I've tightened my playstyle to be less "in every conversation going" because of this. And no, I'm not lurking, there just has been nothing to comment on that isn't a semantics debate.

You are pretty clearly saying that you have changed your playstyle to post less to avoid being misconstrued. You then go on to say that you are not lurking, but just that there is nothing going on (and, in mafia, discussion only really revolves around people getting attacked). Since you were not posting, you could not be attacked for anything other than lurking (which you had already explained). Thus, the logical result is you not posting until other people come under attack.

I'm not misrepresenting you in any way. I am simply following your own statement that you have nothing to comment on because there has been no proper discussion through to its logical conclusion.

Jennar, playing aggressively will pull suspicion onto anybody. The important point is to play with aggression where aggression is merited (ie. on things that are actually suspicious).

Wrong unfortunately. I am by and large an aggressive player but have learned to back off on this board. In every game I have played here I played aggressive day one only to find my self lynched. In every occurrence the person I attacked was Scum and in every occurrence the town turned on me for being aggressive.

Well, this is a meta point then, but I want to say something here anyway. Aggression is not a scumtell in and of itself, but it will often be taken as one if arguments are poor/exaggerated or if it is unusual for a player. Aggression is part of my playstyle and nobody really bats an eyelid over it. I am still damned careful in all my arguments, because I know that being aggressive and usually well-reasoned makes me a glass cannon if I slip up and make an error anywhere (see, the response to me messing up wrt the Mookeh reference).

Oh, and Jennar, I'd like to know what you think of KradDrol. Thanks.

[vollkan]

Regarding vollkan's % system: Thanks to vollkan for explaining the system a bit, but it is still not objective. Nor do I expect it to be made objective. I just wanted to remind everyone (and still do) that

the percentages refer to vollkan's opinion and nothing more.

Vollkan, for clarity of record, could you post a simple "I agree with" or "I disagree with" the italicized part of this statement.

I agree with.

14: Doesn't think Mills is as scummy now due to "The #112-116 exchange with vollkan" Could you explain this please, Ythill?

No problem. Primarily, it was the way he reacted to your mistake. From a reader's POV, such miscommunications can often seem manipulative, yet he seemed convinced, even before you noted it, that your failure to communicate was an error rather than a deliberate manipulation. Considering Mills' habit of posting before thinking things through, I don't think he would have been so forgiving if he were scum and you were town. This leaves two scenarios: Mills is town or you both are scum. Assuming that you are scum based soley on this scenario would be very faulty logic on my part, so I'm consiedering it to be a town-tell on Mills for now.

Ah okay; interesting point. I think it is worth remembering, though, that jumping down my throat over a mistake, whilst convenient in the short term for a scum Mills, would likely be seen as a poor and scummy attack in the long run. I mean, let's face it, attacking someone for a potential mistake is not pro-town.

I personally think that how Mills reacted is basically a null-tell, but I know that I tend to be rather skeptical of these sorts of things.

Ythill tends to play more by questioning other people than attacking on his own accord.

Lol. No worries here. My tone thus far has been uncharacteristically inquisitive because I haven't seen anything too major. Rest assured that I will be attacking and, when I do, you'll share in my "lol" at your read here.

As I said in my analysis of you, I expect that you would begin attacking proactively. I don't mean that in the sense of "I expect you to tidy up your mess" but in the sense of "I expect it will rain tomorrow". I was basically giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[vollkan]

unvote hypatia sry, but phone blinks out with lrge posts

Approximately how long are you going to be unable to post or read properly

[vollkan]

well im sorry! im trying 2 participate via phone and i asked if there wer ne ?s i needed 2 ansr. id be doing a pbpa if i had enuf memory on this thing 2 do so, but i cant cuz itll reset the browser. so, 1ce agin, ne ?s?

I have no questions for you, because there is nothing to question you on. I might as well question somebody who isn't even in the game.

*sigh* I

really

don't like how this has basically earned you just a free pass through today. The most frustrating thing is that your excuse is itself reasonable, it's just that it messes up the game for today.

[vollkan]

Requesting a 1 week extension since the situation regarding several players being absent is quite ridiculous.

I support this. The holiday period has thrown quite a few of my other games into a mess as well, so it is not just a problem. If we do get this extension, though, I am going to be going rabid on those people who have been quieter to make the most of it (basically everyone except Mills and Ythill)

[vollkan]

EBWOP:

This sentence:

The holiday period has thrown quite a few of my other games into a mess as well, so it is not just a problem.

should read:

The holiday period has thrown quite a few of my other games into a mess as well, so it is not just a problem

in this game

.

[vollkan]

I'll respond to Ythill's PBPA of me now.

* 00 ~ nothing
* 01 ~ helpful and amiable
* 02 ~ nothing
* 03 ~ “Let’s get a wagon rolling” on spurg
* 04 ~ unvotes, questions everyone on wagon
* 05 ~ questions Hypatia aggressively
* 06 ~ attacks Mills hard, rhetorical questions; explains his own part on spurg wagon
* 07 ~ continues vs. Mills; argues too hard against random vote being pulled; glazes over Mills’ defense, which is applicable; asks for quantification of Mills’ gut vote on DD
* 08 ~ continues vs. Mills & Hypatia; both arguments wax semantic, frustration evident in vollkan’s tone
* 09 ~ continues vs. Hypatia, less emotional thrust than Mills debate

Up to this point, I question the unbalanced intensity of vollkan’s attacks. He seems to hit the seemingly weaker player hardest, taking it easier on those who seem more likely to post intelligent arguments (could be coincidence with this little data).

Let me preface this by giving the best recent example of me being criticised for this as town. In Mini 492, Atticus (who was scum in the end) responded to my aggression by accusing me of "dropping hit after hit at [his] private parts". This got general agreement from some of the other players.

In the particular case of Mills and Hypatia, my relative aggression was reflective of my relative suspicion. Hypatia's response to the bandwagon was different to my own, but I didn't know whether or not it was scummy; obviously some probing was necessary. Mills, in contrast, leapt into my sights with the whole "random, OMGUS" thing - and so I felt an increase in pressure was justified.

* 10 ~ makes peace with Mills @ appropriate time
* 11 ~ tears Krad up for justifying lurking, elaborately defends Mills in discrediting Krad
* 12 ~ very odd interaction with Mills: argumentative word twisting immediately explained as a joke, what is the purpose of this?
* 13~ nothing
* 14 ~ quantifies PE#1 correctly based on his own tendencies in timely context, accidentally clears up difference in approaches vs. Ythill, Hypatia, & Mills
* 15 ~ theory chat with Jennar seems amiable, first mention of % system

This segment gives us a slightly-too-quick peacemaking with Mills, though the timing seems to suggest that vollkan thought no more useful data would come of their arguing. Also herein is a peaceful beginning to the future crusade against Jennar. #14 suggests that vollkan's imbalanced attacks have only leaned in line with his suspicions, a fair explanation.

The argument had reached that inevitable point where the most that can come is "let's agree to disagree" (I find it usually happens after about two rounds of counter-rebuttal). I think of it as hiatus rather than peacemaking. That debate got us some useful discussion - which can then be referred to later if need be.

And yes, #14 again reflects why I came down hardest on Mills.

* 25 ~ first PBPA series, alphabetical order up to klebian; percentage system utilized; last two entries say Jennar most scummy, klebian least scummy; break could be placed to angle conversation/suspicion;

vollkan clears klebian of lurking here, why?

* 26 ~ explains % system at length; gets into the Ythill vs. Jennar debate, sides with Ythill against Jennar
* 27 ~ second PBPA series; opens with Krad as scummiest, minor suspicion of Mills and Bush, posts correct summary though mentions raising Jennar’s %; fingers Krad and Jennar as current lynch choices
* 28 ~ EBWOP to fix tags; nothing
* 29 ~ jumps Jennar; some good points, some weak; tone closer to that vs. Mills than vs. others; uses the argument to preemptively justify aggression
* 30 ~ clearly agrees that % refers to his opinions only
* 31 ~ prods Bush
* 32 ~ prods Bush again but with suspicions
* 33 ~ agrees with extension request; slips in a bye for Mills & Ythill

Here we see the crusade against Jennar. I was going to point this out as heavy-handed but a context reread has made me see Jennar as a bit more scummy and I have to sympathize with vollkan’s gut here. I don’t like how vollkan appears to buddy up with me and Mookeh. Also, him letting klebian off the hook for lurking at ths point doesn’t sit right with me.

I clear klebian of lurking because he is a replacement. I know from experience that, after the initial reread, it is somewhat difficult to get into a game (plus the holiday stuff only makes it more complicated). I'll give kleb another few days (RL) before I start thinking of him as a lurker.

As for the allegation of buddying to you and Mookeh, I don't think it is justified given what I said.

On Mookeh:

Nothing here stands out to me as suspicious, and I usually agree with what he says. 50%

It is not "buddying" if I say that I don't suspect someone and I agree with them. That's a matter of fact.

On Ythill:

Ythill tends to play more by questioning other people than attacking on his own accord. I don't have a problem with that at all, because it is a natural sort of D1 behaviour, but I would expect to see some proactive attacks later on (I believe we are already seeing the emergence of that in respect of his behaviour of late towards Jennar). 50%

Again, nothing you did struck out to me as "scummy" and I could guess that your playstyle would develop as information comes to light.

Summary

Vollkan’s aggression could be considered suspicious but he’s directed it where appropriate. Some of his posts could be said to have ulterior motives but that is not to say that they do have ulterior motives; just something to keep an eye on. Vollkan likes to be seen as the voice of authority and we should be careful not to accept his opinions too readily. That said, he is good at wringing information from a slow game.

My read on vollkan is middle of the road with a raised eyebrow which probably equates to 55% on the aforementioned scale. My gut says town but I am questioning it a bit. Even if he is scum though, his activity level has helped to prod others and he has accidentally set a couple of traps for himself that would be likely to indict him later. I don’t think vollkan should be our D1 lynch.

It is most important that you do not take me as the "voice of authority". Over the games I have played, I have been accused many times of "leading", "acting as a judge" "taking control" etc. I think it just stems from the fact that I post a lot and am fairly aggressive.

[vollkan]

Okay. I always thought "claim fishing" was a specific scummy tactic used to weasel information out of power roles when it's detrimental to the town. Like, "Are you a power role? Tell us more how your role works i.e., how you can be blocked or neutralized or killed."

This makes me recall a quote from IH I read somewhere, but can't remember fully.

To paraphrase from memory: It's called fishing because it's "subtle". Asking "Are you a power role?" is basically throwing a stick of dynamite into the water -- it isn't fishing.

Now IIRC I was saying that we need to get information out of players, and sometimes a player who is being bandwagoned may claim a (real) power role and then detrimental information is out. I did say that sometimes this (information leak) is unavoidable, and sometimes the benefits outweigh the risks. But I never implied that power-info leak is an unmitigated good!

On this site, people usually (if they have any sense) only claim by request - thus the "leak" is rendered wholly avoidable.

You occasionally get the idiotic player that gets all pissed off and says: "Are you happy!?! I'm a [insert power role]" but that's fairly rare among competent players.

There are two main ways of defending oneself against a lynch: a behavior defense and a claim. It's best if one can say "No, my behavior was not scummy, I will explain and justify my behavior." But I've found in a lot of games people expect claims, and often won't debandwagon without one. And towards the end of the game everyone is expected to have a claim out there. (People differ over when all the claims should be out.) My playing experience is from a different forum where a lot of work is done based on claims and votes in the first few days, which is definitely a less sophisticated strategy than here.

I'm getting a sense that most of this is just stemming from your different mafia background.

The bandwagon on Spurg was never going to reach the point of a claim being warranted - it wasn't that sort of wagon. Spurg did not need to give a defence or anything. The point was to see how he and other people reacted. If the wagon got to L-1, or worse still L-1 with someone calling for a claim, the wagon would have disbanded and pursued whoever tried to take it to that point.

[vollkan]

As for the allegation of buddying to you and Mookeh, I don't think it is justified given what I said.

I wasn't referring to your PBPAs of us, but rather to your tone of general agreement with us. In fact, the PBPAs putting us at 50% makes me wonder why you would so readily support the views of someone you see as middle of the road. This whole thing is quite minor though, specifically because none of the points of agreement was particularly dynamic or unnatural.

It is a minor point, but it is worth dealing with nonetheless.

My general agreement is simply because you two seem to be thinking in the same way as me, at least about the things we agree on.

The reason you are at 50% in spite of that is simply due to the fact that I find it difficult to consider anybody "protown" on D1. I don't have any known alignments to factor in to my assessments, so I need to approach everything with a grain of salt.

[vollkan]

I sense a slight link between vollkan and ythill… I pretty much agree with Ythill's pbpa of Vollkan. I like vollkan's responses.

I have to question these parts of your analysis. I do see the “slight link” because vollkan and I are similarly active, we have twice argued with the same target at roughly the same time, and we have cheerleaded each other a few times. I insist that this is happenstance, but I do see what you are talking about. What I question is how you reach both of the conclusions quoted above, especially because my PBPA and vollkan’s response specifically address his apparent buddying-up and explain it away. So, in short, how can you “agree with” my PBPA and “like” vollkan’s responses while continuing to believe something discredited therein?

Ythill identifies the 2 main things which probably contribute to klebian sensing a 'link':
1) Post frequency
2) Agreement

1) is not a sign of a link at all. I post a lot regardless of who is around me, and I suspect Ythill would be the type to do likewise. I don't think this was really a significant factor in kleb's mind, but I wanted to address it nonetheless.

2) is more difficult. The problem is the very fact that, in mafia, if

one

person takes a view makes it highly likely that

more

people will take that view. I don['t mean any sort of mimicking or anything. What I mean is that what one person finds scummy will

quite likely

be found scummy by other people. The points we agree on are not, in my view, particularly controversial such that the position we took is a strange one (which would make agreement more worthy of re-explanation)

[vollkan]

I have no objection in principle to lynching lurkers - it just depends on the specific circumstances.

Spurg has as many posts as KradDrol (5 apiece). KradDrol is my biggest suspect and one of the most serious lurkers. Thus, I will oppose any move to lynch Spurg on the basis of lurking when KradDrol is, to me, a much better candidate (since he is both suspect and lurker).

KradDrol's s:n is 2:3. Spurg's is 1:4 and I am being exceedingly generous with the 1 s post, which was:

OMGUS!!!1!

And Hypatia - what do you want to hear from me?

The last question is directly game-related, but I really hesitate to call this post s at all.

If KradDrol begins posting again, the debate then becomes whether Spurg's lurking is more lynchworthy than KradDrol's behaviour - and I think it is a legitimate debate worth having. Jennar, too, is up there with KradDrol as a suspicion lynch candidate - so that's another factor that would require consideration.

At the moment, my preference would be for a KradDrol lynch on suspicion (with lurking as an added bonus). A Jennar suspicion lynch (also kind of lurkish, but not lately) and a Spurg lurker lynch sit about equal with each other in my mind.

[vollkan]

False dichotomy.

One can post frequently without going into "mental masturbation" (I don't think I'll inquire as to why you associate extreme frequency with masturbation Confused ).

Lots of spouting off about meta, playstyles, percentages, etc. All posts made to make you seem like you know what you're talking about, but which don't actually do anything but satisfy yourself. I'd really rather not get further into that, as I really don't think it's pertinent anymore.

That's nice...

Would you mind responding to what I

actually

said?

I make a post stating that one can post frequently without mind-wanking, and you respond by attacking the early meta posts. Is this not evasive?

Needless to say, Mills is not a unique offender in respect of vote-hopping (If you really want to call 2 votes vote-hopping). True, both of his votes were serious ones, but I don't see how that bears any contingency on his actions being scummy.

As for your suggestion that he was trying to "derail" the game with his question on FoSes, let me just say that you are stretching things. It wasn't as though his few meta remarks actually caused any tangible disruption. Also, I don't like that you instantly use the word "derail" to imply perfidious intent, with no evidentiary basis for saying so.

At the time, Mills had cast 2 semi-serious votes (later stated by Mills to be only 1 semi-serious vote), whereas the rest of us were still casting random votes. Again, at the time, it seemed like vote hopping to me.

We could debate about whether or not it was a good play tactic, in order to start wagons and discussion, but frankly, I think we've passed the point now.

More unwillingness to debate - this time because "we've passed the point". You accused Mills of vote-hopping, and now you refusing to address my post.

Either way, he's dropped significantly on my radar in regards to the vote hopping so I'm willing to admit that I was wrong on that point.

You can backpedal as much as you like, but the bicycle will not reverse. You made those arguments, I want to see some explanation.

Oh, and why has he dropped "significantly" off your radar? What changed?

As for the derail comment, It was a valid point. We had just started some actual discussion regarding Mills activities and suddenly he drops post 59, which is an attempt to stop talking about him, and to start talking about whether we should be using FoS or votes. To me, that's scummy.

Except for the fact that post 59 was dropped immediately after (with no intervening posts) post 58, which was also by Mills and which was game-related. And then he got right back on task by responding to Ythill. The game was in no way "derailed".

Up to this point, I question the unbalanced intensity of vollkan’s attacks. He seems to hit the seemingly weaker player hardest, taking it easier on those who seem more likely to post intelligent arguments (could be coincidence with this little data).

Agreed. vollkan seems to be giving a free pass to Ythill, Hypatia, etc. Since he suspects me, it's fair that he's attacking me the hardest, but he also seems to be going after Jennar, DD, and Bush. Basically the 2nd - 3rd tier of posters. And although vollkan states that he plays this way in *every* game, he's basically in control of any discussion at this point. I really don't like that.

First up, you are misusing a quote by Ythill. Ythill was referring specifically to my exchanges with Hypatia and Mills. I have already explained the differences in my stances towards those two at the time. What you have done is to take that quote by Ythill and apply it (wrongly, as we will see) to a global context.

Doing so goes against what Ythill himself said at the end of his analysis of me:

Summary

Vollkan’s aggression could be considered suspicious but he’s directed it where appropriate.

Some of his posts could be said to have ulterior motives but that is not to say that they do have ulterior motives; just something to keep an eye on. Vollkan likes to be seen as the voice of authority and we should be careful not to accept his opinions too readily. That said, he is good at wringing information from a slow game.

Secondly, I shall rebut the global arguments you make (despite the quote manipulation):
On Ythill: I've explained my stance towards Ythill already. I haven't given him a free pass, I just don't find him scummy at this stage of things.
On Hypatia: I've actually even expressed minor suspicions of her, a far cry from your alleged "free pass"
On Jennar: My issues with Jennar are all fairly fresh in memory. Suffice to say, I don't care what tier you consider him to be on - I believe his play merits suspicion.
On DD: When did I go after DD? My PBPA conclusion on him was minor suspicion due to lurking - which I believe is a reasonable response.
On Bush: I've treated Bush as I would any other lurker - tempered by the fact that she has an explanation.

Last point of this post, as I need to get going.

I have no hard evidence of this,

but looking back through the PBPAs that vollkan and Ythill have posted, it seems to me that Ythill and vollkan both seem to be implementing a

bussing strategy.

Vollkan lays down a PBPA of the group, while Ythill lays down the PBPA for vollkan. Both players are very active, and are directing suspicions towards lurkers, i.e., away from themselves.

Obviously, I'm suspicious of vollkan, but now I've got my suspicions of Ythill as well, which I can address over the weekend.

1) "I have no hard evidence of this" -> So you can't attack me for making explicitly baseless conjecture.
2) "bussing strategy" -> Bussing is where one scum partner attacks another (often, though not exclusively to the point of having them lynched) as a form of distancing. Misusing mafia jargon doesn't make your point any more valid, and it shows up your hollow attacks for what they are.
3) More generally, what KradDrol is doing is looking at the actions of both myself and Ythill and then rationalising and presenting them through the filter of "What would scum do?" His analysis assumes that we are scum as its premise, and then tries to explain our actions based upon that premise. In this way, he needn't bother dealing with a scenario where both Ythill and myself are pro-town and Ythill analyses me for completeness.

[vollkan]

Vollkan, you seem to have assumed that I wanted a lynch on spurg. I want to clarify that this is not necessarily the case. I wanted a wagon on spurg and a related discussion. This would have served three purposes considering deadline (1) provided us with a last resort lynch candidate to avoid a no lynch, (2) possibly shed light on the motives of everyone on the wagon or involved in the discussion and lead to a 12th-hour content lynch on someone else, and (3) pressured our worst lurker to become involved immediately.

I didn't assume you wanted Spurg to be lynched. From your post, I took the implication that Spurg would be your most favoured lurker lynch (rightly or wrongly) and then argued that KradDrol is not significantly better on the lurker front and has arguments against him. That was my discussion on "the wisdom of lynching lurkers".

Nor do I think anything he’s posted has been worthy of a lynch. A little scummy maybe, but not damning. My main fear was that the deadline/holiday dynamic would have allowed one Mafioso to lead town in a crusade against minor townie mistakes while his buddies hid in the shadows. Which is why I was hesitant to hang someone on incomplete evidence.

And I agree with you here. I would oppose any effort to have KradDrol lynched

at this point in time

. He is the scummiest in my view, but you are correct that he has done nothing which is tremendously damning.

[vollkan]

Lookin' a little slippery there, vollkan. Could you explain exactly what you mean by oppose a lynch (or its equivalent) as regards both Krad and spurg? In what situations, specifically, would you have let this game go to no lynch on D1?

Krad: My biggest suspect, but I would unvote and get annoyed if people started chucking votes on. I would, therefore, oppose him being "lynched

at this point in time

." What I mean is: "He is my preferred candidate at this point in time, but I do not consider the arguments sufficient to justify a lynch at this point in time."

In short:

It's too early to lynch.

Spurg: Obviously, Spurg lynch > No Lynch. When I said "I will oppose any move to lynch Spurg on the basis of lurking when KradDrol is, to me, a much better candidate" what I mean is that I would prefer a KradDrol lynch to a Spurg lynch and would express my opposition. However, if I got forced to pick between Spurg and NL, the former would be preferable.

In short:

Not ideal, but better than nothing.

Nowhere, therefore, do I mean to say that I would prefer a No Lynch.

[vollkan]

I am really nervous about how close we are pushing this.

Finally, to all the townies who were still not voting when we were three days from deadline: you were voting for no lynch. Please get off the fence and get your vote out here so that we can generate information.

I want to add to this that getting off your collective arses is an absolute must right now. It's all well and good saying that we should wagon/vote/lynch so and so, but in the event they claim a power role we want sufficient time to evaluate our options.

The urgency of time does not, however, give any sort of justification for this:

I move we start a bandwagon on Spurgistan.

Vote: Spurgistan

Your lurking of late is not much better than Spurg's tbh (I acknowledge your contributions early on). Moreover, the fact that you are adding nothing right now other than a vote is noted and worrying.

We have just less than 2 days left. Within 24 hours I want us to reach the point of having somebody claim and then lynching or moving on accordingly (with another 24 hours to make up our minds as to candidate #2)

My preferences:
1) KradDrol suspicion
2) Jennar suspicion
3) Lurking (Spurg seems the favourite for this...though I don't know)

* 2) is ranked above 3) due to information value.

One major problem with the Spurg lynch is we won't learn too much from it come tomorrow. In KradDrol and Jennar we have two good candidates that we will at least be able to build some sort of discussion from.

I will support either Krad or Jenn at this stage of the day. The important thing is that

somebody gets to L-1 and claims within 24 hours

.

[vollkan]

LOL. Look back @ #206. The mod extended the deadline four days.

Okay. Well, that means we have just under 6 days. So, I would say that we should give ourselves a margin of 3 days to ensure we are able to make an emergency second choice if something goes wrong.

@ vollkan: This is now the second time that you have missed something obvious in the thread. Last time, your defense seemed to sidestep what I actually think is scummy about this so I will try to explain better. I will not accept a sidestep defense so readily this time, so please answer clearly and/or ask for clarification if you don't understand my point.

Someone who is actually looking for scum should be reading the entire thread carefully. Someone who is only pretending to look for scum only needs to read the posts of his targets carefully. Someone who is as intelligent as you appear to be should not be regularly missing details if he is reading the entire thread carefully. How is it that you keep missing obvious things?

I am in a number of games (5 to be exact), many of which have a deadline in place/have just had a deadline come to pass and have completely lost track of which game has which deadline. I have a vague order of "priority" - this one being fairly high priority - but I frankly don't remember any of the specific dates.

I went back to the front post to see if there was any announcement, and then scrolled until I reached the "3 weeks" thing.

Votecount up to Post 225

spurgistan (3) - Jennar, Ythill, Hypatia
Death's Door (1) - spurgistan
KradDrol (1) - vollkan
Mills (1) - KradDrol
Mookeh (1) - Mills
Ythill (1) - Dean Harper

Not Voting (4) - Death's Door, klebian, Mookeh, Mr. President

7 to lynch.

[vollkan]

Sorry, would you rather we continue the debate about something that happened on page 3? I would assume the issue's been discussed and is dead at this point. You're right that I'm unwilling to debate...on topics that are already passed. I admit I was mistaken with Mills vote hopping, but at the time, it was what I had to go on. This also explains my point below:

The issue is not "dead" for the simple reason that I still hold your false accusation of vote-hopping against you, and I will do so unless and until you actually make some level of sufficient defense against it.

What changed was that I got another six pages of material from Mills that allowed me to revise my thoughts on his motivations.

That may well be the case, but you still are not giving any level of detail.

1.) I'm posting conjecture at this point. I have my suspicions, but as you've noticed, I've not voted or FoSed you yet, because I don't have an evident scumtell from you or Ythill.

So you basically suspect Ythill and myself merely because you can conceive a scenario in which we are scum.

2.) I think that you and Ythill are distancing yourselves at this point. The last few posts after my last post reinforce that point in my mind.

Again, you're assuming we are scum and then framing your argument to fit that assumption. I know you are aware of this, but I am just making sure that it is clear to you that this is not a valid argument.

Look, I'll admit that my reasons for attacking Mills may have been faulty. However, all I have to say about that is that I was going off of what information I was seeing at the time. You guys showed evidence that said that I was wrong, OK. I'm just going off of what I can see. It's particularly difficult in this thread, as I just don't see anyone who is strongly giving scumtells. Maybe this will change later, I'm particularly interested in how the current exchange with vollkan pans out.

Hmm...I'm rather conflicted here. See, Krad's response here is a good one, in that he just admits he made a mistake, rather than pressing the issue any further. It was early on in the game, which gives me some hesitation on this front. The point that frustrates me is that there is basically nothing else from which to assess Krad - other than his responses which are

moderately

scummy (chiefly the conjecturing). The significance of the lack of other material is that it effectively means that the value of the Mills attack is amplified.

This is interesting. Why would you want someone to claim on Day 1? Having a doc or cop claim on Day 1 is disastrous, and anyone can claim town.

Is having a power role claim more or less disastrous than lynching them?

I answer "less disastrous" and, thus, I will always demand a claim before a lynch.

[vollkan]

As expected most players dislike being labeled as scum be default instead of town by default. You seem to have s serious dislike of this. At this current point in the game there is not enough largely to point a definitive figure at anyone. Thus one must turn the chess board to see it from the other side.

Now this may seem like invalid reasoning to you but in every game I have used it I have been spot on about the scum I was pursuing and they have always acted as you have by trying to invalidate the very basis of the argument instead of the points that are addressed.

So please put down the shovel and address the points he listed instead trying to generalize the argument into an invalid point.

Before I address the points, a bit of a theory rant on what you just said:

Well, my experience is the opposite of yours.

I learnt this the hard way back in Mini 486 where I wrongly fingered Elias_the_thief as scum and he made the same arguments that I am making now: that my case assumed scumminess. In Mini 495 I almost made the same mistake on Elias again, but I had learnt to have some more skepticism towards my own assumptions. The same mistake was made against me by Bookitty in Mini 492, but I was able to defend myself by showing that her case assumed I was scum. etc.

The point of these examples is to show you that wherever I have encountered cases of this nature, they have always been wrong.

The reason, I believe, why these cases fail is that they are effectively just "luck of the draw" in terms of

who

the suspect is. It is possible in any situation to construct a narrative of somebody's play with them as scum.

Of course, sometimes we get into situations where we need to decide between a number of candidates of the same level of scumminess. You say that we cannot point a "definitive finger" at anyone, and I agree. You are wrong, however, about "turning the chessboard".

My approach to scumhunting has already been laid out through my PBPAs. I go over everybody and try to find who has the most behaviour which is

most reasonably interpreted as scummy

. I italicise the end there with good reason - we always need to make the judgment of "Is this coming from scum?". However, in certain cases (so-called "scum tells") the leap by which the behaviour is declared scummy is small.

Addressing Krad's arguments:

I already did.

Secondly, I shall rebut the global arguments you make (despite the quote manipulation):
On Ythill: I've explained my stance towards Ythill already. I haven't given him a free pass, I just don't find him scummy at this stage of things.
On Hypatia: I've actually even expressed minor suspicions of her, a far cry from your alleged "free pass"
On Jennar: My issues with Jennar are all fairly fresh in memory. Suffice to say, I don't care what tier you consider him to be on - I believe his play merits suspicion.
On DD: When did I go after DD? My PBPA conclusion on him was minor suspicion due to lurking - which I believe is a reasonable response.
On Bush: I've treated Bush as I would any other lurker - tempered by the fact that she has an explanation.

Last point of this post, as I need to get going. I have no hard evidence of this, but looking back through the PBPAs that vollkan and Ythill have posted, it seems to me that Ythill and vollkan both seem to be implementing a bussing strategy. Vollkan lays down a PBPA of the group, while Ythill lays down the PBPA for vollkan. Both players are very active, and are directing suspicions towards lurkers, i.e., away from themselves.

Obviously, I'm suspicious of vollkan, but now I've got my suspicions of Ythill as well, which I can address over the weekend.

1) "I have no hard evidence of this" -> So you can't attack me for making explicitly baseless conjecture.

*

2) "bussing strategy" -> Bussing is where one scum partner attacks another (often, though not exclusively to the point of having them lynched) as a form of distancing. Misusing mafia jargon doesn't make your point any more valid, and it shows up your hollow attacks for what they are.
3) More generally, what KradDrol is doing is looking at the actions of both myself and Ythill and then rationalising and presenting them through the filter of "What would scum do?" His analysis assumes that we are scum as its premise, and then tries to explain our actions based upon that premise. In this way, he needn't bother dealing with a scenario where both Ythill and myself are pro-town and Ythill analyses me for completeness.

* I realise this might be unclear. I was speaking as Krad in this line here, for the effect of showing the bad ramifications of what he was saying - which was basically trying to disown culpability.

The first bit with the "On Ythill...etc" is responding to his specific querying of my stance towards players.

The latter part is the only defence I can possibly give to an argument which assumes I am scum. He isn't asking me to explain my behaviour; he is simply explaining my behaviour in a way consistent with me being scum. The most I can possibly do is to re-explain my stances towards people - which I did.

Claiming it is anything other then less disastrous is naive and foolish so your statement does not make you look more town. Forcing a day one power role claims is declaring them DOA anyways.

The conundrum exists in that if someone you are willing to lynch day one and power claims what possible reason could you have to believe them?

Also if Death's Door and Spurgistan could please drop in and give their thoughts on Krad's hypothesis it would be appreciated.

Let's say that player X is a power role "abcd". X is bought to L-1 and claims "abcd". Now, the players then have a choice of:
1) Believing that X is abcd and lynching elsewhere
2) Not believing that X is abcd and lynching X
Neither of these is a "stupid" or an obvious response; it depends on the circumstances, how the player has behaved and the likelihood of abcd being a fakeclaim.

Let's say 1) is chosen. The effects are as follows:
* If close to a deadline, it is likely town will have to make a rushed decision lynching elsewhere. This is bad, but if they have decided abcd is likely, then it is less bad than lynching X because...
* Scum are placed in a difficult position with the NK. Depending on the nature of abcd, they may be strongly compelled to NK X, unless they decided to play WIFOM tricks, which are not guaranteed to work and which could be costly the longer X survives. Thus, there is a strong pressure on the scum to NK X. This means that town has some degree of

control over the NK

.
Let's say 2) is chosen. The effects are as follows:
* Town will either be right or wrong. If wrong (and I have seen this happen before) town will be kicking themselves. If right, then hoorah.
* Mafia get free NK

Sometimes 1) is better; sometimes 2) is better. It depends on the facts, so I won't declare some grand global rule. Nonetheless, it is better to keep a class 1) power role alive, then to lynch purely because you don't want a claim.

[vollkan]

@ vollkan: After a reread of page 9, I am withdrawing my statement about your defense being flawless. You'd made two posts in between #206 and your error, which suggests that you read the thread for content (not just to clarify the deadline) at least once. Even if you honestly missed the mod's post entirely during a careful read, I find it suspicious that you missed me mentioning it in #207, the rest of which post you directly replied to and even quoted. I insist that you are reading the posts of Krad and Jennar more carefully than you are reading others', which could point to dishonest scum-hunting.

The first post I made between #206 and my realisation of error was one where I quoted the very post in which you mentioned the extension (#207). However, note that I did not quote the entire post, but only those bits germane to myself.

I recall reading of the extension (or, rather,

an

extension because I don't keep track all that well) and your response but it is not a detail which I pay very much attention to and lock into mind.

It's wrong to say I read Krad and Jennar uniquely closely; any discussion I have with a player will result in me reading the other player carefully to make sure I properly address what has been said. Thus, the effect of this is that players whom I am discussing/arguing with will end up having their posts analysed by me in somewhat more detail (cf. posts I don't respond to/respond to in brief because there is nothing to be really said). Obviously, Krad and Jennar are two players I have been having most debate with of late. That does not, however, mean that their posts are receiving unique attention (just look at my responses to your own posts if you want proof of this).

I readily admit that I read signal with much more interest than I read noise. When I do make mental notes of things, I note "signal". Thus, when I read your post, I quoted the bits I wanted to address myself and left it at that. You thanking Chaos for the deadline is noise. Thus, whilst I no doubt read it in my initial skim of your post, it was not one of the details which I found comment-worthy, and, therefore, the deadline extension was forgotten.

As I said before, I had this game at a high priority deadline level, but had forgotten the specific date. Thus, I went back to page 1 and found the 3 week thing, which fitted with my "high priority" when I worked it out.

[vollkan]

OMG guys its just walls and walls of text. I'm trying to read and come up with comments, but u are making it really hard...

This really is annoying me now. I just looked at your posts in isolation and the lack of anything meaningful is frankly pathetic.

This game is going to be content-heavy and will only get more so from here. You aren't keeping up with the discussion on D1, so I dread to think of how poorly you will do as things progress (and the posts get inevitably longer).

I know for a fact that I am not going to be cutting down my posts, and the other players who post wallz will most likely also be unable/unwilling to. So, rather than complaining, get used to it.

[vollkan]

For the record, it made me sad to spend all that time re-reading the thread and making a case to not even receive any indication that my post was even read at all.

I JUST WANT TO BE LOVED

So that was the result of your reread? I thought you might have had some more remarks to make (ie. more than just an attack on Mookeh) but if that's all then I will address it.

Looking through his posts, the majority attempt to provide 'signal' (as opposed to 'noise') but I couldn't help feeling that the majority of them were subtly contentless. A lot of the posts just seem to be parroting what other people have said (ie. Post 79) or making general statements about mafia and this game (ie. Post 53).

This is entirely correct. I just skimmed over Mookeh and picked out "signal" posts, to see how valuable his contribution really is.

Small point on the only other player I know from a previous game: Jennar is playing exceedingly scummy here. Unfortunately, he was also playing scummily in Open 45 - and he turned out to be FBI. He was forced to claim D1 because of this. So he's a wild card. Yet there's something about him that seems off to me in this game: can't place my finger on what it is yet. Will post more on this later on.

It looks signal, but it ends up being meta and wishy-washy ("something about him that seems off")

Maybe I'm imagining things but it seemed like he made the original point about my post in this game (which I agree with) but when I asked for evidence of the previous game in which he said he did a similar thing, he links to a post where I can't really see the connection between his post in that game and my post in this game.

Well, I can - so maybe I'm interpreting it differently or you haven't been paying attention. His post was criticizing him for standing on the sidelines and basically waiting for a lynch. My post was criticizing that player for standing on the sidelines and maybe waiting for a bandwagon to jump on. Exact same thing.

Now, the fact that you didn't read it properly shows you're either sloppy or you're trying to strawman me. At this point I was going for sloppy, but:

Mookeh made a post saying that something I did wasn't necessarily pro-town (which is a sentiment I agree with) and also suggested that he had empirical evidence.

That's an obvious strawman you're being caught on. I never said I had empirical evidence. All I said I was playing in a previous game and used that argument as well. You proceeded to ask for a link. That's a spin, no matter how you look at it.

I did not make a mistake, and I did not lie. I'll post a simple version of what just took place:

Mookeh: Yeah it's basically a non-tell, used it in another game where I was scum.
Mills: Link?
Mookeh: Here you go.
Mills: I don't see the connection! You're LYING! You said you had empirical evidence!
Mookeh: Wtf?

Get my point?

This one is defense signal.

vollkan: I don't like how vollkan has been playing. I may be alone in this, but he seems to be way too aggressive in his posting. When he sees something scummy he jumps on it with a vengeance. This may or may not be scummy, but I'm not liking it right now.

I think it's refreshing, to be honest. Too often enough, players are scared to jumpstart the game in fear of being bandwagoned. New players often find themselves crumbling under their own logic and being attacked on all sides (by both Town and Scum). While I still think the hunting is a non-tell, I'm not actually getting any strong scummy vibes from him yet.

Ythill: He was the biggest opponent to Mills in the argument over the vote on me. He accused Mills of vote hopping even though he only made 2 votes total, and says Mills jumped off the wagon once a little suspicion was given to it.

I agree: Ythill has been sloppy.

I have a question for you, DD: When you say people should 'distuingish themselves from the pack more', what are you getting it? Do you simply want them to speak up so you can get a more accurate read?

Important notice to everyone: I'll be taking a trip from Europe to Florida tomorrow: the entire trip will last more than 24 hours so during that period I'm not here. I will be taking my laptop with me and will have internet access at most of my hotels. I'll post when I have access again.

The first bit on me adds nothing and is basically just theory. The latter bit where he just says "Ythill has been sloppy" (he meant Krad) is just flat agreement

I don't. Mills' criticism of KradDrol is justified, but I used the same criticism in a previous game when I was scum. It's not a tell either way, I'm afraid.

We see no real attacks from him, just agreement and theory.

In addition, it seems like he is taking the opportunity to have little digs at people. I'm not sure if I'm stretching here since townspeople are supposed to be actively scum hunting but it just feels, to me, like he is tossing out little attacks so that the target is made to look slightly scummier but people don't really remember him as being responsible for the 'attack' so that he doesn't become memorable for it. Examples would include where he attacks Hypatia in Post 35, myself in Post 79, Ythill (mistakenly) in Post 102 before correcting the target to KradDrol and Jennar in Post 190 for 'something he can't put his finger on'). Obviously there are other players in this game who have attacked multiple people (as a good townsperson should) but I just can't help but feel that it is a little different here through the way the 'attacks' have been carried out.

The 35 attack on Hypa was justified, given what she had asked of Spurg. You in 79, the "dig" is him saying what you did is a null-tell. That is not really a "dig" - it just negates something as a town-tell. The 102 attack on Krad is just (as stated above) blunt agreement with nothing added. The Jennar attack is vague and weird; I agree.

Basically, I think you raise a few valid points about Mookeh (Let me raise Mookeh to 55%). I don't think it is worth a content-vote at this stage, though, given what I see as much more tangible cases on Krad and Jennar.

[vollkan]

Time to move toward consensus. There is never a guarantee of a good lynch on D1. IMO, there is even less of a guarantee in a game with preset deadlines. In other circumstances, lynching based on alignment would vastly outweigh any other consideration and I still think it’s the most important factor here, but I also believe that the other factors are important, so I’m going to try to look at the big picture.

I don't think the deadline significantly impacts on our likely success; it's not like the length was unreasonable. Obviously, however, the fact this is D1 means we are automatically less likely to lynch scum.

Jennar/Krad: I trust scumtells dropped while defending far less than I trust those dropped without provocation. It is a fact that some players argue better than others, it is also a fact that some players seem slimy when trying to debate with someone more skilled than them. I bring this up because each of these guys made only one scummy post without provocation. Neither of them is even on my most wanted list at this point.

Hmm. You are taking what they did on their own, not what they did in argument against me. I don't particularly like this approach, though, because I try and get information by "interrogating" - so obviously argument is among my chief tools.

Do you find their responses scummy, even if you are choosing not to factor them into your assessment (if that is what you are doing; I may be mistaken)?

Mills: I’ve seen more scumtells than towntells here. My major concern is what he passes off as scumhunting. He also seems quite concerned with our opinions of how he is playing. Mills is not my PE#1 but he is in my top three, for the reasons stated here and in my last analysis.

Hmm, with Mills the interesting thing is that he opens with an attack on DD for a pretty poor reason and then slips away until he comes out with the case on Mookeh, which is hardly fantastic, and no comment on anybody else. It's odd that he sort of slinks off after getting hit pretty hard (and rightly so) over the DD vote stuff.

Information Potential

(I could be mistaken here, this stuff is pretty complex)

• spurg: confirmed scum suggests nothing, confirmed town suggests nothing, the wagon without culpability or elaborate defenses (if any) will suggest very little
  
• Jennar: confirmed scum would cast light suspicion on Krad and
  falsely clear
  vollkan/me; confirmed town would cast light suspicion on vollkan/me; wagon defenses would be solid and give us some good leads
  
• Mookeh: confirmed scum would cast light suspicion on vollkan and Hypatia, and would send mixed signals about Mills; confirmed town would cast light suspicion on Mills; wagon defenses would probably be solid and give us some leads, depending on how strong he returns from vacation
  
• Krad: confirmed scum would cast light suspicion on Jennar, clear Mills, and falsely clear vollkan; confirmed town would cast light suspicion on vollkan; wagon defenses would be decent and probably give us some leads
  
• Mills: confirmed scum would cast suspicion on Dean and klebian, give mixed signals on Mookeh, clear Krad of vollkan’s accusations, clear DD/spurg, and falsely clear vollkan/me, it could also lead to light suspicion on vollkan; confirmed town would cast suspicion on me, cast light suspicion on vollkan/Krad, cast very light suspicion on a few others, and falsely clear Dean; wagon defenses would be weak at first but stronger as time passed, which could create a mixture of good leads and red herrings.

(Question: What does "falsely clear" mean?)

Since this bit is complicated, I'll list the same people and give my own thoughts:

• Jennar: I think you are right on both accounts here.
  
• Mookeh: I'm interested as to the effects you list for scumMookeh. In what way does it slightly embroil Hypa and myself? I gather that for Mills you mean that the light case he presented could be taken as class distancing.
  
• Krad: I agree.
  
• Mills: I'd like a bit of elaboration on this, if you don't mind. It's not that I disagree, it's that I don't know the basis (or only have sketchy ideas thereof) for anything you discuss here.

Lurking

• Mills and Mookeh: not applicable, Mookeh’s been light lately but only because of a pre-announced vacation
  
• Jennar: started light, defended his lurking as strategic town, has posted content since
  
• Krad: gave one excuse for early lurking, played for awhile, another excuse for later lurking, now is playing again
  
• spurg: doesn’t post content, doesn’t respond to player prods, responds very lightly to mod prods, obviously the worst

No issues here.

Chance of Reaching Consensus

• Jennar/Krad/Mookeh: Each has come under serious attack from one player (two for Jennar). Each has been suggested openly as the direction for some time now without apparent interest from others. I must wonder if the time spent pushing one of these will end in a lynch, or if it will be wasted. Another problem with any of these guys is that we are being asked to follow a single accuser.
  
• Mills: At least three of us have made separate serious attacks against Mills, a few others have made smaller attacks or have otherwise disagreed with him. I think consensus is more likely here than on the three listed above. I also feel a little safer going with someone who has been seen as scummy by more than one outspoken accuser (and with the fact that I am one of the most outspoken accusers).
  
• spurg: There’s three votes on him now and at least one player willing to vote him as a last resort. It would be a policy lynch (so there’s little culpability in voting) and may go off without much defense. My problem here is that he’s a lot of people’s last resort and I think we can do better than that.

• Jennar/Krad/Mook: No guesses as to identity of the "single accuser" for Jennar and Krad; I've been fairly clear that they are my two suspects. And, for Mook, Mills is the only person pushing that case (and it isn't exactly a particularly convincing one)
  
• Mills: I see three main arguments that can be raised against Mills:
  [1] The weird opening attack on DD
  [2] Then we had the first attack on Mookeh with the misreference (I don't myself value this to any extent, but I know it was called 'strawmanning')
  [3] Lurking/non-content
  
  I don't really think this is much better at all than Mills' case on Mookeh tbh. Unless I have missed something, there is nothing damning that can really be levelled against Mills.
  
• And the high level of consensus on Spurg makes me worried. It's an easy lynch for scum and we open at the same information deadlock (less any information gained by the reveal/s after any NKs). Again, let me stress, an information lynch will be vastly more beneficial. Lynching Spurg is tempting, I know, but it is a cop-out and won't help us tomorrow - forcing us to rely on the NK to churn something up, which is NOT something we want to be doing

Power Role Safety

• Jennar/Krad/Mookeh: There is nothing to suggest heavily that they
  do not
  have power roles. Not taking logic of this sort any further.
  
• spurg: He seems unconcerned with this game, including being unconcerned with the prospect of a wagon on him. To me, this suggests strongly that he is either scum or vanilla. Less chance of lynching a power-role here, less need to call for counter-claims on the event of a false claim. I could be wrong though.
  
• Mills: Said, “I would support a lynch on me.” If he’s town, he’s come right out and told us he’s not a power-role. So, if he’s scum and fake claims, we know he’s lying. No chance of lynching a power-role. No need for counter-claims in the event of a fake-claim.

I don't know how reliable it is to judge power likeliness from activity. The argument can also be made that power roles will lurk in order to avoid the scum. It's ultimately a WIFOM matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
As far as Mills goes, he is a player who acted quite scummy early on and then slipped away to return with some fairly mediocre attacks on Mookeh. He isn't at the top of my list, by any means, but I would not oppose this if push came to shove. A content lynch of Mills will be more helpful than a lurker lynch of Spurg.

[vollkan]

Oh yeah? Well, 2 can play at THAT game...

Vote: Spurgistan because we NK'd a vanilla instead of a power role. (Jordan thought we might wanna lynch you but we figured Petunho was town-ier and was on to us in a way)

I just felt like it was a random vote with a non-serious OMGUS thrown in (which is perfectly fine) but scum tend to second-guess themselves and sometimes ramble which is what I see when he puts that whole explanation on the end of his vote. I still say it is suspicious and to hell with you all if you disagree. Smile I just found Mookeh more suspicious for the above reasons.

The evolution of Mills' vote for DD

Unvote
Vote:Death's Door

I'm getting off this spurgistan bandwagon because it was never my intention to start one on him in the first place - I just wanted him to explain his initial vote.

I didn't like Death's Door's vote for spurgistan. Not because it was a second vote (because at some point on the first day, someone will have to make a second vote inevitably) but just because I didn't like really like the tone of the OMGUS. It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game.

This was the first post by Mills on this point. From the bolded sentence, he implies that the vote being OMGUS is scummy - because the OMGUS nature is something which DD needs to "pass off" as something else. This is affirmed by the fact that it is the "tone of the OMGUS" which he dislikes.

Now Mills has said that the problem was with the second-guessing and rambling, with the OMGUS being "perfectly fine". And it goes without saying that he makes no mention of the allegations of "rambling" and "second-guessing" which now constitute his argument against DD

...
Moreover, why is DD's (Death's Door's) "random" (obviously, no vote other than stupid dice votes are random) vote even worthy of comment, yet alone scummy? If it was OMGUS, why is that scummy at this stage?

...
2. I was implying that his vote might not have been random - not in the sense that "no vote is random" but in the sense that I felt he wanted to vote for spurgistan and needed a spurious reason to do so (ie. OMGUS, past game context). Obviously, if I felt this about Death's Door's post, it would be worthy of comment by myself and subsequently worthy of my vote. Henceforth, we arrive at my previous post in which I did both of these things.

This time round, it's that DD has some sinister motivation for wanting to vote - which he conceals through OMGUS and past meta. This is important: In the first post it was the OMGUS which was being "passed off" as random voting, but now the OMGUS and the past game stuff is cover for DD's assumed sinister motivation.

So...casting an OMGUS "random" vote is a scumtell?

...
No - an OMGUS vote is not always a scumtell.

No - a "random" vote is not always a scumtell.

No - an OMGUS "random" vote is not always a scumtell.

Yes - voting for someone because you want to (no doubt for nefarious purposes within the context of the game) and passing it off as OMGUS and/or "random" is a scumtell.

I believe that this last case is what is occurring here based on the general tone and structure of the post. It's what I personally feel and I don't expect everyone to interpret the posts by players in the same way. Subsequently, you may not agree with my particular interpretation but that does not mean that I am any less entitled to it.

This is a reiteration of the previous, with the same problems applying.

I must say, if I'm scum, I'm doing a pretty horrible job. What kind of experienced player gets a scum role, then tries to convince everyone to lynch a player that no one has even really considered. We're heading into WIFOM territory but, were I scum, I could have easily jumped on a spurgistan bandwagon when 24 hours ago it looked like he would be an easy consensus lynch. My gut still says he is town though and my investigations say Mookeh isn't. So I voted accordingly.

Maybe you're scum with Spurg. Maybe you're scum who doesn't want to be associated with the wagon of a town Spurg. Maybe you're scum with Mookeh doing some kid glove distancing. Maybe you are scum and Mookeh is a townie you a trying to get lynched.

I'll be blunt and say you are correct this is WIFOM territory. Your stance on Spurg is inconclusive regardless of his alignment. Among other factors, it might mean something later on, but for now it is not enough on its own to influence my view of you.

[vollkan]

I am not afraid to admit that I had trouble explaining my vote on DD which I think was clear to all involved.

Oh? I remind you of what you said back then:

I probably should have mentioned earlier when we discussed ourselves for meta purposes that I get frustrated when I have to keep re-explaining something which I find particularly clear (especially after the second explanation). But I digress and in the interest of pleasantries, I will once again explain since you have missed the point for a second time.

and then:

I'm not explaining a fourth time. You've obviously missed the point on both issues.

I don't raise this as another contradiction, but in these posts you make it sound like this is my fault for not understanding you, whereas now you are fairly clear that you were having trouble. If you were really having problems explaining it, then it's odd that you would take such an approach, rather than saying: "Look, I'm sorry but I am having trouble articulating this." etc.

All I can do is admit that I made a mistake in my explanation and suggest that I feel the correct explanation is what I have just said in my previous post.

I expected something like this would happen when I posted:

See, Krad's response here is a good one, in that he just admits he made a mistake, rather than pressing the issue any further.

I knew when I posted this that it would raise a prickly scenario the next time somebody confesses to a cock-up. See, the issue now exists as to whether Mills is trying to take advantage of the fact that I showed some leniency to KradDrol for an admission.

Dear god I am burying myself. Upon further reflection, I don't think I have contradicted myself as much as I, at first, thought. The rest of what I said was correct though (ie. I had trouble explaining it at first and did a poor job of it).

I originally said:

"It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game."

I think I should have said:

"It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS vote but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game."

ie. It was an 'OMGUS' so I have used this term synomonously here for 'vote' which was a horrible, horrible idea and put the wrong focus on my argument.

I feel I have explained the vote much, much better in the previous previous post and I hope (assuming you can get past the infelicities in my language) that you can see that I have been trying to say the same thing all along and I just haven't explained it very well. Which makes the whole thing look like a series of contradictions. Absolutely wonderful.

OMGUS = OMGUS vote.

There is no difference here. In both cases it is the OMGUS that he needs to pass off as something else.

If you had made no mention of OMGUS, then maybe you would have a point, but you used the word OMGUS and it featured in your subsequent explanations as well.

Also, you cut part of the first quote out.

I didn't like Death's Door's vote for spurgistan. Not because it was a second vote (because at some point on the first day, someone will have to make a second vote inevitably) but just because I didn't like really like the tone of the OMGUS. It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game.

Now, if OMGUS is a synonym for "vote" than we have no problem. However, it still seems bizarre that in the first post you focus on the OMGUS itself, but then later on the OMGUS becomes a factor along with the meta.

Your explanation is "sufficient" (it covers everything) but it's also very slippery.

[vollkan]

Anyway, I think I will let this issue lie unless people have further questions (and by all means, if you have them, ask them). That isn't to say that we should forget that I have made a mistake here (it is after all a scum-tell) but rather that I have no more to say on the issue unless there are questions to be answered.

Okay. I already said your explanation was "sufficient", but I have significant skepticism about this.

I don't see how I can bring this up without it looking like I am trying to deflect heat but I admit I am a little gobsmacked that Ythill would vote for information instead of scumminess. Perhaps you think I am scummy too (you obviously do) but I don't see why an information argument ever needs to come into it (nor a power-role argument for that matter). Where I come from that is considered about as big a taboo as no lynch on Day One and I have been quietly wondering if that is an acceptable reason for lynching on this website.

The best information comes from a content lynch. Ythill seems to think you are the best candidate for a content lynch. I disagree and would place either Krad or Jennar in that slot instead. Lynching purely because a particular lynch will reveal information about certain people doesn't make much sense because, obviously, the people pushing the "information" lynch ought to be held to account for its consequences (whatever way it goes).

[vollkan]

vollkan: KradDrol (5), Jennar (4), spurgistan (3)

That's incorrect (not that I blame you).

Krad and Jennar are my top 2, but Spurg (despite being the only other player I have named) is only a "last resort" candidate.

Earlier, I did say that a Jennar suspicion lynch sits equal with a Spurg lurker lynch, but my meaning there was made ambiguous in that I was responding to a post by Ythill.

I clarified my position later when I said:

My preferences:
1) KradDrol suspicion
2) Jennar suspicion
3) Lurking (Spurg seems the favourite for this...though I don't know)

* 2) is ranked above 3) due to information value.

Mills ought to be slipped in between 2) and 3), given the latest events (not so suspect in my mind as Jennar and Krad, though).

[vollkan]

That sounds fine, but Spurg can basically be substituted for "Any lurker" - because there are numerous viable candidates.

[vollkan]

I'm considering replacing out of this game since it's impossible to have a read on 50% of the players with barely any posts. Which sort of makes me sad. They should probably have different sign-ups for high content players and low content players. Stick all the lurkers in the same game.

There is another remedy...

I advocated this in Mini 492 and I might as well raise it here, since I think this will only get worse - modkilling of lurkers. That game's situation was somewhat more dire - in that the mod had suggested abandoning the game (which really rubbed me the wrong way) so I pushed to have the lurkers modkilled instead.

The mod insisted that consent to the modkilling be unanimous (and allowed scum to post one thing in thread but send a different message by PM, so as not to be disadvantaged should they take a different view to the majority).

Basically, I would rather have a whole string of modkills than play for weeks in "waiting for replacement limbo".

For now, however, I recommend we finish this day with a suspicion lynch and then, tomorrow, we discuss the lurker problem.

[vollkan]

Point One:

Mills has a favored target. Several people agreed that Mills’ first argument with Mookeh (about the meta) was baseless. Upon rereading, I found it so baseless and pointless that it appeared contrived. It was “coincidentally” timed to begin as Mookeh left for vacation (and Mills’ “poor timing” is another one of my points for later). Mills had clear motive to take the stance he did, because Mookeh was challenging Dean’s town-tell on Mills and calling it a null-tell.

Much later (in #210), Mills promises a reread from which he comes back with no evidence or opinions except a mediocre case against Mookeh. The case happens in #222, which is Mills next post after he realized aloud that he is likely to be a lynch target (#217). Again, this sets up motive for his scummy attack.

Questions: Did Mills’ reread everyone or just Mookeh in isolation? If everyone, why not post other opinions? If only Mookeh, was his tunnel vision residual from the first argument? If not, what scum-tells did Mills see in Mookeh before the reread?

I don't agree with you on the timing, since it might well just be coincidental.

That said, you are correct that Mills has favoured attacking Mookeh and has only produced substandard attacks (and the timing of the attack with him coming under pressure is a good point).

Obviously the statistics touted in #263 are false, which could be the result of (1) mistakes, (2) townie desperation, or (3) scummy manipulation.

I did a similar thing in Mini 495 (vanilla townie). I did mine differently to Mills in that I got all active players to post lists and, when I did make assumptions, I clearly identified them/listed nothing. I don't think what Mills did is prima facie scummy, though.

And he DID acknowledge it was inaccurate.

(1) Does Mills seem short-sighted or unintelligent enough to make such glaring errors? Is he short enough on posting time that errors of this magnitude could be caused by him rushing? I think not on both counts.

He seems intelligent enough, but I wouldn't rule it out as an error. Forming a "suspicion consensus" thing SHOULD NOT be done this early in the game. The problem here is that we have very few active players, and suspicions are all over the place.

(2) Townie desperation then? Remember that I’ve already shown pretty clearly that Mills is not a power role. Would a townie rationally sew this many false statements in his defense unless he was extremely desperate? Is he under enough votes (just mine) or scrutiny (me & vollkan plus Krad maybe on the way) to justify this level of panic in a vanilla townie? Again, no on both counts.

You may have a point here. It really looks like deflection, but again, he admitted it was not meant to be accurate.,

Which leaves option (3): scummy manipulation. It seems extremely clear, from #263, that I was right about Mills.

It doesn't make your view "extremely clear" in correctness. I don't really like how strongly you have attacked #263. Mills wasn't holding it to be authoritative.

[vollkan]

Vollkan suggests that all of this could be error and oversight in spite of your apparent level of intelligence. I think he gives your integrity far too much credit and your intellect far too little but I could be wrong on either account. I will accept error as a slim possibility here. Again, error doesn’t explain the extremely convenient timing of your own shift in opinion.

I should also point out that coincidence is becoming your middle name. The timing of your spurg unvote in relation to that wagon coming under fire was “unfortunate.” The timing of your attack on Mookeh could have been coincidence (according to vollkan). A long list of “mistakes” and suspicious mind changes incidentally lead #263 to conclusions that favored your position. You are drawing us a picture of a random world; personally, I believe in cause and effect.

Mills' list was deeply flawed, I am not disputing that. Everything you say about it being a false smokescreen is "valid" - it is not ridiculous. BUT (and this is a big BUT) I think the extent to which you are hammering Mills on this point is excessive.

It's either a cock-up or a conspiracy (by Mills) and I don't believe we have anything which suggests either way. I am not being overly-generous towards Mills; I am simply saying that I do not believe the significance of this as a scumtell is as much as your attacks on it would seem to suggest.

He admitted it was going to be inaccurate and didn't even list anything for 7 players. No matter what his alignment, it is clearly a mistake from Mills, but is it more likely to come from town, or scum? As I have said, I formed a similar list in Mini 495 as town, but I was more accurate (though not entirely so) in my listings.

"Extremely clear" was admittedly bombast. I am a creative writer by hobby and have a bad rhetoric habit. It isn’t intentional. To the thread at large, please take my use of slanted adjectives with a grain of salt.

Sure. I used to get attacked for the same thing, and have since made an effort to tone down my language. I'll keep it in mind.

You may be right that I have attacked #263 a little too hard but it registered as very scummy to me. Mills didn’t preface it at all, didn’t ask us to list our choices for this purpose, and didn’t make any effort to clarify our opinions before posting. He has a conflict of interest in assigning himself as the list keeper. His manipulation of the conclusion seems obvious IMO.

But he even said in the following post:

And I would also like everyone to check in so that we can get the full consensus list of points and a proper order on consensus suspicion (for example, I suspect I will move into first or second instead of fourth).

If he was really into misrepresenting, why would he bother posting something like this?

I guess I am seeing this sort of as him posting a deeply flawed "draft list" and then asking for improvements.

Would this same list, posted with the same errors and conclusion, be more or less suspicious if it had been posted by someone else?

No more suspicious, and no less.

Do you really believe coincidence is responsible for the way Mills’ “errors” lead to the listed conclusion?

I really don't like the way he added in suspicions which just happen to get him out of the top 2. The rest of it is feasible as a mistake, but is still drastically wrong. I don't think where you are coming from on this is ridiculous, but (again) just too

extreme

.

I'm not excusing Mills for this, but I am more wary of the possibility that this might just be the result of error than you seem to be.

Do you see how Mills conflict of interest in keeping this list could lead to conclusions flawed in a similarly convenient manner in the future?

Since he asked for clarifications, I don't think that the grossly erroneous results would have lasted very long. The concern niggling on my mind here is if it was just orchestrated to get a Hypatia lynch today by having the lurkers slap votes on but, again, the fact he asked for clarifications makes me doubt that any attempt to falsify consensus would last.

Do you believe we have time to perfect his list in order that it will be a useful tool for reaching consensus?

No. Right now, we don't have enough time to wait for everyone to post a list. We need

EACH PERSON TO VOTE

so that we can get a lynch today. I will not accept a last-minute lurker lynch.

More importantly, do you think Mills believes this?

I'm very skeptical. See above for my concern about trying to use this to get a lynch on Hypatia.

Finally, do you see how Mills’ incomplete/running summary, with its brightly colored, conveniently flawed conclusion, could affect the opinions of our less active players in spite of his disclaimer?

Again, see above. To recapitulate: I believe that such a dodgy list could have the effect of prompting lurkers to try and fit with the concocted consensus. For that, I dislike it.

Moderator: Please replace me.

It is not fun to be in a game with 9 (mostly) inactive players, 1 who is a little crazy and 1 who thinks he needs to outdo a dictionary.

I am not impressed.

[vollkan]

I believe we have 3 days until deadline. I want at least 2 days up our sleeves following a claim.

Thus, the time to decide is right now.

Hypatia, an IGMEOY is not sufficient at this stage. If you want Mills lynched, vote for Mills. The important thing right now is to have a lynch which will get us information. The lurker problem can be dealt with tomorrow. The fact is that we have so many lurkers right now that lynching one is not going to substantially fix the problem. Thus, the most sensible thing is to lynch for suspicion.

I am going to continue voting for KradDrol and have a "Finger of Vote" on Jennar: both are ideal candidates in my mind. A Mills lynch will have my support if nothing else looks to have the momentum behind it (and, from where I am sitting, that looks to be the case).

VOTE

[/color]

[vollkan]

unvote

vote: Mills

Good. You voted. Now, why Mills?

[vollkan]

Unofficial Vote Count

Mills (3) - KradDrol, Dean, Mills
Jennar (1) - Ythill
DD(1) - spurgistan (***

SPURG, you forgot to unvote DD before you voted Dean. **

)
KradDrol (1) - vollkan
spurgistan (1) - Jennar (***

JENNAR, you forgot to unvote Spurg before voting Mookeh**

)


Not Voting (5) - Death's Door, Hypatia, klebian, Mookeh, Mr. President

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you can see, the votes are still all over the place. Only Mills has more than 1 vote. 7 votes are needed for a lynch, and we want 6 votes on someone very quickly so they can claim.

[vollkan]

I actually wasn't talking about vollkan

Does that mean I was the crazy one? If so, why?

[vollkan]

Vollkan, your vote is available and you have already stated your willingness to pursue this lynch but we have two days before deadline. Is there anything else that people would like to discuss before night falls?

He's claimed godfather now. For meta reasons, that demands lynching. I agreed with most of the arguments, but you know where I thought you were being a little heavy-handed.

Mills' claim has now forced this course of action:

Unvote, Vote: Mills

. If you are not scum, I am going to be furious.

[vollkan]

How often is there a godfather in a 12 player game? Thought you would know better than that vollkan. ROFL!!!

Godfathers are commonplace. Are you saying you fakeclaimed?

[vollkan]

Mills, you have no idea how unbelievably annoyed I am at you. If you don't want to play, fine, but it's just completely wrong of you to resort to what is basically sabotage.

We need to have full participation today; meaning that the lurkers in this game need to become active.

Many thanks to the mod for imposing the requirement that people post within one week

[vollkan]

We've got 3 townie bodies. Any guesses as to the setup? Vig seems likely. Two scum-groups in a mini is pretty rare, isn't it?

SK is also a viable possibility.

In fact, it's possible that one cop was a SK cop and the other was a mafia cop. That's just speculation, though, and it might just be two ordinary cops.

[vollkan]

Completely honest question for the field: what is the point of a sarcastic scum-claim and then a retraction? In my short time here, this is the second time I've seen this. The other time (game still running), the confessor was eventually revealed to be town.

I ask that the hammer be withheld until we at least touch on this subject.

In hindsight, I should have unvoted here. Still I am wondering why vollkan's hammer post seems to credit his vote to me and Mills, as if actively dodging blame for the decision. I am also wondering how he justifies quoting me asking for the hammer when I posted #306 between that request and #312 where it was honored. Vollkan?

The answer is the same as to your second question:

Could you explain what you mean here? What "meta reasons" and why do they demand the lynch?

Mills had claimed scum. In his last post before hammer he claimed GF. Despite his previous retraction (which I would have ignored even if he had not later claimed GF) he was in a state of "having claimed scum". Scum claims are an offense that I will lynch on automatically (In the random voting stage, I may just get extremely pissed off).

Meta reasons: Townies should, generally, not lie. However, I have lied as town in the past, chiefly in Mini 486 where I claimed one-shot vig where I was actually an ordinary vig-mason. Power role situations like that are an exception to the rule. Therefore, townies should never EVER claim scum as a violation of the rule "Lynch all Liars". But there is more to it than that: If players can claim scum and survive (usually the result of annoyance, such as in the case of Mills) then we open up a means by which scum can avoid lynch.

Person:

- "But how is that any different to claiming vanilla?"
Answer: When a player claims vanilla (and often even a power role), they are still under an obligation to explain their actions in full. When a player claims scum ("I'm a GF! LYNCH ME!") they avoid the need to explain their actions.

Allowing scum claims (where "allowing" means not hammering instantly) gives scum an avenue to avoid any need to explain

all of the time

- forcing the town to become confident enough to lynch in the absence of argument (which is often the means by which suspicions are confirmed).

Also, I didn't use you as justification for the hammer.

He's claimed godfather now. For meta reasons, that demands lynching. I agreed with most of the arguments, but you know where I thought you were being a little heavy-handed.

Mills' claim has now forced this course of action: Unvote, Vote: Mills . If you are not scum, I am going to be furious.

I am saying that I am suspicious of him, though not to the same extent that you were. However, him claiming scum forces me to hammer because I will not allow claimed scum to live.

[vollkan]

We can blame the Mills mislynch on my pushing, on the votes of the other living bandwagoners (which are all scummy to varying degrees), or on Mills' own actions but I think the real culprit is our inactivity. We were rushing to reach consensus before deadline and it was bad for town. Are we going to do that again today?

No.

I think the best place to start is by investigating those who were on the wagon, such as was just commenced in respect of myself.

However, I am going to refrain from attacking them until I actually see content from somebody other than Ythill, because it's ridiculous that there are only two of us posting.

[vollkan]

Vollkan: I won't really be able to get to him. I did note some things I didn't like about his play in my earlier analysis, and I do feel that as a whole his play is not comparing up to ythill's. Still, he is again an active contributor and is helping this game keep going. However, I feel that he may have stayed off mills a bit longer than I would've expected from him, and the hammer was a bit premature. He's not someone I'm going to call 'viable scum' at this point but I do think he's not one of the least scummy.

In your earlier analysis there are a few points where you disagree with me, and in respect of the Mookeh-reference stuff you have a clear issue with me. I want to know what you mean by that you feel my play is not "comparing" up to Ythill's, though, since you don't seem that critical of me at that point.

Volkan: The other content poster. With KradDrol disposed i fully expect him to redouble his efforts against me since that seemed to be his line on day one. I place him under higher scrutiny then other players largely because of his self proclaimed "interrogator" role that gives off the air that he is better then anyone else playing. His stance in the game puts him in a strong position as town but dangerous as scum. If we have an Sk I think he is most likely to be it, hiding in plain sight is the best place to hide.

FTR - it was Oman who tagged me as "interrogator" a while ago. I didn't self-proclaim it. The only reason I bring it up is because it is immediate evidence for my playstyle - allowing me to quickly deal with the inevitable criticisms I get for "leading" or "being too agressive".

One issue I have here is with your SK speculation. My playstyle here is meta-consistent - in that I always place myself front-and-centre - so it can hardly be said that my playstyle is such as to make me the most likely SK.

More to come from me once we hear from the other less-than-actives.

[vollkan]

Absolutely. Mills' blow-up stemmed from his inability to argue quickly when he was cornered with a unclaimable power role and a looming lynch. Nothing about his play discredits his intuitive or cognitive abilities and, as you pointed out, he wasn't under extreme pressure when he gave us the Mookeh read.

Parts of Mills' case against Mookeh were very valid. Now we have the advantage of knowing that the case grew from honest suspicions. Mookeh certainly should be a topic of discussion even though he wasn't on Mills' wagon.

I agree with Ythill here.

At the very least, we know that Mills' case on Mookeh was genuine. I reviewed it yesterday and there was some legitimacy to Mills' arguments, though it was not a damning case any means.

We've got two days until a week from the mod's replacement ultimatum. Spurg, DD and Mr President are the only three yet to make their contributions.

[vollkan]

In #39 you say you "will oppose any move to lynch Spurg on the basis of lurking when KradDrol is, to me, a much better candidate" after which you toy with the idea of a spurg lynch, saying he's better than no lynch in #42 and then suggesting him parenthetically as the lurker lynch in #43.

This seems like a natural willingness to compromise to avoid no lynch.

You are correct in your interpretation. I was against a lurker lynch on Spurg over a suspicion lynch on KradDrol, but a lurker lynch is far more preferable to NL.

When Mills attacks Mookeh, you agree with much of what he said, cite evidence in support of his case, and raise Mookeh to 55% on your scale, but you go on to say, "I don't think it is worth a content-vote at this stage, though, given what I see as much more tangible cases on Krad and Jennar." (all in #49)

This seems very in-character from what I've come to know about you: self-motivation for a minor change in opinion, but sticking to your guns as regards the big picture.

"self-motivation"? I'm not too sure I follow what you mean by that.

Anyway, up until then I was neutral on Mookeh. Mills had some valid points, though - so I raised Mookeh to 55%; which is not within my voting range.

Then I put forth my opinions on those people suggested for lynch and add Mills, finding him to be the best lynch. You analyze my post intricately in #50, but of the conclusion you simply reiterate your early read on him (he is @ 55%, same as Mookeh). Then you spend your next two posts (#51-52) attacking Mills, stating the conclusion, "Your explanation is "sufficient" (it covers everything) but it's also very slippery," and then repeating the sufficiency comment in the next post (#53) where you register another minor attack.

It seems out of character here that you didn't engage me in serious argument about the value of a Krad lynch over a Mills lynch, but rather turned to attack Mills. The conclusion of your attack on Mills was a non-opinion, effectively dropping the topic without leaning one way or the other.

#50 - The reason that I reiterated my early read was because the arguments I saw against Mills at that point were:

1) The weird opening attack on DD
2) Then we had the first attack on Mookeh with the misreference (I don't myself value this to any extent, but I know it was called 'strawmanning')
3) Lurking/non-content

Of those, the only one I personally found "scummy" (ie. more likely to come from scum than town) was 1). Since I value suspicion over anything else in all normal circumstances, this was what predominantly mattered to me.

#51-#53: The attacks I made on Mills here were continuations of my persisting problem with his early DD vote. With regards to the "sufficiency" thing, I mean that Mills managed to cover everything but with an explanation which I was skeptical of (OMGUS as a synonym). It's not something I could find any actual argumentative hole in, because it is a complete explanation, albeit a dubious one.

Why didn't I engage in serious argument about Krad over Mills?

. I assume this is your red question:

Why did you abandon arguing in favor of a Krad lynch while there was still time for the debate?

Your process of reasoning on these two was different to mine. As I said:

Jennar/Krad: I trust scumtells dropped while defending far less than I trust those dropped without provocation. It is a fact that some players argue better than others, it is also a fact that some players seem slimy when trying to debate with someone more skilled than them. I bring this up because each of these guys made only one scummy post without provocation. Neither of them is even on my most wanted list at this point.

Hmm. You are taking what they did on their own, not what they did in argument against me. I don't particularly like this approach, though, because I try and get information by "interrogating" - so obviously argument is among my chief tools.

Do you find their responses scummy, even if you are choosing not to factor them into your assessment (if that is what you are doing; I may be mistaken)?

I like large analyses and discussion/argument about those analyses (exactly like what we having now). You, in contrast, seemed to be much more focussed on independent behaviour - at least in respect of Jen and Krad. Whilst I disagreed with your approach, in no way did it seem illegitimate or foolish to me.

Basically, I could see that you were approaching things differently from me and reaching a different conclusion because of that. Whilst I continued advocating a Krad lynch, I did not make any effort to argue my reasons to you, because you had declared an approach which was significantly different to my own in respect of those two. I was as clear as I could have been that I did not think the case on Mills was damning, and that I persisted in suspecting Krad and Jennar.

Also, the "sufficient" thing was not a non-opinion. I can understand why you might see it is as that, however. Remember, Mills declared OMGUS to have been wrongly used. I was skeptical of this, but short of saying "You lie!" I could see no further avenue of discussion. I even said his explanation was "slippery". I didn't like his explanation; and I didn't like Mills - but the line of argument was closed.

Did you really not see any new scumtells in Mills behavior that were worthy of argument between the DD vote defense and the begining of his wagon?

I saw nothing other than the 3 arguments I listed above (#2 of which didn't float my boat in any event). In your big analysis, you referred to your comments on Mills in your previous analysis as your reasons. I'll quote them:

Mills: Comes out of the gate scummy but then seems to adjust which could be taken a number of ways. After clearing himself, he embarks on some pretty pointless scumhunting, then he does the check-in thing for a while. I don’t like the way Dean and klebian are treating him with kid gloves either.

Really, this doesn't look like I was missing a whole lot.

If I have misunderstood your question (which I suspect I may have) please rework it for me.

Then I attack Mills and you step in to defend him, posting (IMO) a stronger defense than he did. This defense comes in two parts: #57 in which you are adamant, and #58 in which you seem to talk yourself into a more agreeable stance. Then, even though there's time on the clock, you start pushing people to vote (#58-61) with scarcely another word about Krad or Jennar. Finally, you hammer Mills after his scum claim. The defense of Mills is way out of character but I'll address it below. You giving in to my argument so easily seems out of character as well, compared to your arguments in other situations.

#57 - Adamant?
I'll quote the bits by me from that post:

I don't agree with you on the timing, since it

might well just be

coincidental.

That said, you are correct that Mills has favoured attacking Mookeh and has only produced substandard attacks (and the timing of the attack with him coming under pressure is a good point).
...
I did a similar thing in Mini 495 (vanilla townie). I did mine differently to Mills in that I got all active players to post lists and, when I did make assumptions, I clearly identified them/listed nothing.

I don't think what Mills did is prima facie scummy, though.

And he DID acknowledge it was inaccurate.
...
He seems intelligent enough, but

I wouldn't rule it out as an error.

Forming a "suspicion consensus" thing SHOULD NOT be done this early in the game. The problem here is that we have very few active players, and suspicions are all over the place.
...
You may have a point here. It really looks like deflection, but again, he admitted it was not meant to be accurate.,
...
It doesn't make your view "extremely clear" in correctness. I don't really like how strongly you have attacked #263. Mills wasn't holding it to be authoritative.

Aside from my insistence that you were being heavy-handed, I would hardly go so far as to call this defence adamant. The first bit is a "it might well just be", then "I don't think what Mills did is prima facie scummy", then "I wouldn't rule it out as an error". I don't deny that I was being critical of your case, but I was hardly being adamant about it.

I don't think #58 was "more agreeable" therefore.

As for why scarcely nothing more on Krad/Jennar: Well, I did refer to them again in #59 where I reiterated that I thought either of them was an ideal candidate. I'd been clear on this throughout, and everyone knew where I stood.

Why did you argue strongly in support of Mills (55%) case against Mookeh (50%) while arguing adamantly against my (50%) case vs. Mills (55%)?

First off, the 5% difference is meaningless in terms of what I think of a person's argument. In words, think of 55% as "has done something which renders this person slightly scummier than neutral".

I did not strongly support Mills' case on Mookeh.

Basically, I think you raise a few valid points about Mookeh (Let me raise Mookeh to 55%). I don't think it is worth a content-vote at this stage, though, given what I see as much more tangible cases on Krad and Jennar.

All I am saying here is that I think he makes some valid points to the point where Mookeh is no longer a "neutral", but no more than that.

Similarly, I was not "adamantly against" yours. The DD vote and the slippery explanations were the only things from Mills that were really suspicious to me. My opposition was to what I saw as you exaggerating Mills' list-thing.

Finally, if you had to guess, which NK would you say the mafia is responsible for and why?

I would guess Dean. He was a lurker with relatively little suspicion on him. A "safe" kill.

KradDrol makes sense as either a vig or SK kill. I had expressed suspicion of Krad and it is possible the vig/SK followed me.

However, the other possibility I see is Krad being killed to beef up the suspicion on me which would potentially accumulate on D2 (showing that the hammerer had serious suspicion of a townie).

[vollkan]

Whilst I continued advocating a Krad lynch, I did not make any effort to argue my reasons to you, because you had declared an approach which was significantly different to my own in respect of those two. I was as clear as I could have been that I did not think the case on Mills was damning, and that I persisted in suspecting Krad and Jennar.

This is a very valid reason for not trying to convince me personally, but we are talking about consensus to lynch here. Arguing in favor of Krad over Mills could have altered the opinions of other townsfolk. You did repeat your suspicion list a lot, demonstrating that you thought Krad was a better lynch than Mills right up until the scum claim, but you never factually compared the two in response to my own comparisons. I am wondering why, especially since you seem to like arguing and have said that you do.

I thought you meant you personally.

In respect of group consensus: The thought of doing something comparative didn't really cross my mind. I mean, I had given my reasons why I thought KradDrol was very scummy, and I had been clear (in response to your posts) that I didn't think the case on Mills was particularly compelling.

#57 - Adamant? Aside from my insistence that you were being heavy-handed, I would hardly go so far as to call this defence adamant. I don't think #58 was "more agreeable" therefore.

Not going to play the semantics game. I think “adamant” was an appropriate description but we can use another word if you like. What I am pointing to here is the obvious tonal difference between #57 and #58. I can and will demonstrate this with facts, but I’d rather not have to since it’s a lot of dissection. So, semantics aside, do you deny that the difference exists? Either way, I believe this point to be one we will have to examine further so I’ll stop here and wait for your reply.

Since this point seems to be an important one to you, I will run through both of those posts. When I use the word "adamant" I am not addressing the word specifically (to avoid a semantics clash) but, rather, the idea that my tone is "too forceful".

Point One:
Mills has a favored target. Several people agreed that Mills’ first argument with Mookeh (about the meta) was baseless. Upon rereading, I found it so baseless and pointless that it appeared contrived. It was “coincidentally” timed to begin as Mookeh left for vacation (and Mills’ “poor timing” is another one of my points for later). Mills had clear motive to take the stance he did, because Mookeh was challenging Dean’s town-tell on Mills and calling it a null-tell.

Much later (in #210), Mills promises a reread from which he comes back with no evidence or opinions except a mediocre case against Mookeh. The case happens in #222, which is Mills next post after he realized aloud that he is likely to be a lynch target (#217). Again, this sets up motive for his scummy attack.

Questions: Did Mills’ reread everyone or just Mookeh in isolation? If everyone, why not post other opinions? If only Mookeh, was his tunnel vision residual from the first argument? If not, what scum-tells did Mills see in Mookeh before the reread?

I don't agree with you on the timing, since it might well just be coincidental.

That said, you are correct that Mills has favoured attacking Mookeh and has only produced substandard attacks (and the timing of the attack with him coming under pressure is a good point).

The first sentence by me is not forceful. I am simply saying that I don't believe the timing was suggestive of any ulterior motive.

In the second, I am actually agreeing with you in part by acknowledging the low quality of Mills' contributions.

Obviously the statistics touted in #263 are false, which could be the result of (1) mistakes, (2) townie desperation, or (3) scummy manipulation.

I did a similar thing in Mini 495 (vanilla townie). I did mine differently to Mills in that I got all active players to post lists and, when I did make assumptions, I clearly identified them/listed nothing. I don't think what Mills did is prima facie scummy, though.

And he DID acknowledge it was inaccurate.
[/quote]

The meta reference was not to defend what Mills did specifically (ie. not cook up false stats), but to show that I had made something of that nature as town. I then said it was not self-evidently scummy and stressed that he did acknowledge its inaccuracy (the disclaimer was a significant point for me). I admit the last bit could be taken as adamant, in a sense, but I maintain that it was justified because his disclaimer was important.

(1) Does Mills seem short-sighted or unintelligent enough to make such glaring errors? Is he short enough on posting time that errors of this magnitude could be caused by him rushing? I think not on both counts.

He seems intelligent enough, but I wouldn't rule it out as an error. Forming a "suspicion consensus" thing SHOULD NOT be done this early in the game. The problem here is that we have very few active players, and suspicions are all over the place.

The language of "I wouldn't rule it out" is again me being skeptical. I am not insisting that you are wrong there, but I was stressing that I thought you were being too strident in your attack. As for the "SHOULD NOT" that was, admittedly, adamant of me on the theory point that consensus lists like Mills' do not belong on D1.

[quote="Ythill"
(2) Townie desperation then? Remember that I’ve already shown pretty clearly that Mills is not a power role. Would a townie rationally sew this many false statements in his defense unless he was extremely desperate? Is he under enough votes (just mine) or scrutiny (me & vollkan plus Krad maybe on the way) to justify this level of panic in a vanilla townie? Again, no on both counts.

You may have a point here. It really looks like deflection, but again, he admitted it was not meant to be accurate.

Again, I acknowledge the legitimacy of your position but I have to weigh that up against the disclaimer which came up trumps in my mind.

Which leaves option (3): scummy manipulation. It seems extremely clear, from #263, that I was right about Mills.

It doesn't make your view "extremely clear" in correctness. I don't really like how strongly you have attacked #263. Mills wasn't holding it to be authoritative.

This is adamant of me, I admit. I am being quite firm here that I believe the force of your attack was wrongful and I stress that Mills was not suggesting it to hold authority. I maintain that this was justified.

Now, we move to 58 (I have excluded some bits not directly related to this debate.):

Vollkan suggests that all of this could be error and oversight in spite of your apparent level of intelligence. I think he gives your integrity far too much credit and your intellect far too little but I could be wrong on either account. I will accept error as a slim possibility here. Again, error doesn’t explain the extremely convenient timing of your own shift in opinion.

I should also point out that coincidence is becoming your middle name. The timing of your spurg unvote in relation to that wagon coming under fire was “unfortunate.” The timing of your attack on Mookeh could have been coincidence (according to vollkan). A long list of “mistakes” and suspicious mind changes incidentally lead #263 to conclusions that favored your position. You are drawing us a picture of a random world; personally, I believe in cause and effect.

Mills' list was deeply flawed, I am not disputing that. Everything you say about it being a false smokescreen is "valid" - it is not ridiculous. BUT (and this is a big BUT) I think the extent to which you are hammering Mills on this point is excessive.

It's either a cock-up or a conspiracy (by Mills) and I don't believe we have anything which suggests either way. I am not being overly-generous towards Mills; I am simply saying that I do not believe the significance of this as a scumtell is as much as your attacks on it would seem to suggest.

He admitted it was going to be inaccurate and didn't even list anything for 7 players. No matter what his alignment, it is clearly a mistake from Mills, but is it more likely to come from town, or scum? As I have said, I formed a similar list in Mini 495 as town, but I was more accurate (though not entirely so) in my listings.

The first two paragraphs reiterates what I had said in 57 - your argument was not ridiculous but I felt that the extent to which you held it was unreasonable.

I can see that the second paragraph does contain a slight difference in tone, in that I seem to go further to acknowledge the legitimacy of what you said (ie. I say "significance of it as a scumtell") but this was the point I had been addressing all along. I think the difference stems from the fact that here I was going into deeper elaboration as to exactly what

I

meant, rather than directly criticising your own arguments.

The third paragraph continues this, where I stress that it was an error - whether by town or scum

If he was really into misrepresenting, why would he bother posting something like this?

I guess I am seeing this sort of as him posting a deeply flawed "draft list" and then asking for improvements.

Just a reiterating of the significance of the disclaimer to me and what it meant to me.

Do you really believe coincidence is responsible for the way Mills’ “errors” lead to the listed conclusion?

I really don't like the way he added in suspicions which just happen to get him out of the top 2. The rest of it is feasible as a mistake, but is still drastically wrong. I don't think where you are coming from on this is ridiculous, but (again) just too extreme.

I'm not excusing Mills for this, but I am more wary of the possibility that this might just be the result of error than you seem to be. [/quote]

The first sentence is a new extent of agreement from me (I hadn't addressed that matter before). The rest of it, however, simply reiterates what I had been saying all along.

Do you see how Mills conflict of interest in keeping this list could lead to conclusions flawed in a similarly convenient manner in the future?

Since he asked for clarifications, I don't think that the grossly erroneous results would have lasted very long. The concern niggling on my mind here is if it was just orchestrated to get a Hypatia lynch today by having the lurkers slap votes on but, again, the fact he asked for clarifications makes me doubt that any attempt to falsify consensus would last.

Again, I acknowledge the legitimacy of your concerns BUT the disclaimer overrides them for me.

--What I see here, Ythill, is a consistent message across both posts. Where you challenge what I say, I elaborate in more detail and explain (perhaps in more detail than 57) why I thought what you said is legitimate but whilst I believe it to be extreme.

I did not strongly support Mills' case on Mookeh.

Basically, I think you raise a few valid points about Mookeh (Let me raise Mookeh to 55%). I don't think it is worth a content-vote at this stage, though, given what I see as much more tangible cases on Krad and Jennar.

All I am saying here is that I think he makes some valid points to the point where Mookeh is no longer a "neutral", but no more than that.

When I refer to “strong support” I am not just talking about your conclusion. You posted a hefty amount of evidence in the form of Mookeh quotes followed by brief interpretations. These agreed with and deepened Mills’ case, thereby supporting it strongly.

The quoting from me was to test Mills' assertion that Mookeh had been mostly giving off content-lacking signal posts. I included them in my post so I could be clear about exactly why I agreed with Mills (cf. "You're right. He hasn't posted much that is useful.") This did have the effect of promoting Mills' case (even a brief affirmation would have done so) but I maintain that the point I agreed with him on was a legitimate one.

[vollkan]

Do you see the difference I’m talking about here? Will you insist on asserting that it doesn’t exist?

Here’s the thing, vollkan. I don’t think #57 is scummy by itself. I don’t think #58 is scummy by itself. I don’t think that the differences between them are suspect, because I don’t believe changing one’s mind is scummy. However, when the opinion shift between #57 and #58 is compared with your other shifts in opinion (regarding spurg, Mookeh, etc) it seems out-of-character and therefore insincere. It reads as if either your "adamant defense" of Mills or your "talking yourself into a more agreeable stance" are contrived. And, since Mills came up town, this read worries me.

I understand what you mean by there being a "difference" but I disagree with your conclusion that it suggests insincerity in the one of the two stances.

The difference is in what each post was specifically addressing. Obviously, #57 was more brief and I was only focussing on "whether Mills' dodgy list was scummy". I came to the conclusion that it was not, primarily because of the disclaimer.

Now, in #58, the first four blocks of green text (ie. any string of uninterrupted green text), down to "

in my listings

" are disclaimer, acknowledgment of possibility and a meta-reference - and I submit that none of these are incompatible with #57.

The next block is "

I really don't like the way he added in suspicions which just happen to get him out of the top 2.

". This was one area where I thought you made a particularly compelling point suggesting to him possibly having a motivation to create his list. Despite my big picture view that what Mills had done was not scummy, this was a concern of yours that I shared. Given that this came in #58, it obviously does look like a shift in my stance objectively-speaking.

The next two are disclaimers, so do not amount to a shift in my own position.

Then we have the hypatia niggling, which I negate because of the disclaimer.

I'm not entirely sure why "

No. Right now, we don't have enough time to wait for everyone to post a list

" actually merits being put in green. I mean, it was neither an attack on Mills nor an agreement with your case. Obviously, I agreed with you and disagreed with Mills, but I see this point as really being independent from the question of whether what Mills did was scummy.

The next bit of green is the most supportive of the post, which is why I think that your idea of it becoming progressively "greener" is legitimate.

First, I express my skepticism at Mills not knowing about the time constraints, and relate that to my concerns about Hypatia. I did find it doubtful that somebody so seemingly competent as Mills would not realise the impracticability of what he was suggesting. It somewhat fed the concerns I had about hypatia but, again, those were ultimately overcome by the disclaimer anyway.

Finally, the last bit about it benefiting lurkers was a legitimate concern of yours and I agreed that it was potentially misleading. I do not believe that in any way alters my stance in #57. The fact that the list (like any argument) may have a bad consequence in that others may leech on does not make the list or argument inherently scummy.

So, Ythill, I maintain that there was no actual shift towards agreement. Obviously, I raised a number of specific concerns in #58 which I did not in #57, but my fundamental stance remained consistent. You say:

I do see the consistent message that you point to, but it does not make up the entirety of the posts and, overall, their message is not consistent.

The overall message of both posts is the same - that I saw legitimate concerns about Mills' post, but that I did not believe it was as scummy as you had argued it to be. #58 addressed specific issues in detail, leading me to acknowledge legitimacy in several positions, but my overall stance never shifted at all. The bottom of #58 was green because the of the distinct issues dealt with at that point.

To suggest that is somehow indicative of some "shift" in my attitude is to miss the forest for the trees.

[vollkan]

Also:

To recapitulate: I believe that such a dodgy list could have the effect of prompting lurkers to try and fit with the concocted consensus. For that, I dislike it. I am not impressed.

I am not being overly-generous towards Mills;

I am simply saying that I do not believe the significance of this as a scumtell is as much as your attacks on it would seem to suggest. He admitted it was going to be inaccurate and didn't even list anything for 7 players. No matter what his alignment, it is clearly a mistake from Mills, but is it more likely to come from town, or scum? As I have said, I formed a similar list in Mini 495 as town,

but I was more accurate

(though not entirely so)

in my listings.

I'm very skeptical. See above for my concern about trying to use this to get a lynch on Hypatia. Again, see above.

Sure. I used to get attacked for the same thing, and have since made an effort to tone down my language. I'll keep it in mind.

But he even said in the following post: (cite to Mills’ second disclaimer). If he was really into misrepresenting, why would he bother posting something like this? I guess I am seeing this sort of as him posting a deeply flawed "draft list" and then asking for improvements. No more suspicious, and no less.

I really don't like the way he added in suspicions which just happen to get him out of the top 2.

The rest of it is feasible as a mistake,

but is still drastically wrong. I don't think where you are coming from on this is ridiculous,

but (again) just too extreme.

I'm not excusing Mills for this,

but I am more wary of the possibility that this might just be the result of error than you seem to be. Since he asked for clarifications, I don't think that the grossly erroneous results would have lasted very long.

The concern niggling on my mind here is if it was just orchestrated to get a Hypatia lynch today by having the lurkers slap votes on

but, again, the fact he asked for clarifications makes me doubt that any attempt to falsify consensus would last.

No. Right now, we don't have enough time to wait for everyone to post a list.

We need EACH PERSON TO VOTE so that we can get a lynch today. I will not accept a last-minute lurker lynch.

Mills' list was deeply flawed, I am not disputing that. Everything you say about it being a false smokescreen is "valid" - it is not ridiculous.

BUT (and this is a big BUT) I think the extent to which you are hammering Mills on this point is excessive. It's either a cock-up

or a conspiracy (by Mills)

and I don't believe we have anything which suggests either way.

I have tried to keep each isolated point intact (cf. a complete jumbling)

Suppose the ordering was like this (eg. might have come about if I had not responded to you in the precise order of your questions). What effect, if any, would this have on our current discussion?

[vollkan]

I understand what you mean by there being a "difference" but I disagree with your conclusion that it suggests insincerity in the one of the two stances. The difference is in what each post was specifically addressing… The next bit of green is the most supportive of the post, which is why I think that your idea of it becoming progressively "greener" is legitimate… So, Ythill, I maintain that there was no actual shift towards agreement…

I want to clarify this stance, because it seems to be your conclusion and it is woven throughout a complicated post. I believe you are saying that the apparent shift in opinion exists incidentally, but was not accompanied by an actual shift in opinion. Is that a fair summary? If not, how would you amend it? Not trying to misrepresent you here, just grok fully.

Sure, I'll reiterate with some more clarity:

My stance towards Mills remained the same throughout both posts. The "forest", if you will, was that I considered your pov a legitimate one (ie. not ridiculous) but that I felt you were being excessively strident in how you pushed it. Now, in 58, it was the case that there was

more green

than 57.

However,

the specific issues where I was "green" in 58 were such that it had no actual bearing on my total position (eg. my concern over the hypatia issue was waived by the disclaimer).

To keep the metaphor alive: Some trees were greener than others, but the forest was still entirely red.

To suggest that is somehow indicative of some "shift" in my attitude is to miss the forest for the trees.

To be fair vollkan, you post a lot of trees. I’m doing my best to figure out what the forest is like.

Alright. The forest, if you will, was something this (I am trying to encapsulate the essence of my position): "Ythill's attacks on #263 are not ridiculous but his suspicion is excessive."

What I am trying to say is that the "forest" was established in #58 (which just very broadly set out my view on 263 not being suspicious). In #59, the "trees" appeared in the form of individual issues around 263 that you raised. On some issues I was more in agreement with you than on others, but my actual position was never altered.

Suppose the ordering was like this (eg. might have come about if I had not responded to you in the precise order of your questions). What effect, if any, would this have on our current discussion?

It would certainly be different. I can’t tell you in what manner it would differ though. Considering all the factors in my psyche at the time I read and then reread the initial post, the situation you present is too hypothetical for a definitive answer.

It doesn’t matter anyway: #58 was posted in the order we are currently discussing it. We’re making progress talking about reality here, let’s not get sidetracked.

Let me elaborate on why I posted #361:

The gist of your querying on 59 seemed to me to depend on the fact that 59 flowed from red at the start to green at the bottom. 59 consisted of a number of discrete issues; it was not a single coherent post. What I am saying is that if the ordering of each "tree" in 59 was scrambled the flowing you allege (remember, I have argued that there was no such flow anyway) would, in fact, not even exist on an apparent level.

[vollkan]

A mildly scummy defense from vollkan in the end game: a little too slippery as my argument came to a head. My biggest problem with this is vollkan’s willingness to elude to the possibility of something apparently existing in spite of its actual non-existence but his unwillingness to say as much explicitly. That said, he was under pressure and you all know how I feel about tells arising in this manner.

(For the benefit of those who are not Ythill, a "green" point is an issue where I agree with Ythill or share his concerns)

If that is what you think I meant, then I need to clarify myself a bit.

I'll try and do this as simply as possible for the benefit of making this a "condensed version" for the other players.

I call it an apparent shift on the basis that two "green" points appeared at the end of my post. As in, if those points (which were isolated issues) had appeared anywhere else in the post, no such shift would even appear. Thus, on this level the shift was only "apparent" - in the sense of being a superficial result of the ordering of the issues discussed.

However, the deeper level, which was what I was examining when I went through each point individually, was that those "green" points which did occur at the end in no way compromised my initial position.

Think of it this way:
1) Large scale: The shift that appears from a broad analysis of the "colour" is an illusory one
2) Small scale: On the actual issues, my position was entirely consistent and I never agreed with Ythill in such a way that my initial position varied

If I could summarise this position briefly, it would be:
"The colour shift was an illusory consequence of the ordering of the points and cannot be taken to reflect a change in position. In the alternative, even if it were arguable that the colour change did have some importance, the fact remains that on each individual issue my position remained unaltered, again disproving the existence of any shift."

[vollkan]

Hi Killa, thanks for joining.

Hi Justin, thanks also. It will be good to play another game with someone that outdoes Ythill and me in lengthy posting

Votecount up to Post 375

Not Voting (9) - Hypatia, Jennar, Justin Playfair, killa seven, klebian, Mookeh, spurgistan, vollkan, Ythill

5 to lynch.

[vollkan]

Time for a review of Ythill's play. I will give my PBPA first, and then ask any relevant questions at the bottom, linked to the relevant PBPA bit by a "footnote-esque" red number. I realise I have already PBPAd Y once already, so this will only take account of those posts by Ythill coming after the last of my previous PBPA (Ythill post #22 onwards)

Updated PBPA of Ythill

22: Wants me to clearly state the subjectiveness of my system. Good explanation for why Mills' behaviour re: my Mook error was a town-tell in his view. Attacks Jennar for a contradiction in his explanation of why he isn't posting much
23: Would be most comfortable lynching Jennar. Might be prepared to lynch Mills when it came to down it. Bush is also a candidate due to lurking. Has a gut feeling that voll and DD are town

1

. Says Hypatia would be one of these, but her claim-fishing justifications keeps her out. Declares his intention to jump on a wagon to prevent NL.
24: Would prefer Hypa over NL, but barely
25: PBPA of me concludes 55% with gut town read but questioning somewhat. He questions my "peacemaking" with Mills, sympathises with my attacks on Jennar, perceives buddying to himself and Mook and doesn't like me letting klebian off for lurking.
26: Responds to 2 of my counter-points. Says that the buddying he alleged was only minor and accepts that dominance is part of my playstyle.
27: Re-posts questions for Bush
28: Questions why kleb attacks people for their stance on Mills but is very forgiving of Mills himself.
29: Explains his stance on Mills to kleb
30: Votes Spurg for lurking
31: Says he didn't want a lurker lynch on Spurg, just a wagon which could become a lynch if nothing better arose. Doesn't think Krad is lynchworthy. In hindsight, this seems like a town-tell to me. Ythillscum could very easily have supported a Krad lynch. Describes Krad as a "little scummy". I'm not giving him a free pass because of this, but it is an encouraging sign.
32: Finds Jennar scummier than Krad.
33: Thanks me for a clarification
34: Large analysis post.

Blabbermouths:

Dean (useless. Doesn't like that his first read was weak pro-town on Mills

2

), Mills (scummy, pointless then lurkish), Vollk (Smart, a few well-defended tells), Ythill ("I know my alignment").

Normals:

Hypatia (Notes her lack of hunting; only theory and defense. This is a good point), Jennar (scummy early and then gets "more sensible".

3

Still no hunting), Kleb (evenly spread suspicions. Goes easy on Mills and Mook), Mook (Is defending more than he attacks and is trying to stay on good side

4

)

Mimes

DD (Lurking, but was good earlier), Krad (voting post for Mills is "pretty damn scummy"

5

), Bush (decent s:n, but terrible lurking), Spurg (worst lurker).
35: Highlights deadline extension
36: Questions me for missing the extension. Raises his eyebrow at Hypa for asking the Spurg wagon to reach claim-point quickly.
37: Says my defence was flawless. Asks Krad to elaborate on things.
38: Directs Krad to check out Mills, Kleb and Mook since he was conspiring.

6

[/color]
39: Thinks I am reading Krad/Jen more carefully than anyone else. Reiterates his dislike for Krad's conspiracy style.
40: Another large post. Looks at reasons for lynching.

Alignment

Krad/Jen - Ythill deals with these two together, and says he doesn't trust their tells since they only made one unprovoked scummy post each. Noteworthy that Krad moves back down to the same level as Jennar despite a slight rise before with the "pretty damn scummy" remarks. The fact that Yth would deflate his suspicion of Krad close to a deadline could be a slight town-tell.

1: I don't like things based on "gut". Could you explain why you felt DD and myself were pro-town, and why Hypa would have been if not for her justifications for claim-fishing?
2: What was wrong about Dean reading Mills as weak pro-town?
3: In what way/s did Jennar get more "sensible"?
4: Could you elaborate on why you felt Mookeh was

trying

to stay on our good sides? What I mean is that there is a difference between "playing in a pro-town way" and "trying to look pro-town". Your comments suggest you felt Mookeh was "trying".
5: How come Krad's post is now "pretty damn scummy" whereas before he was "a little scummy"? I gather that you are only referring to one post as "pretty damn scummy" but that is strong language and I don't think it makes sense for you to reduce your total read on him to "a little scummy".
6: You don't like conspiracy play, and yet you direct Krad to look at a trio whom you have raised a conspiracy about (not with the conviction of Krad, obviously). If conspiracies are not good, why you do this?

[vollkan]

Ignore the above post - it is incomplete. I meant to click preview and hit submit instead. I will post the whole thing in full when I am finished. Apologies for the error.

[vollkan]

It's readable, vollkan. Was there more content to add or just formatting?

These are good questions but I will wait to answer them until you post the finished version (or say that you're not going to). Will have time to do so tonight, but we're about to start a movie here, so it won't be for a few hours

As you can see, vastly more content in the finished version. Enjoy

Time for a review of Ythill's play. I will give my PBPA first, and then ask any relevant questions at the bottom, linked to the relevant PBPA bit by a "footnote-esque" red number. I realise I have already PBPAd Y once already, so this will only take account of those posts by Ythill coming after the last of my previous PBPA (Ythill post #22 onwards)

Updated PBPA of Ythill

22: Wants me to clearly state the subjectiveness of my system. Good explanation for why Mills' behaviour re: my Mook error was a town-tell in his view. Attacks Jennar for a contradiction in his explanation of why he isn't posting much
23: Would be most comfortable lynching Jennar. Might be prepared to lynch Mills when it came to down it. Bush is also a candidate due to lurking. Has a gut feeling that voll and DD are town

1

. Says Hypatia would be one of these, but her claim-fishing justifications keeps her out. Declares his intention to jump on a wagon to prevent NL.
24: Would prefer Hypa over NL, but barely
25: PBPA of me concludes 55% with gut town read but questioning somewhat. He questions my "peacemaking" with Mills, sympathises with my attacks on Jennar, perceives buddying to himself and Mook and doesn't like me letting klebian off for lurking.
26: Responds to 2 of my counter-points. Says that the buddying he alleged was only minor and accepts that dominance is part of my playstyle.
27: Re-posts questions for Bush
28: Questions why kleb attacks people for their stance on Mills but is very forgiving of Mills himself.
29: Explains his stance on Mills to kleb
30: Votes Spurg for lurking
31: Says he didn't want a lurker lynch on Spurg, just a wagon which could become a lynch if nothing better arose. Doesn't think Krad is lynchworthy. In hindsight, this seems like a town-tell to me. Ythillscum could very easily have supported a Krad lynch. Describes Krad as a "little scummy". I'm not giving him a free pass because of this, but it is an encouraging sign.
32: Finds Jennar scummier than Krad.
33: Thanks me for a clarification
34: Large analysis post.

Blabbermouths:

Dean (useless. Doesn't like that his first read was weak pro-town on Mills

2

), Mills (scummy, pointless then lurkish), Vollk (Smart, a few well-defended tells), Ythill ("I know my alignment").

Normals:

Hypatia (Notes her lack of hunting; only theory and defense. This is a good point), Jennar (scummy early and then gets "more sensible".

3

Still no hunting), Kleb (evenly spread suspicions. Goes easy on Mills and Mook), Mook (Is defending more than he attacks and is trying to stay on good side

4

)

Mimes

DD (Lurking, but was good earlier), Krad (voting post for Mills is "pretty damn scummy"

5

), Bush (decent s:n, but terrible lurking), Spurg (worst lurker).
35: Highlights deadline extension
36: Questions me for missing the extension. Raises his eyebrow at Hypa for asking the Spurg wagon to reach claim-point quickly.
37: Says my defence was flawless. Asks Krad to elaborate on things.
38: Directs Krad to check out Mills, Kleb and Mook since he was conspiring.

6

[/color]
39: Thinks I am reading Krad/Jen more carefully than anyone else. Reiterates his dislike for Krad's conspiracy style.
40: Another large post. Looks at reasons for lynching.

Alignment

Krad/Jen - Ythill deals with these two together, and says he doesn't trust their tells since they only made one unprovoked scummy post each. Noteworthy that Krad moves back down to the same level as Jennar despite a slight rise before with the "pretty damn scummy" remarks.
Spurg - just lurking, so no alignment tells
Mookeh - "The only thing I’ve personally found scummy in Mookeh’s behavior is the way he seems to be trying to stay on everyone’s good side. Then again, maybe he’s just nice. LOL." I don't like this...it's akin to "too townie". Again, this links to question 4
Mills - Links to last analysis. Reasons for suspicion are: 1) Early scumminess, 2) Pointless scumhunting, 3) Concern with others' views of him.

Information

I'm not going to go through all of this, but I will say generally that it is rather speculative (obviously, that was the point).

Lurking

- Pretty obvious, not in dispute

Chance of consensus

- Again, no dispute.

Power Role Safety

- I don't like Power speculation.

Thinks Krad/Jen are poor and thereby opts for Mills. This raises two questions:

7

[/color] and

8

[/color]

41: Says that Jennar's and Krad's responses were sometimes scummy. Neither is "super-high" nor "mayor".
42: Explains why Dean was scummy.
43: Bolds for mod
44: Explanation about why information is a relevant consideration
45: Clarifies his suspicion of Mookeh to Mills. Doesn't like that Mills uses his and Dean's gut votes to place ythill 3rd on the Mills-list (my new name for Mills' list thing)
Attacks Mills for favouring Mookeh. It is true that Mills' dodgy attacks were directed at Mookeh. I don't like his attacks on Mills' timing, though, since it seems to be exploiting what is a very likely coincidence.
Comes down very heavily upon Mills' #263 - you already know that I have problems with Ythill's attitude here. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum, but I shall reiterate my views up here in the black part. One question, though:

9

[/color]

46: Is tired of Mills playing the foreigner card. Attacks the glaring errors as dishonest, and thereby declares the disclaimer to be dishonest. I don't like this. Mills made obvious errors and the way the statistics ended up was concerning, but Ythill is being too aggressive here (wow...I never thought I would end up saying that). If I was a more speculative man, I would think this to be Ythill driving the last nails into Mills' coffin.

47: Admits his calling it "extremely clear" was bombast. Questions me for my perspective on #263
48: Admits I may be correct about his attack being excessive.
49: Since Mills had asked for replacement (meaning no defences), Ythill swaps to Jennar, who is better than Krad. Says he has a very light case on jennar that hasn't been raised

10

[/color]
50: Questions for hypatia
51: Thinks Mills' defences are insufficient and revotes him

11

[/color]
52: Asks if there is any further need for discussion
53: Asks for hammer to be withheld, given Mills' scumclaiming
54: New day. "Ack" about Mills
55: Setup speculation
56: Questions my hammering, rightly
57: Complaints about inactivity
58: Agrees we need to look at the wagon and NKs
59: Is unclear about what to think of me and thinks Hypa is getting progressively scummier.

12

[/color]
60: Asks for prod on Mook. Questions Hypa about Spurg
61: Weeps over inactivity
62: Refers to questions to Hypa
63: Sees the secret plan as a "double-edged sword"
64-69: Interrogation of me. I won't make any detailed comments now, because I have only recently responded to it all. If there is just one aspect of this which I find scummy, it is the red/green stuff. The "shift" Ythill identified was purely superficial, and I am frankly surprised that he found it legitimate. As I said, though, this is and must be, only minor.
70: His conclusions on me, thinks I am appearing more pro-town, but needs to take it with a grain of salt since I do argue better than some.
71: NK speculation
72: Welcomes the replacements
73: More of the above
74: Questions Jennar over the "I'm no poster-boy.." A legitimate point
75: Continues questioning Jennar. I won't intervene, since I am interested to see where this goes.
76: About Mills

1: I don't like things based on "gut". Could you explain why you felt DD and myself were pro-town, and why Hypa would have been if not for her justifications for claim-fishing?
2: What was wrong about Dean reading Mills as weak pro-town?
3: In what way/s did Jennar get more "sensible"?
4: Could you elaborate on why you felt Mookeh was

trying

to stay on our good sides? What I mean is that there is a difference between "playing in a pro-town way" and "trying to look pro-town". Your comments suggest you felt Mookeh was "trying". Also, how is this different from "too townie"?
5: How come Krad's post is now "pretty damn scummy" whereas before he was "a little scummy"? I gather that you are only referring to one post as "pretty damn scummy" but that is strong language and I don't think it makes sense for you to reduce your total read on him to "a little scummy".
6: You don't like conspiracy play, and yet you direct Krad to look at a trio whom you have raised a conspiracy about (not with the conviction of Krad, obviously). If conspiracies are not good, why you do this?
7: Jennar was your primary candidate back in #23. Why does he move from #1 to a "poor choice"?
8: By your own admission, Krad's vote was "pretty damn scummy". I don't think the Mills case was significantly more persuasive (again, there were only 3 actual arguments, and only one struck any real chord with me). Why, to you, was the case on Mills so much more powerful than the case on Krad?
9: Why do you rule out errancy on Mills' part when he was clear that it was just a draft version that needed further input?
10: Why not Dean, your #1? (and has this Jennar case been released yet?)
11: Why was Mills' explanation of his behaviour to Mookeh insufficient to you?
12: Was the "secret plan" the only reason you found Hypa getting more suspect?

[vollkan]

28: Questions why kleb attacks people for their stance on Mills but is very forgiving of Mills himself.

You've accidentally made this statement misleading. FTR: my indication in #28 was that klebian was too forgiving of Mills. I was not "very forgiving" of Mills in #28, and I don't think vollkan meant to suggest that I was. It's just inconvenient grammar.

Apologies, that was not intentional. Let me be clear: Kleb was the one referred to as forgiving.

32: Finds Jennar scummier than Krad…34: Large analysis post… Noteworthy that Krad moves back down to the same level as Jennar despite a slight rise before with the "pretty damn scummy" remarks.

You seem to make a blunder in your read here. I never made comparisons of the players in my #34. During the comparisons I believe you might be referring to (in my #40) Krad and Jennar were included together because my comments about them were very similar, not solely because of similar reads. It is true that my view of Krad had been sullied by the reread, but it didn’t “move him back down to Jennar’s level” it moved him up the suspicion list to somewhere around Jennar’s level (whom I had found more suspicious than Krad two posts earlier).

You're correct here. I had Jennar scummier than Krad from #32. Then when you had Krad's vote described as "pretty damn scummy" and Jennar as getting "sensible" it looked like Krad had moved in front. And, as you say, the discussion of them together made it seem like that apparent discrepancy between them had shifted back.

This issue has been discussed ad nauseum, but I shall reiterate my views up here in the black part.

Couldn’t find the “black part.” Did you forget to post it?

I meant the black text part (cf. the maroon part). I had typed out some comments about your posts regarding #263, but I ended up deleting them because it ended up being the case that there was nothing meaningful emerging. I deleted what I had typed, except for the reference.

For the below, sssume that if I don't address your answer, I have no residual issues.

1: I don't like things based on "gut". Could you explain why you felt DD and myself were pro-town, and why Hypa would have been if not for her justifications for claim-fishing?

I cannot. “Gut” refers to first-read impressions without the realization of quantified facts. If I searched for those facts now, my answer would suffer from the same confirmation bias that taints conspiracy cases and would be dishonest. If there had been facts to cite, I would have said as much then. My reason, as stated, was gut. Sorry you don’t like it.

Fair enough. I thought it possible that "gut" was just a vague reference to something more tangible that you might still be able to recall, but I understand that you cannot do so without a confirmation bias.

4: Could you elaborate on why you felt Mookeh was trying to stay on our good sides? What I mean is that there is a difference between "playing in a pro-town way" and "trying to look pro-town". Your comments suggest you felt Mookeh was "trying". Also, how is this different from "too townie"?

When a player pussyfoots around hard hunting and offers more praise/defense of others than suspicion, I feel that he is more worried about his reputation than he is about finding scum. I don’t think he’s doing so by “acting pro town” but by kissing up to other players. I don’t believe that there is anything “pro town” about trying to stay on people’s good sides in this way and I hope you are not attributing that thought to me. “Too townie” is a construct all your own and sounds a little like a trap.

First off, "too townie" is a pejorative reference to any alleged scumtell along the lines of "He seems to protown".

I'll quote you in #34 to clarify this matter:

Mookeh: I’m starting to see why everybody seems to like this guy. He often performs our reality checks and, though he hasn’t hunted a lot, what he has posted has seemed honest. Mookeh defends more than he attacks though, and I can’t help but feel that he’s trying too hard to stay on our good sides. We’ll see what happens when he gets back home.

Now, you certainly didn't seem to have any deep suspicion; in fact you seemed quite pleased with him. This made it all the more interesting that you would say that you feel he was "trying too hard to stay on our good sides."

Fine, he had defended more than attacking, but as you yourself said: He was performing our reality checks and "seemed honest".

8: By your own admission, Krad's vote was "pretty damn scummy". I don't think the Mills case was significantly more persuasive (again, there were only 3 actual arguments, and only one struck any real chord with me). Why, to you, was the case on Mills so much more powerful than the case on Krad?

The case I posted on Mills was incomplete, a fact I referred to when I said, “I’ve found a number of things scummy in Mills’ behavior but I’m not going to post all of them yet and I want to explain why. Basically, I think it’s better to concentrate on a few points at a time. Also, if I were to list everything I find scummy about Mills up-front, it would be hard for others to make cases against him without aping me.”

For an idea of the other things I found scummy about Mills, see my #34, in which I mention “pretty pointless scumhunting” (involving more than the Mookeh attacks), borderline lurking, and questionable relations with Dean and klebian.

The reasons from #34 were actually the 3 arguments I was referring to:
1) "Comes out of the gate scummy..."
2) "...some pretty pointless scumhunting, then he does the check-in thing for a while."
3) "the way Dean and klebian are treating him with kid gloves"

I don't consider 3) a legitimate reason to suspect Mills - and the rest is hardly very compelling.

In #40, your only alignment comments against Mills were:

My major concern is what he passes off as scumhunting. He also seems quite concerned with our opinions of how he is playing.

Basically, I don't understand why Krad's vote and subsequent bad arguing (even if you choose to minimise the latter) were less scummy than Mills - the case on whom was hardly damning.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Largely, I am pleased with your responses. You still haven't moved below 50%, and I admit I am quite concerned about the possibility of you being scum, given how tight your play has been.

I'm probably going to be looking at hypatia next.

[vollkan]

3) "the way Dean and klebian are treating him with kid gloves"

I don't consider 3) a legitimate reason to suspect Mills - and the rest is hardly very compelling.

I agree that 3) was the weakest of these. Not quite a conspiracy (because I saw Mills as scummy prior to seeing the connections, not the other way around) but close enough to be unreliable. I disagree about the rest though. IMO, the case was compelling. I’ll address why below.

I wonder at your use of “compelling” here and its relation to the word “persuasive” (and “struck a chord”) from question 8 in #390. Are you saying that the case on Mills is less viable because it didn’t convince you? It was far more convincing to me than the Krad case was, which I think is the only important point in examining my actions.

Obviously, by "compelling" I am making a subjective comparison of the arguments.

My reasoning was to exclude 3 from consideration as a reason to suspect Mills. 2) and 1) were scummy, but they didn't carry as much weight as Krad's singular scummy vote and subsequent explanations.

I see you have elaborated on your reasons for suspecting Mills. That answers my question, because I can now see, in full, why you suspected Mills. I may return to this point later, but there is nothing more to debate on it right now.

I am quite concerned about the possibility of you being scum, given how tight your play has been.

How is this different from me being “too townie?”

"Too townie" is where I suspect you for seeming too pro-town. What I am saying here is that the possibility of you being scum is something that makes me uneasy due to the lack of tells.

If I was doing a "too townie" I would have raised your % becasue of the lack of tells - which I haven't.

[vollkan]

Updated PBPA of Hypatia

13: Supports extension
14: Reiterates her theory perspective on claiming.

1

[/color]
15: Bandwagon vote on Spurg - as I said at the time, Hypatia was hardly adding any more than Spurg was.

2

[/color]
16: Explains how she wants the spurg wagon to progress. Links to question 2 above.
17: Good explanation for why she wanted the wagon to go quickly - so that the claim could be properly evaluated (I agree with her on this). Again though, as my question 2 says, I don't get

why

Spurg was the best candidate.
18: Clarification.
19: Is "convinced" Spurg is not the best choice.

3

[/color]
20: Is surprised by Mills' #263 resulting in her being candidate #1. Admits she is playing strangely but says she has a reason, specifically in regard to the claims.

4

[/color]
21: More talking about the claim. Votes Mills

5

[/color]
22: Is willing to lynch Mills

6

[/color]
23: Frustration
24: Thoughts on the living. She expresses no real suspicions - which is somewhat understanding but still rather disconcerting.
25: Clarifies the above
26: *kicks the game*
27: Explains that Spurg sticks out as a lurker because the discussion was more about him than any of the other lurkers
28: Wants to hear from Mook and lurkers
29: Asks Ythill to explain how Dean's death defends hypa
30: She knows the motivations for her vote...and leaves it at that.
31: Tells me to look all I want
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hypatia vexes me a little. She isn't scumhunting, her vote for Mills looked quite scummy and she seems to be pushing the non-active lurkers. Moreover, she seems to wrap a lot of her play in a veil of "I have my reasons" - wrt her ambiguous plan. I've had "secret plans" as town before myself, so I don't hold this against her. However, the enigmatic play is getting more and more concerning.

1) I realise that you have been called out on this several times now and are probably sick to death of it, but I am still a little confused as to your exact position. Tell me if you agree with this:

Claims should only be given where a person is at L-1 or there is a definite tangible benefit to town (eg. cop with a guilty on someone).

If you don't, could you make a simple statement of when claims are appropriate and why.
2) Why did you believe Spurg was most deserving of the wagon (cf. another lurker, or even a serious vote for Mills/Jennar/Krad), and what did you hope to achieve (You say "defend and claim", but what was he meant to defend against?
3) What changed your mind?
4) Earlier, you made it sound like the claim thing was a product of your mafia background (that you came from a site that used claims differently). Now you seem to be saying that you have some "plan" which specifically involves the claims. The two do not appear to be consonant with each other. Do you maintain that your plan is overwhelmingly beneficial?
5) Why no explanation for you vote on Mills? And what were your reasons for voting Mills? This really does look opportunistic.
6) Why didn't you (of all people) ask for a claim at this point?

[vollkan]

1. Generally I would agree with this. I would also not raise eyebrows at people claiming on L-2, to escape an "accidental hammering." Nor would I think it odd if there was a mass roleclaim in the last day or two days of a game, so that more sense can be made of the night scenes.

Sure. Those are the sorts of things I mean by "definite tangible benefit". I have no problems with this position on claiming.

2. There was only one wagon. It was spurg's. People wagon hop all the time, I just thought that the first wagon of the game was happening sooner than usual. I suppose I meant he was to defend against the wagon; how he could do that I have no idea.

So you do acknowledge that you didn't have anything for him to defend against. It is impossible to purely "defend against [a] wagon"- only arguments can actually be rebutted.

Random wagoning is fine, but once you call someone to "defend" you are stepping up the seriousness of the wagon, leading to a "random claim" if the process continues unabated.

Vollkan, do you think Ythill is likely scum?

No.

I say this because my read and questioning of him turned up nothing overly-suspicious. I can conceive of him being scum, but there is no evidence on which I can found a serious accusation. His % rating is 55% - boosted from 50% primarily as a result of his attitude towards #263 which, as I have said, was inflammatory.

[vollkan]

Just a quick meta reference: Newbie 514 just finished. I was cop. The game ended with no official winner due to mod error, though a town win was exceedingly likely.

I'm posting the reference here due to it being very recent and, at just 14 pages, a fairly concise demonstration of my playstyle.

[vollkan]

Vote: Hypatia, who is my #1. I will post a case soon, but also want to see others get their votes out there.

I'm interested to see how your perspective on this differs from my own.

PBPA of klebian

{I'm not going to do the red questions with footnotes, since there are so few posts. I will just list my questions at the end}
0-4: Nothing
5: Reading notes.

Page 1

Nothing

Page 2

Describes Mills leaving the wagon as a nulltell. Agrees with me in the argument with Hypa (who he also sees as new to the site). Doesn't see Ythill's logic for voting Mills.

Page 3

Agrees with Mills against Ythill. Thinks DD's FoS on Mills is late. Dislikes Ythill's 60 against Mills. Thinks Dean looks like buddying to Mills. Says Krad OMGUSes Mils (this was the Krad-Mills vote that I hated so much).

Page 4

Thinks I made too much of an effort to defend Mills. Jennar seems to recycle other people's arguments.

Page 5

Doesn't like my ending of the Mookeh mix-up thing.

Page 6

Nothing

Page 7

Agrees with most of my large post, but suspects Dean more. Thinks Mookeh and Ythill are scummier than I do.

Page 8

Agrees with Yth's pbpa of me and likes my responses.

6: Nothing
7: Reiterates he saw Mills jumping off as a newbtell. Didn't think Mills' vote was semi-serious. Accepts Ythill's explanation for the allegedly loaded question. No other arguments.
8: Attacks Bush for lurking
9: Admits there just a "semblance" of a Ythill-vollkan link
10-12: Nothing
13: Scumdar.
Doesn't suspect DD but thinks he has slipped under the radar
Bush is lurker
Spurg is too meta-focussed
Doesn't like Jennar's Mills vote, because Jennar had said nothing about Mills prior to that point
Thinks HYpa's Spurg vote was contrived and her Mills IGMEOY showed no independent reasoning. First person Kleb calls "viable scum"
Mookeh is lurker, possibly under-radar scum
Thinks Ythill is solid and not the day's play
Thinks my play doesn't measure up to Ythill. Doesn't like my reluctance to vote Mills, or my quick hammer.
Top 3 scum are- hypa, Mookeh, Vollkan

14: Asks why Jennar targets DD
15: Thinks Yth's acceptance of the "plan" is odd. Calls hypa out for apparently voting to point out wagon was near lynch
16: Reiterates that he doesn't like the immunity hypa gets from declaring her plan
17-19: nothing
20: Notes irony of hypa including herself in the non-lurkers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

1) Do your top 3 suspects remain the same?
2) Why do you suspect Mookeh? Your only comments basically were that he is a lurker - the same could be said for a lot of people, and yet Mookeh attracts your #2.

Overall, kleb is difficult for me to get a firm read on. He has been actively lurking, and he hasn't been engaged in much actual argument (ie. didn't debate with Ythill and wouldn't directly attack me, just said that he felt Ythill was more townish). I get a read that Kleb is flying under the radar somewhat.

Although he does give a top 3 suspect list, he is quick to deny that I am "viable scum", I don't see why he uniquely suspects Mookeh and his case on hypatia is not too extensive.

Klebian gets a

60%

at this stage.

[vollkan]

@vollkan: I appreciate your hunting but the clock is ticking. Please vote for

someone

.

I'm quite aware of the time constraints. I am trying to about this by doing my analyses, since there is no clear, obvious suspect.

Next up to bat...

PBPA of Jennar

0: Random vote and meta. Stresses that his behaviour is different, and his ideas of scumtells are different.
1: More meta
2: Promises content
3: Responds to Ythill's attacks on lurkers by saying that lurking can be a justified means of drawing out opportunistic scum. I really disagree with this. It's effectively saying that "Town can justifiably act scummy in order to draw opportunistic scum" which can basically just end up with a regress of "My scumminess was just a ruse." Traps are fine in principle, but they have to be used carefully - and I don't believe deliberate lurking satisfies this. He plays guilty until proven innocent, another point on which I disagree, but I know that there is a wide spectrum of opinion on this subject. Doesn't like Krad asking how much he should post - he says that this is a scumtell to him. Thinks that calling anything a scumtell instantly invalidates it as such. Asks Dean and myself whether we think the wagon on Spurg is legit for pressure or nefarious.
4: Says he has tightened his play and engages in less debate so as to avoid being misconstrued (if everyone played that way, the game would fall apart. I don't like this playstyle) Also, he wonders why I suspect him more than Krad even though I agreed with him about Krad being scummy. For starters, I hadn't given my views on Krad at that point but, moreover, I don't like the fact that he suggests that agreement on one point should mean that he cannot be my number 1 suspect. He also takes a swipe at me for not including Mills, Mookeh and Ythill - they were to come in my next analysis set.
5: Swipes at Ythill for making the assumption that I intended to follow up my analyses.
6: Reiterates that Ythill should not have defended me (I don't follow why defence of another play should be frowned upon.) "Why post a comment about it when it wasn't directed at you?" is something I really disagree with. In some cases, it might be good to hold off and let people answer for themselves (usually where the player is not one who carries there own weight), but there is no general rule against it. Ythill expressed his legitimate view about a pretty dodgy line of questioning sparked by Jennar. Thinks the day's discussion has been wasted.
7: Says he had no reason to take my promise of further content seriously. When I ask a legitimate question about him wrongly pluralising, he attacks the fact that my spelling is wrong (my spelling was fine; I just use British English). Votes Spurg

1

[/color]
8: Creates a new explanation of the contradiction pointed out by Ythill where Jennar suggests on one hand that he is not posting due to other peoples' aggression but, on the other, that people are not aggressive enough. Jennar says the former is because he has problems putting thoughts to paper, and the latter frankly confuses me.

2

[/color] Reiterates that he lurks strategically

3

[/color] Again, I don't think anybody should be allowed to strategically lurk. If done consistently, it is a playstyle that allows scum to fly under the radar, and justify this by meta.
9: Thinks that assuming guilt and framing arguments to meet that is a legitimate method of play. Again, I profoundly disagree - I've been wrongly attacked on that basis on several occasions. It just doesn't work because ANY person's play can conceivably come from scum. He thinks forcing claims is bad because "The conundrum exists in that if someone you are willing to lynch day one and power claims what possible reason could you have to believe them?"
10: He disagrees with my rebuttal about "turning the chessboard" because he says it is important to look at things from other people's perspective. However, when he originally brought this up "Turning the chessboard" was a reference to assuming guilt and framing attacks in that light NOT considering the other person's view.

4

[/color]
11: Doesn't like Mills' self-vote because it can be from scum (key word "Can") - this is not an attack. Votes Mills. Says Mills will be a good source of information. I REALLY dislike this. He makes no prior attack on Mills and, moreover, he makes no argument for Mills being scum here. I smell opportunism.
12: Reiterates Mills being good lynch for information. Thinks Mills' play is "odd" but makes no attack.
13: Large analysis post.
Pulls up no evidence or anything on Ythill, instead just commenting on his quantity of posting (rather than any of the content). Does the same thing for me, but thinks I am a likely SK "hiding in plain sight"

5

[/color] Singles out Mookeh, Volkan and Deaths Door. Interesting, since he gives nothing that really differentiates me from Ythill or makes me scummy. Mookeh is based solely on a speculative impression and he comments on DD in a collective with Spurg and Pres. So, basically, this list looks exceedingly dodgy.
14: Elaborates on suspicion of DD - says it was because DD posted well early on and then slunk off (as opposed to the other lurkers who never posted?) I don't see how the heck this is a reliable scumtell - at least, any more reliable than anybody else's lurking.
15: Promises content
16: Elaborates on wanting Spurg to post.

1) Please elaborate on why you voted Spurg here
2) What did you mean by: "So in the way that you present it is that people here play aggressively through nit picking arguments and ignoring a persons line of logic but don't actually want to scum hunt are contest points that aren't a question of play style or metagame. For example you guys were jumping on Mills for a misunderstanding of an informational source. You guys were playing aggressively one way but not in another. "
3) Can you point me to any place you have done this as town?
4) Explain why you shift the meaning of "turn the chessboard".
5) Your comments on Ythill's play are very similar to your comments for me, so why isn't he also a viable SK? Moreover, my play here is meta-consistent so I don't see how you can justify saying that it makes me prima facie more likely to be SK? I also don't see how you can really say that SKs want to hide in plain sight. Nothing clear on anybody else, but thinks Hypa is scummy.
6) Can you elaborate on your suspicion of Hypa?

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scummiest so far in my eyes. A whole lot of weird meta stuff which seems to give him an out for basically anything (ie. he says he has strange ideas of tells, strange play, doesn't post much, strategically lurks). Asks weird pointed questions at me and swipes over spelling rather than addressing the legiitimate pluralisation point. His vote Mills is very opportunistic and his new scumlist seems contrived. Jennar gets

70%

and the honour of my vote:

Vote: Jennar

[vollkan]

40 - Responding to Mills: "The point of a random wagon (such as the one I began) is not to move towards a lynch; it is to generate reactions from people." Says that wagoning randomly is good. To Mills: "You immediately assumed that the wagon was for the purposes of lynching and jumped off asap. What does that mean? It could mean one of many things: such as (but not restricted to) that you have no idea of how random wagons work, or that you are scum who was fearful of being associated with a wagon which you perceived to be getting into dangerous territory. "

{So basically, the two explanations he gives are that Mills is ignorant, or scum. Of course, there are other explanations: perhaps Mills was a townie who got nervous about the wagon and jumped off, not wanting to lynch Spurg (since according to vollkan, Mills assumed it was a lynching wagon). But vollkan does not list those. I'm believing now that an integral part of vollkan's "interrogation" is just actively pissing people off, perhaps in hopes that they'll trip up. He seems to start from the premise that everyone is scummy. I know it ticks me off to hear "Such and such a thing you've done is explainable in *this* way, because you're scum." It certainly seemed to for Mills. But my emotional reaction to his playstyle does not mean it's a bad playstyle, just annoying.}

I did say there were many possibilities and was clear that the two I posted were not meant to be an exclusive list.

The reason I approached the matter in that way was not to piss Mills off, but it was to open a discussion with him on the subject. I presented two viable possibilities, including the scum scenario which concerned me and the scenario of ignorance, but the whole point was for Mills to explain himself.

I don't start from an assumption of guilt (I use my 50% thing) and I loathe arguments that flip the onus of proof onto the accused. What I did here was present some possibilities to the table of discussion to show why I had concerns about Mills' behaviour in this area. Ultimately, however, I made no assumptions as to his motivations in this regard.

42 - Vollkan's "I was just trying to get a reaction!" explanation for Mills. He says re his earlier remark: "I was not inferring ANYTHING." I find this disingenuous. If he is so careful about picking apart other's posts, he must realize that whenever Player A gives explanations for Player B's behavior which point to, or consist of, Player B being scum, Player A has at least planted the idea in the audience's minds that Player B may be scum for the given reasons. (And sometimes Player A is correct and gets a successful lynch on Player B.) The inference has been made; it's just not necessarily a very serious one; but it's still there. (Of course Vollkan may have been using "infer" to mean a logical deduction.)

I just gave the "I was not inferring ANYTHING" explanation again above

I think you make a valid point about raising scenarios having a psychological impact, however I do not believe that is a valid reason for not raising such scenarios.

Since I am not Mills, I had no inkling of Mills' motivations in leaving the wagon. Thus, I raised the issue and offered two possibilities, including the scum scenario which demonstrated my particular concerns about the matter.

We need to consider that Vollkan's "interrogations" do not take place in a closed room with just him and his subject; we all read them, so they have two effects. One is the information that Vollkan finds out for himself, personally. The other is the ideas it gives everyone who is watching him question others.

I assume by this you mean the possible effect of my positing scenarios potentially infecting people's minds with undue suspicions of people. If I am wrong here, please clarify.

On that assumption, I don't think that this risk is a serious one for practical purposes. I am always clear that

conceivable scenario

=/=

reality

. Any reasonable mafia player will be able to properly distinguish the two. I admit that such a risk might increase if, in a game with newbies, I were to hold myself out as a figure of authority, but that is something I try very hard not to do (and I have to try because my tendency to dominate means that things often end up with me leading).

Let's do a play-by-play on Vollkan V. Mirth, posts 34-43, focusing on Mirth's stated feeling about Death's Door.

I assume from the post numbers you mean MILLS not MIRTH.

Mirth 34: "I didn't like Death's Door's vote for spurgistan. Not because it was a second vote (because at some point on the first day, someone will have to make a second vote inevitably) but just because I didn't like really like the tone of the OMGUS. It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game."
Vollkan 37: Why is DD scummy?

Rather than ridiculously simplifying what I said, it might do to quote the relevant part of my post in full.

Unvote
Vote:Death's Door

I'm getting off this spurgistan bandwagon because it was never my intention to start one on him in the first place - I just wanted him to explain his initial vote.

I didn't like Death's Door's vote for spurgistan. Not because it was a second vote (because at some point on the first day, someone will have to make a second vote inevitably) but just because I didn't like really like the tone of the OMGUS. It seemed like he wanted to chuck out an OMGUS but then pass it off as if he was merely 'randomly' voting due to occurences in some other game.

Even if it wasn't your intention, why would you want to leave the wagon?

Moreover, why is DD's (Death's Door's) "random" (obviously, no vote other than stupid dice votes are random) vote even worthy of comment, yet alone scummy? If it was OMGUS, why is that scummy at this stage?

My question was following on from what Mills had said regarding the vote. I asked why the random vote could be construed as scummy and why an OMGUS is scummy. I did not simply ask "Why is DD scummy?" My question was targeted towards working out Mills' argument.

Now, your next simplification of the posts by Mills and myself is also wrong.

Mirth 39: I had a feeling his vote wasn't random. (Reiterates previous reasons.)

That wasn't the gist of Mills' argument.

2. I was implying that his vote might not have been random - not in the sense that "no vote is random" but in the sense that I felt he wanted to vote for spurgistan and needed a spurious reason to do so (ie. OMGUS, past game context). Obviously, if I felt this about Death's Door's post, it would be worthy of comment by myself and subsequently worthy of my vote. Henceforth, we arrive at my previous post in which I did both of these things.

As can be seen, this is a significant development on what Mills had previously said.

Thus

So...casting an OMGUS "random" vote is a scumtell?

Here, my question is trying to work out why the use of a reason (ie. OMGUS) makes the random vote a scumtell.

Then we have Mills #41:

No - an OMGUS vote is not always a scumtell.

No - a "random" vote is not always a scumtell.

No - an OMGUS "random" vote is not always a scumtell.

Yes - voting for someone because you want to (no doubt for nefarious purposes within the context of the game) and passing it off as OMGUS and/or "random" is a scumtell.

I believe that this last case is what is occurring here based on the general tone and structure of the post. It's what I personally feel and I don't expect everyone to interpret the posts by players in the same way. Subsequently, you may not agree with my particular interpretation but that does not mean that I am any less entitled to it.

Again, Mills develops his ideas.

Now he asserts that the "tone and structure" somehow convey a nefarious purpose, an idea that had not shone through until that point. He justifies this with "personally feel" which always rubs me the wrong way - if someone can't explain a position with objective reasons they shouldn't hold the position and certainly shouldn't expect for their "feelings" to be seen as a respectable explanation.

So, I follow up with:

I don't know how you can read anything into that other than him jokingly casting an OMGUS for Spurg because of meta experience. Yes, he wanted to vote for Spurg for meta reasons.

and then, after Mills refuses to continue:

What is it, presumably in the "tone and structure", which conveys any sort of "nefarious purpose"?

Also, the wording of the first paragraph seems tautological. If I break it down, it basically says that doing something for a nefarious purpose is a scumtell. Unless you draw a distinction between scummy and "nefarious", in which case I ask why doing something for such a nefarious purpose is a scumtell.

I'm pushing for him to elaborate on this. I see nothing untoward in DD's post.

So, basically: "Why?" "A feeling." "I don't believe you." "I said a feeling." "I don't get it." "It's my feeling." The whole point of this is to get Mills to reiterate, over and over, that it's a feeling. HOW can people get evidence for or against a feeling in someone's gut?

The debate did not run along the lines you suggest, I've shown that above. Mills' expressed position kept varying and shifting and each time his position made absolutely no sense to me.

Then we hit the "feeling" about the tone and structure at which point I insisted he justify. I will push anybody that relies on subjective belief rather than objective evidence.

Mills gave reasons for the feeling.

No,

he didn't. I'll quote Mills again:

I believe that this last case is what is occurring here based on the general tone and structure of the post. It's what I personally feel and I don't expect everyone to interpret the posts by players in the same way.

Ythill said this was not enough and kept asking for more.

Hi! My name is vollkan.

Now 1 of 2 things can happen here:
1. The interogatee, having stated all their reasons, can only reiterate. Pointless. Unless of course the point is just to get Mills to say over and over again, "It's a feeling" so that his post about Death's Door is set up to look, in all our eyes, completely base and ungrounded.

He stated NO reasons other than "feeling". The point of my going after Mills like a pit-bull on that point was simple: I was going to either force him to give proper evidence, or else to back down from his claim.

The fact that the vote looked "completely base and ungrounded" wasn't my fault; Mills was the one who cast the vote - I was forcing him to justify it.

2. The story changes. In Mafia-on-a-Platter-Land the story changes so obviously that scum slips up. However, in most cases the interogatee will attempt to come up with more reasons in an effort to get Vollkan off their back. This does not reward concise posting, or a thought-out-post that addresses many possible objections. This generally makes the interogatee look bad, but it also looks bad to disengage and refuse to answer vollkan's questions. Again, it's more like throwing spitballs against various targets and hoping that eventually one will stick.

If the interrogatee is able to justify themself, vollkan will get off their back.

The other, third, outcome (which you ignore) is for the interrogatee to back down.

[vollkan]

2) What did you mean by: "So in the way that you present it is that people here play aggressively through nit picking arguments and ignoring a persons line of logic but don't actually want to scum hunt are contest points that aren't a question of play style or metagame. For example you guys were jumping on Mills for a misunderstanding of an informational source. You guys were playing aggressively one way but not in another. "

Exactly what I said. If you cant' figure it out you need to read it again. You can play aggressively in many different aspects of the game. You guys play aggressively some ways but not others. If you don't get that then I can't help you. Looks like you are fishing for things to attack me on though.

I'm not going to accept this answer.

If I follow you, you are saying that arguments on this site "nit-pick" rather than attack "logic". Aside from being a gross generalisation, I find that the distinction you draw is a pretty vacuous one.

4) Explain why you shift the meaning of "turn the chessboard".

You've obviously not played chess to any competitive level. When an opponent makes a move many players will turn the board to see it from their opponents perspective, that way they can in essence get a feel for the game from thier point of view. When applied to Mafia the idea is that you will attempt to to view the game from that players perspective and try to see what they attempted to gain from their comments and interactions. It is a tool for determining alignment as you can get a better feel for motive and intention.

I know perfectly well that "turn the chessboard" can mean to look at things from your opponent's perspective.

What I was referring to by the "shift" was this:

10: He disagrees with my rebuttal about "turning the chessboard" because he says it is important to look at things from other people's perspective. However, when he originally brought this up "Turning the chessboard" was a reference to assuming guilt and framing attacks in that light NOT considering the other person's view.

To give my references:

As expected most players dislike being labeled as scum be default instead of town by default. You seem to have s serious dislike of this. At this current point in the game there is not enough largely to point a definitive figure at anyone. Thus one must turn the chess board to see it from the other side.

You're talking about turning the board in the sense of assuming guilt.

Examining any arguement or play made by another player from the viewpoint of that player can shed light on to motive and direction. It is something learned from life experience applied here. I understand it has not worked well for you in the past but at least I understand why you made that statement now.

Now it's about perspective.

5) Your comments on Ythill's play are very similar to your comments for me, so why isn't he also a viable SK? Moreover, my play here is meta-consistent so I don't see how you can justify saying that it makes me prima facie more likely to be SK? I also don't see how you can really say that SKs want to hide in plain sight. Nothing clear on anybody else, but thinks Hypa is scummy.

Playing a meta consistent game doesn't make you more or less town. The only reason anyone would want to play the same way every game is so that when they are scum they are harder to read. The fact that you go out of your way to point this out doesn't make you look more town either. When they do the 'I played this way last game and was town" they are asking you to look at their previous play which was town and equate it to how they are playing and assume they are town.

I never said that a consistent meta makes an impact on your alignment. I was pointing out that YOU had argued that my play made it more likely that I was SK - which is patently untrue since I always play this way.

[vollkan]

Where is everyone?

I'm sitting here wondering where the hell everyone has got to

[vollkan]

Who does Vollkan attack?

Me, page 2. I am the first major questionee of the game. I know I am town. Many of you are on the fence about whether I'm town or not, but if I were scumbuddies with vollkan he would not have kept up about the spurg vote to the level he did.

Why do include the discussion I had with you on p2 under a section about attacks? We had a disagreement and a debate. That isn't an attack.

To me, this seems like excellent play from the point of a scum who knew Mills was innocent (because he was not mafia) and wanted to have his cake (the lynch) and eat it too (the "I knew so much better!")

Also seems like typical play from a townie who has a detestation of scum claims.

Ythill. Not that Ythill has done a lot of scumminess. Is he unwilling to take on Ythill? Can he find nothing to nitpick? Generally they seem to have similar trains of thoughts, but Vollkan's a lot more subdued around Ythill than he is around others. He responds to Ythill's questions reasonably and doesn't counterattack. He has a minor nitpick on Ythill's Mills case (274). He has questions in a PBP on 16, but not as aggressive as his others, so Ythill should be between "attacks" and "does not attack." (I have a pretty solid town read on Ythill, but I could be very wrong. If there *do* turn out to be two scum amongst the reasonably active posters, there's nothing separating Vollkan and Ythill.)

I found very little that was scummy about Ythill. You say yourself that you have a solid town read on Ythill; I don't see why it should be any different for me. If I have not attacked Ythill as vigorously as I have others, it is simply that he has committed less that merits attacks.

This analysis is hampered by the large amount of lurking players, and by our lack of dead scum. Still, Vollkan's major attacks (the kind that don't let up and go on for pages) have focused on 3 townies (me, Mills, KradDrol) and Jennar, whose alignment I am unsure of. He has left the lurkers alone, even though almost all lurkers have a post where they make assertions and suggestions.

This seems to be the entirety of your case against me.

I can't defend against the fact that KradDrol was town. I had a strong case against him, and I was wrong. It's as simple as that. The same thing goes for my arguments against you, if you are town.

As far as Mills goes, it's significantly more complicated. I held the DD vote against Mills as the strongest argument. I wasn't persuaded by much of what Ythill said and I defended Mills against the #263 attacks by Ythill. What I mean to say here, is that Mills was not a suspect of mine in the sense that Krad was and Jennar is (and you aren't in that vicinity of suspicion either).

Frankly, hypatia, I don't much see any case behind what you havve said. You've examined my conduct towards everyone and haven't pointed out anything that is actually scummy (though you have given a few conspiracies).

[vollkan]

What Mills did was inexcusably horrible. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that the pages leading up to his lynch reminded me of an old-time tag-team wrestling match, with Mills tied up in the ropes. Ythill would beat on him for a little while, tag Vollkan and Vollkan would beat on Mills for awhile, then tag Ythill again. Even significant parts of the posts Ythill and Vollkan addressed to each other were prompts for beating on Mills some more or discussions of just how willing they were to see Mills as the first day lynch. Suffice it to say these two were the architects of Mills’ lynch. Fair enough, great minds can think alike, even with carefully parsed, but never in a way that threatens the final outcome of their deliberations, differences.

I saw 2 arguments against Mills: His DD vote and his faux scum-hunting (the strawmanning thing was an argument that had been raised, but which I didn't value). I pushed him for both of those, and I stand by my attacks on him in those respects and the role they played in the suspicion of Mills.

I understand that you can probably conceive of it as tag-teaming, but that isn't what was going on. Both Ythill and myself had issues with Mills, though he had more than I did. I fail to see why the "tag-teaming" scenario you posit is any more viable than both of us arguing our respective issues against Mills (and against each other in respect of #263).

I also do not understand what you mean about "threatens the final outcome".

During the night KradDrol was killed. KradDrol, who had more directly than anyone else in town made clear he was suspicious of Vollkan. This was touched on and dismissed by Vollkan and Ythill in their day two discussions.

NK speculation is a very murky thing. You call attention to Krad's suspicion of me, I assume as a motive for Vollscum to NK Krad. Aside from a WIFOM inversion of this (ie. Killing Krad so that it looks like Voll took the kill) there is also the viable possibility that Krad was killed to embroil me in suspicion.

I'm not calling on you to accept either of the scenarios I present to be actual, but the fact that Krad was NKed cannot be reasonably held against me - it's subject to so much WIFOM and potential manipulation that it is completely unreliable.

But then Vollkan and Ythill, who ended day one proclaiming to not be very suspicious of each other, engage in an extensive, intricate and sometimes color coded correspondence between each other. It consumes time, breaks the threads (such as they were) which had come from other players’ pbpas, and at the end of this intense dual scrutiny our two stalwarts found themselves still not suspecting each other. I suppose this could just be a stalemate between two implacable sleuths or a case of Vollkan and Ythill playing with each other because nobody else was being much fun. But at the most generous this extensive and decorative exchange resulted in an inconclusive waste of precious time, and at worst it could be seen as keeping the town occupied until, with deadline looming, Ythill and Vollkan could debate their way to the same lynch again, with scant time to even consider a target other than this “best possible choice” they were offered.

Justin, you've played with me before, and you know that I get deep into large arguments.

The argument I had with Ythill stemmed from him questioning aspects of my behaviour towards Mills. As you say, neither Ythill or I suspected each other. That's actually an excellent reason for Ythill to take me to task and engage in an argument with me about my behaviour. It's the same reason that I took the trouble of going over Ythill's voluminous play - potential scum that seem protown are the most dangerous.

In post 192 Vollkan posts this:

2. DELIBERATE LYING - In this case, Mookeh (presumably scum if he has lied in this way) seeks to prevent Mils' actions being seen as a town-tell. Tbh, this seems a pretty ridiculous argument - the risks for scum in lying about a reference greatly outweigh the benefit of not having a town-tell recognised. It simply is not a viable scum move.

Which isn’t really true. And it bothers me, because Vollkan should know better than this, his play suggests someone with a far more nuanced appreciation of the game than this above quote suggests. Because would scum use a reference which could absolutely be shown as a bald-faced lie, where there were absolutely no similarities to the situation which could be found? No, they wouldn’t. But would scum use a reference which didn’t really apply to the situation but where some part of it could be jiggered around to seem to relate to one bit or another of the situation they were commenting on?

Sure, it’s a good risk, and with double benefits. First, you get a kick to your target by pointing out that their action was one you’re seen taken by scum, or taken yourself as scum. Then, if the target argues you can come back with your interpretation, which even if it isn’t very good still keeps you in the offensive position, and makes the target look defensive.

It was actually Post #123 by me.

Before I examine my position on this matter, a question: How would my being wrong on this point actually be

scummy

?

Now,
I agree with you that the making a reference that was a total lie would be more risky for scum than making one that could be "jiggered" to fit the situation. In hindsight, I really ought to have had a third category for "Jiggerable References" for clarity's sake. Going by what I wrote, I was thinking in terms of "True References" and "False References" - missing the fact that not all references that are not "True" are not necessarily obviously "False" (in the sense that I would be able to check the quote for myself and catch them out for fabrication). My line of thinking was that any reference that was not true would be capable of being demonstrated to be fallacious, though I concede that that might not be the case if the reference fabrication was done very subtly.

Then there’s this sequence. To Mills after his case against Mookeh:

Basically, I think you raise a few valid points about Mookeh (Let me raise Mookeh to 55%).

Followed by:

until he comes out with the case on Mookeh, which is hardly fantastic,”

and…

to return with some fairly mediocre attacks on Mookeh

Now since all the tells in the game had only managed to get two players above 55% on Vollkan’s suspicion list, the case Mills made which brought forth that first comment from Vollkan morphing into yet another reason to be suspicious of Mills is a very interesting thing to me.

(For ease of reference, I raised Mookeh to 55% in #241)

I'm sure that I have already addressed this somewhere...

Anyway, in terms of suspicion 55% means very little (effectively just "not completely clean").

Now, the majority of Mills' case against Mookeh was criticism of Mookeh's high quantity of signal posts. This I agreed with and this was the cause of the boost to 55% - Mookeh had been making many signal posts and that was a cause for 5% of concern.

Now, Mills also argued against Mookeh for taking "digs" at people. Two such digs (against Hypa and Mills) I disagreed with Mills on. Another two digs, (Krad and Jennar) I agreed were odd.

As far as cases go, it wasn't much. Sure, it was enough to move Mookeh beyond total neutrality - but it was still lackluster.

The reason I approached the matter in that way was not to piss Mills off, but it was to open a discussion with him on the subject. I presented two viable possibilities, including the scum scenario which concerned me and the scenario of ignorance, but the whole point was for Mills to explain himself.

No, Vollkan. And you know better. If you truly wanted Mills to explain himself you would have simply asked the question. If you wanted to fairly present options to Mills you would have included the option of him not wanting to be on a wagon he no longer trusted. You provided two pejorative options, ignorance or scumminess, and left them in the minds of anyone reading what you wrote. This is more the inquisitor than the interrogator. Now maybe you did this because he was annoying you. Maybe these were the only options that occurred to you, but I hardly think so. At any rate, you’re sharp enough to understand the implications of Hypatia’s question, and in your answer you chose to pretend you didn’t.

I stand by what I did entirely.

First off, I totally reject the idea that I left ideas in people's minds. I gave a disclaimer that the possibilities I had given (and I shall explain why I gave them again shortly) were not at all intended to be exclusive. The possibilities I raised were legitimate and purposeful, and the possibility that someone might be psychologically influenced by them didn't factor into my thinking. When I see someone present scenarios, I log them as possibilities, or I question them for doing so (where they go down conspiracy lines of thinking). I'm not so credulous as to let myself be sucked in by a mere possibility. Maybe not everyone is like me, fine. But I think that any player of normal fortitude will be able to tell the difference between "possibility" and "reality".

In some respects, I see this as analogous to Ythill's questions about my % system. Ythill was concerned about the potential for it to mislead people by seeming to be an objective measure. I acknowledge such a potential effect is possible, but that doesn't stop me from using the % system in every game I play (and I never see fit to give subjectivity disclaimers).

Now, why did I give the possibilities?

To elaborate on what I said in response to Hypatia,
The purpose of random wagoning is to snowball discussion and to pressure based on how people behave in response to the wagon. Mills' response was an important result of that random wagon.

I had

already

given Mills a flat question:

Even if it wasn't your intention, why would you want to leave the wagon?

That was in response to Mills saying:

I'm getting off this spurgistan bandwagon because it was never my intention to start one on him in the first place - I just wanted him to explain his initial vote.

At that point, Mills responsed in #39 with:

1. Why would I want to be on a wagon to lynch someone if there is nothing to suggest they are scum? Where I come from, we don't start bandwagons on people that quickly with absolutely no scum tell. I didn't want to come back the next day to find him lynched and have everyone say "Uh Oh. I guess we were wrong. But I guess that's what happens when we bandwagon someone for no reason! Better luck next time chaps!"

Thus, we had my post #40:

What a coincidence! Because we don't form random lynching wagons here either!

Joking aside: The point of a random wagon (such as the one I began) is not to move towards a lynch; it is to generate reactions from people. There was never going to be an "Uh oh" because the whole thing is just to see how people react to act to it: Whether people join for serious, or obviously random reasons; whether and how people attack those who did wagoned, etc.

Lynching randomly is very bad (*shock*) but wagoning randomly is very good.

You immediately assumed that the wagon was for the purposes of lynching and jumped off asap. What does that mean? It could mean one of many things: such as (but not restricted to) that you have no idea of how random wagons work, or that you are scum who was fearful of being associated with a wagon which you perceived to be getting into dangerous territory.

Mills had already declared his reasons for leaving the wagon (he didn't want to start a wagon, which he assumed was for a lynch).

You, Justin, suggest that I ought to have just asked Mills a question. But the question "Why did you leave the wagon?" had already been asked by me.

So, to keep up the pressure, I give two scenarios:
1)

Ignorance:

Mills had already played the immigrant card and, given his obvious lack of understanding of random wagons, this seemed quite likely.
2)

Scum:

You used the word "inquisitorial" and I disagree here. Explaining to Mills how I can construe his actions as scummy shows him the cause for my concern and applies pressure. It's a valid discussion tactic. I wasn't accusing Mills; I was voicing my concerns about his behaviour (No different to you suggesting tag-teaming between vollscum and ythscum).

[vollkan]

Frankly your entire playstyle seems scummy to me.

And I keep this playstyle regardless of alignment. It's a nulltell.

But since I said "seems" I decided that I could either continue on in the way I'd done your first two pages, or I could try a different tack to see what connections (or anti-connections, in this case) I could draw between you and other players so far. In the case of your death and the reveal of your role, this is good information to have out there.

That isn't a case against me, though. You've yet to make any real

case

against me, despite your vote. It's all well and good to raise linkage conjecture, but that isn't scumhunting.

As I've said before, I'm working on assumptions about the makeup of the scum and my assumptions could be very very wrong. However, I think that in the set containing Vollkan and Jennar, one of them is scum. And finding out the alignment of either gives us, I think, information about the likelihood of other players being mafia.

And here is where you shoot yourself in the foot.

By your own admission, you are basing your suspicions off "assumptions" (which would explain the aforementioned lack of a case). Moreover, you're still trying to justify everything by reference to information-value.

[vollkan]

Justin Playfair's entire post above is QFT.

It also came

after

your vote for me

The aggressiveness, yes. But the people you focus it on is information. Why are there people whom you leave alone, especially since you go on about "getting reactions" from people? In that case, wouldn't it be best to attack everyone, even on the tiniest of stuff, to see their reactions? Why don't you jump on Ythill? You were very cool towards the Mills lynch at the beginning, why no attack about that?

This is really a "damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't"...

You criticise me for not pushing Ythill hard enough, and Justin criticises me for having a massive debate with Ythill.

I have been questioning and arguing against Ythill, where I have felt questioning and argument were due. I haven't seen much from Ythill that merits suspicion or pressure (have you?). Where I have opposed Ythill (eg. #263) I've hardly been reticent about my opposition.

*Everything* by reference to information value? Information-value is the valuability of your lynch in determining your alignment and helping us figure out the pattern so far. Information is what I've pointed out already.

Are we going to have a lynch today where another player melts down and makes it impossible to keep them alive? If there was anything incredibly scummy from Day 2 we would have been talking about it. So, since I believe that information-value should rarely be the *only* consideration for a lynch but can be a tipping factor, I'd like to lynch you.

Oh wow....

Keep in mind that this game has just 3 players that have been active the entire time: Ythill, yourself and myself. It stands to reason that one of us three is going to be the most bountiful for information. We've had much written about us, and we've all written quite a lot. In other words, the argument from information is sort of akin to a lurker lynch in the inverse - it's a lynch for being active.

All you have presented, Hypatia, is conjecture about what an alignment reveal on myself will suggest. That is not scumhunting. Fine, we have an unusual absence of scumtells in this game (lurkers galore). That's no reason to just throw proper scumhunting out the door. Rather than doing the hard work of going through and actually doing any level of analysis, you've just skimmed over my interactions with people and declared there to be information

If that wasn't enough, let me run through the interactions you detail so that we can get a sense of exactly how valuable the information-gain will be. For the purposes of this exercise, I will examine information for both of these perspectives: "Vollkan as town" and "Vollkan as scum".

Who does Vollkan attack?

Me, page 2. I am the first major questionee of the game. I know I am town. Many of you are on the fence about whether I'm town or not, but if I were scumbuddies with vollkan he would not have kept up about the spurg vote to the level he did.

Voll as town = We learn that vollkan questioned Hypatia at length on pg 2. Hurrah!
Voll as scum = We learn that vollkan questioned Hypatia on pg 2. Maybe it was an attack, maybe it was distancing. Null in the end.

Mills, also page 2. I've gone over this one before. Mills is proved town. He also hammers Mills, but I don't blame him for that. His attacks on Mills follow basically the same pattern as those on me. I would argue that (before Mills went haywire) those attacks had even less basis than those on me, since there were many other players expressing disquiet over my Spurg remark than there were over Mills' stated "feeling" about Death's Door. Also around Page 10 he begins a less fiery attack, starting again about the Death's Door post. He seems unwilling to buy Ythill's case for Mills' lynch until the blowup. However he takes me to task for putting an IGMEOY at Mills instead of voting Mills (and I'm so pissed off that I let that influence me.) While he hammers Mills after the blowup, he offers three justifications and two 'I don't really think he's scum':

Voll as town = All of the above was genuine against Mills
Voll as scum = All of the above was from scum against Mills

KradDrol Minor jump-on on Page 4. In 91 he believes Krad has a "contrived case" against Mills. On Page 9, (205), a typically aggressive attack which continues on 10. Krad is proved town.

Voll as town = Suspicion of Krad was genuine
Voll as scum = Suspicion of Krad was contrived

Jennar on Page 7, in his typical style. (He engages with Jennar on Page 4, but it's not at all an attack.) Plus a theory disagreement on 233. Page 11 he says Jennar is in his "top 2" of suspicion with Krad (265). I have no idea on Jennar's alignment.

Voll as town = Suspicion of Jennar was genuine
Voll as scum = Suspicion of Jennar likely contrived. Probably not bussing given how serious he was about it.

Death's Door (now Justin) (even though Death's Door is a lurker now, he posted @57.) He replies to Death's Door's voiced dislikes about his playstyle by saying it's how he always plays.

Voll as town = Zilch
Voll as scum = Nada

Dean Harper (proved town.) He smacks Dean for not posting on 237 and tells him to shape up. Dean does not really have anything attackable.

Voll as town = Voll wanted Dean to post
Voll as scum = Voll was possibly trying to stir up anti-Dean sentiment

Ythill. Not that Ythill has done a lot of scumminess. Is he unwilling to take on Ythill? Can he find nothing to nitpick? Generally they seem to have similar trains of thoughts, but Vollkan's a lot more subdued around Ythill than he is around others. He responds to Ythill's questions reasonably and doesn't counterattack. He has a minor nitpick on Ythill's Mills case (274). He has questions in a PBP on 16, but not as aggressive as his others, so Ythill should be between "attacks" and "does not attack." (I have a pretty solid town read on Ythill, but I could be very wrong. If there *do* turn out to be two scum amongst the reasonably active posters, there's nothing separating Vollkan and Ythill.)

Voll as town = Vollkan didn't suspect Ythill much (though Vollkan wants to make it

very

clear that Ythill is not in the clear)
Voll as scum = Potentially scumbuddies, though it might just be vollkanscum buddying to a townie.

Spurg I have said before that if Spurg is scum (and we don't have enough to make a judgement), derailing the wagon by attacking its passengers would be an excellent defense strategy from a scumbuddy vollkan.

Voll as town = Voll's derailing the Spurg wagon was genuine
Voll as scum = Voll may have been trying to save a scumbuddy

Klebian.

Voll as town = *tumbleweed*
Voll as scum = *crickets*

Mr. President (now killa) (not that there's much to attack besides the obvious.) Doesn't like how he gets a "free pass" for today but says the Prez has a reasonable excuse for lurking. (I lean towards scum on Mr. President, but that's only a gut feeling.) I might actually put Pres on the "slight defending" part of the scale, but that's just my feeling.

Voll as town = Though Pres's lurking was reasonable
Voll as scum = Possibility of defending Pres-scum

Mookeh, slightly, on 5 (112, more in 114). But then in 116 he says he was confused and didn't mean to defend Mookeh, but (Dean?) instead. Later it's: "My misunderstanding was that I thought Mookeh was defending {Mills}. " I don't have much of a read on Mookeh, but I agree with Mills' points about Mookeh's scumminess.

Voll as town = Voll was genuinely confused.
Voll as scum = Voll might have deliberately faked confusion to defend Mookeh

I extend an open invitation for people to add whatever zany theories they can come up with to the list I give above.

Finally, if you

really

believe that scumhunting is futile and you

really

believe that the scant "information" of the above is merit in and of itself to lynch me - then vote away.

I can't defend against conspiracy theories. I can't have to defend against arguments from information.

[vollkan]

What seems passing strange to me is that the two of you have spent so much time arriving at basically the same conclusion about each other, and that you pretty much started at the same place you ended up. Is it impossible that two players like you and Vollkan sparred for as long as you did and ended up there? No. Is it likely? No. Not if you’re both town. It was just a little too neat.

Justin, the point I started with Ythill was someone whom I did not suspect. That in itself is a good reason for me to analyse him. Likewise, he had the same attitude towards me and, therefore, had a good reason to analyse me.

The fact we both ended up pretty much the same place does not render it an exercise in futility. The important thing for me was ensuring that I had an accurate view of Ythill's play - which can only be achieved by analysing and arguing with him. I'd be kicking myself if I did not analyse Ythill because I thought he was pro-town if he turned out to be scum

I also don't see why it is unlikely if we are both town. I'm going to assume (and this might be wrong) that ythill's reasons for analysing and arguing against me were similar to my reasons for doing likewise to him. If that's the case, it is quite likely that both townYthill and townVollkan would find little that was seriously suspicious and, thereby, would not end up with a significantly higher suspicion of each other.

Because in addition to hammering Mills right after you pleaded for a little time to consider, Vollkan consistently, even as he quibbled with you about this or that part of your arguments, moved Mills up his ladder of suspects and made clear his willingness to lynch him.

Mills ought to be slipped in between 2) and 3), given the latest events (not so suspect in my mind as Jennar and Krad, though).

And…

I am going to continue voting for KradDrol and have a "Finger of Vote" on Jennar: both are ideal candidates in my mind. A Mills lynch will have my support if nothing else looks to have the momentum behind it (and, from where I am sitting, that looks to be the case).

This is deceptive.

First off, my reasons for suspecting Mills were consistent: His DD vote and his ineffective efforts at scum-hunting.

Now, the quote you give where I talk about moving Mills "between 2) and 3)" is completely misleading in the context you have presented it.

I'll quote the thing in it's entirety so that the problem becomes clear: (Post #54 of me in isolation)

vollkan: KradDrol (5), Jennar (4), spurgistan (3)

That's incorrect (not that I blame you).

Krad and Jennar are my top 2, but Spurg (despite being the only other player I have named) is only a "last resort" candidate.

Earlier, I did say that a Jennar suspicion lynch sits equal with a Spurg lurker lynch, but my meaning there was made ambiguous in that I was responding to a post by Ythill.

I clarified my position later when I said:

My preferences:
1) KradDrol suspicion
2) Jennar suspicion
3) Lurking (Spurg seems the favourite for this...though I don't know)

* 2) is ranked above 3) due to information value.

Mills ought to be slipped in between 2) and 3), given the latest events (not so suspect in my mind as Jennar and Krad, though).

The important thing is that I am not putting Mills as a 2.5th ranked suspect - I was only placing a Mills lynch above a

lurker lynch

. As most of you know, I really don't like lurker lynches.

So, basically, I was not "moving Mills up the ladder of suspects". I was putting Mills forward as a "better-than-a-lurker-lynch" candidate. Consider these remarks from myself:

A content lynch of Mills will be more helpful than a lurker lynch of Spurg.

I don't see how I can bring this up without it looking like I am trying to deflect heat but I admit I am a little gobsmacked that Ythill would vote for information instead of scumminess. Perhaps you think I am scummy too (you obviously do) but I don't see why an information argument ever needs to come into it (nor a power-role argument for that matter). Where I come from that is considered about as big a taboo as no lynch on Day One and I have been quietly wondering if that is an acceptable reason for lynching on this website.

The best information comes from a content lynch. Ythill seems to think you are the best candidate for a content lynch. I disagree and would place either Krad or Jennar in that slot instead. Lynching purely because a particular lynch will reveal information about certain people doesn't make much sense because, obviously, the people pushing the "information" lynch ought to be held to account for its consequences (whatever way it goes).

Hypatia ought to pay attention to my comments in the above

No. Right now, we don't have enough time to wait for everyone to post a list. We need EACH PERSON TO VOTE so that we can get a lynch today. I will not accept a last-minute lurker lynch.

What I am trying to get across to you here, Justin, is that I was not constantly moving Mills up a list of suspects. I had two suspects who I was pushing for a lynch of - Krad and Jennar. Mills, I had suspicion of and saw as preferable to a lurker lynch, because he was suspicious (not in the same field as Krad/Jenn, though) and his lynch would not be worthless information-wise (cf. lynching a lurker).

Similarly Justin, you also cherry-pick in the second quote you give from me.

I believe we have 3 days until deadline. I want at least 2 days up our sleeves following a claim. Thus, the time to decide is right now.

Hypatia, an IGMEOY is not sufficient at this stage. If you want Mills lynched, vote for Mills. The important thing right now is to have a lynch which will get us information. The lurker problem can be dealt with tomorrow. The fact is that we have so many lurkers right now that lynching one is not going to substantially fix the problem. Thus, the most sensible thing is to lynch for suspicion.

I am going to continue voting for KradDrol and have a "Finger of Vote" on Jennar: both are ideal candidates in my mind. A Mills lynch will have my support if nothing else looks to have the momentum behind it (and, from where I am sitting, that looks to be the case).

VOTE

The second paragraph is very important here - it makes it clear that the reason I am supporting a Mills lynch is because I am desperate to avoid a useless lurker lynch. Mills was a suspicion lynch. Not the best. However, he was the only one which had any chance of going ahead. Whilst I was continuing to push Krad/Jennar, my priority was having

a

suspicion lynch.

But even more telling to me was the long post Vollkan (Vollkan post 58 in isolation) made in response to your suspicions about the list Mills created. Because while he was telling you he felt your suspicions were too extreme he allowed himself to be more and more convinced by your reasoning, and found reasons not explicitly stated by you to find Mills suspicious. It doesn’t strike me as a sincere post in any manner. Most especially, it doesn’t strike me as a Vollkan post. You made an above board case against Mills. Maybe you were scum trying to drag a townie to the gallows, maybe you thought he was a bad guy.

Deja vu. This was precisely what Ythill and I were discussing in our massive debate.

I'll briefly run over #58 again:

The first section of text by me in #58 is explicitly clear that, whilst Mills' list was obviously deeply flawed, it was a nulltell concerning his alignment.

Second section is me accepting Ythill's explanation of his bombast language

Third section is me

defending

Mills from Ythill on the basis of Mills' disclaimer.

Fourth section is me saying that it would be null regardless of who posted it.

Fifth is me admitting that the way the suspicions ended up was troubling, but I insisted that Ythill was being extreme in his attacks and that I believed it was a feasible error.

Sixth is me again defending Mills on the basis of the disclaimer - saying the disclaimer directly suggests to me that Mills wasn't trying to rack up a Hypatia lynch

Seventh is me saying we don't have the time for such a list

Eighth is me expressing skepticism about whether Mills really thinks that such a list is feasible. I link this as a contribution to my concerns (which, again, were waived by the disclaimer).

Ninth is me saying I dislike the list due to it potentially influencing lurkers.

Tenth is me being unimpressed by Mills seeeking replacement.

What's my point? The fact that I wasn't being at all swayed to Ythill's position. I was clear that there was cause for concern, but I maintained consistently that I wasn't suspicious of Mills.

But Vollkan’s play, throughout this entire sequence, seems disingenuous. I would argue that, of the two of you, he was more the architect of Mills’ lynch. And more importantly from my perspective, after choosing a target that didn’t seem to garner support, he allowed himself to be drawn ever more surely toward your target.

This isn't true. The reasons I had any suspicion of Mills were the reasons I had kept consistently (DD vote and aftermath and his faux scumhunting). I wasn't getting persuaded to Ythill's point of view. As I have already been saying, a suspicion lynch was the most important thing. As it came to be clear that neither of my candidates had the momentum necessary for lynch, I had to consider Mills as viable - if only to avoid a totally useless lurker lynch. All the while, however, I kept declaring my favouring for Krad/Jennar.

In fact, even when he hammered on “policy” grounds Vollkan didn’t refer to his statement above, where he has already said he would support a lynch of Mills if that was the only wagon that had momentum. And as far as his statement about being “furious” at Mills if he was lying, why would he be? The deadline was fast approaching and Vollkan had already said he would lynch Mills if he was the only option. Mills wasn’t making Vollkan cast a policy vote which might be mistaken. We know that from Vollkan’s own words earlier. Mills was just giving Vollkan an easier reason to cast his vote.

I would have been furious at Mills for lying (and I was furious at Mills for lying as it turned out) because, rather than doing the respectable thing and giving us some helpful concluding post, Mills instead blew up and gave us nothing. Rather than posting a defence, he did the unforgivable.

[vollkan]

There are a number of reasons why your behavior surrounding Mookeh's meta example regarding Mills would have seemed a beneficial move for scum. Blunting a town read for someone scum would know was town. After all, if it would have been ridiculous for Mookeh to lie about his meta then the point of the meta must be true.

Sure. That's what I wanted to see you be clear about.

As I said, my two-option (Truth or Lie) was overly-simplistic. My thinking at the time, I have explained, but I concede that it wasn't entirely accurate. I ought to have specified that extremely subtle referencing could be manipulated with low risk, though as I have said, I don't think such a reference is really viable.

Short of "I wasn't doing it to manipulate the situation because I am not scum" there isn't much more I can say to explain this.

If a player uses a great deal of self meta in the course of his play (as you do) lending false credence to your own meta by presenting an attitude toward meta made by someone else that vouches for its credibility.

I don't rely on meta as a matter of choice. The problem is that my playstyle results in me coming under attack for things that people would see are completely normal for me if they bothered doing just a few minutes of research.

You might even have been coming to Mookeh's defense. Certainly later you used Mills' case against Mookeh against Mills, disparaging the case while weaving it into your read on Mills, not Mookeh.

I wasn't coming to Mookeh's defence. The reason I posted on the matter at all (it had been resolved) was that Mill called on me to analyse the situation.

And the use of the case on Mookeh against Mills was part of his ineffectual scumhunting.

[vollkan]

Here are actual quotes from the post you have explained above:
<snip>

Yes, and they confirm what I was saying. None of them shows any shift in my position (again, I've debated this with Ythill).

And yes, I do believe that paragraph you added in is important. It’s the one where you tell Hypatia she has to vote for Mills. Just before saying that you’ll vote for Mills too if that is the only wagon has momentum behind it. (Which you believed to be the case).

I did not tell Hypatia she had to vote for Mills. I told her that an IGMEOY was pointless at that late stage - if she wanted Mills lynched she ought to vote. And yes, I could see that Mills was going to be the only achievable lynch.

I just don’t see that post the way you’re presenting it, Vollkan, and as many times as I’ve read it, I can’t. Your words just don’t match your claimed intent.

But they do. Nowhere in it do I express actual suspicion of Mills for it. I accept that it is a cause for concern, but I am adamant that it is not worthy of suspicion, especially to the extent that Ythill pushed it.

Look over it Justin and seriously ask yourself if my position is ever actually changing.

Votecount up to Post 450

Jennar (2) - vollkan, Ythill
vollkan (2) - Hypatia, Justin Playfair

Not Voting (5) - Jennar, killa seven, klebian, Mookeh, thinktank

5 to lynch.

[vollkan]

Well, except what you said when Mills actually asked for comment was…

Basically, I think you raise a few valid points about Mookeh (Let me raise Mookeh to 55%). I don't think it is worth a content-vote at this stage, though, given what I see as much more tangible cases on Krad and Jennar.

No, Justin. I was referring to why I commented on the Mookeh-reference debate when I did (#123), because the issue was resolved.

Mills had just said:

This seems strange given how diligentyly he has been playing and given that he had given proper (incorrect) analysis before, I wonder why he would choose not to give proper (correct) analysis now.

The "he" in question being me.

See, to me this looks like Mills case started out okay when he asked you about it, became a reason to suspect him when the day one lynch was drawing near, then got better again when Mills was dead and Ythill thought it might be worth looking at. The changes in your perceptions about them seem, at the very least, curiously convenient.

You've already questioned me on this.

Mills raised a few legitimate points, but there were also a few that were dodgy and, overall, the case wasn't very meaningful. (I even said in the first post, the supposedly agreeable one, that I didn't think it was vote-worthy).

[vollkan]

“The REST is feasible as a mistake” Capitalization is mine. That would pretty strongly imply that THIS is not feasible as a mistake. That would make it what?

I can understand your interpretation. What I meant was that the way the suspicions fell was the most troubling aspect of things to me, whilst the rest just seemed to be a pretty clear mistake. This is the reason why, at the end, I saythat Ythill's position wasn't "ridiculous". I can see legitimate grounds for concern because some of it is really worrying but I don't think it is largely a cause for suspicion.

And your being very skeptical means that you believe what?

That I am concerned and troubled. It isn't "suspicion" per se (In that I don't think it is actual evidence of scumminess) but it worries me.

[vollkan]

I don't agree that vollkan's stated intent could not match the post in question but I am still a little curious about his unwillingness to admit that the post gave the impression that I (and presumably you) got from it.

I'm unwilling to admit that it ought to give that impression, because as I have now said in my debate with you and my debate with Justin, my original position on the matter never actually varied - and that should be clear from reading the post. I am consistently saying that there are grounds for concern but that I don't actually suspect Mills, mainly as a result of the disclaimer.

I can't believe you slipped in that "color coded" comment and, a couple hours later, are verbosely trying to restate what the color coding demonstarted. Lol.

[vollkan]

Drat. It looks like we're over deadline. Vote now if you're going to!!!

Ack!

(itallics mine)

All I asked you to explicitly admit was that it could have given that impression, but you were unwilling without inserting a disclaimer about the incidental post order being the sole cause of this. That's all I was pointing out.

Well, remember when I brought up the "apparent shift" thing. I admitted that there could have been the impression of more agreement, but that didn't actually exist - since my position never varied. I can see why you might have saw it that way, but I reject the idea that my post should have appeared that way because there was no actual change of position.

[vollkan]

Hey everybody, I'm back from the grave. *spooky music* You can't get rid of me that easily.

I'll re-read from the point of my first death. I have been following along, but not closely enough to post analysis from.

Oh, and I was right about Jennar

[vollkan]

Page 19

I die and am revealed as town. Jennar dies and is revealed as scum (again, yay!).

464: I really REALLY dislike Hypa's call for a lurker lynch. We don't know what our situation is right now, but lynching for anything but content at this stage is completely unhelpful.

466: I don't quite know why my reveal causes k7 to suspect Ythill.

467: Hypatia says she meant rogueben, klebian, and thinktank, and says either would be good for a lurker wagon. This seems like she might not have been pushing a lurker lynch.

@ Hypatia

- Were you advocating a lurker lynch? If not, did you consider a lurker lynch at all legitimate?

468: Ythill says he was willing to drop a last minute hammer. Not unjustified, so I don't think it is scummy.

470: Ythill analyses Jennar (I shall be doing this myself as well).
I don't know if I agree with you about the kleb links based on a free pass for lurking, but I will cover this in my own review and I may end up agreeing (for now, I am just going over what has been said in my absence).
Light treatment of k7, kleb and hypatia is worth noting and I shall look closely at it.

471: To be frank, I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, hypatia was a source of increasing concern and I can understand a call for transparency. On the other, there is also the possibility of a call for a reveal to damage the town if she is actually a power role (as she ends up claiming). Ultimately, I think what Ythill does is justifiable, if only because Hypa should not be given the benefit of the doubt, particularly given her dodgy play.

473: Claims gunsmith. Consistent with wanting claims. Says ythill does not have a gun. Says she made a mistake and sent Ythill twice. I don't follow her error - what exactly did she do to mess it up? FWIW, in Newbie 514 I was cop and deliberately hammered a claimed doc in order to pull heat onto myself to keep myself alive (I was an obvious NK), out of the belief I could amply defend myself. So, scummy play as power role is not something I consider ridiculous.

474: ythill accuses of fakeclaiming, given her play. Seems to Think that she claimed Miller. I agree it is perplexing that Hypa was not NKed. One possible explanation is that, if the mafia did not kill Krad, they may have thought Vollkan-I to have been the vig/SK. It's possible they thought Hypa was bluffing, also. And, yes, Hypa - you cannot expect to justify your play by reference to your claim - it breaks the game by allowing a total excuse. The real question here is: "Is Hypa's play such that it could not reasonably come from a gunsmith in Hypa's position?" I think the questions about Hypa's shift from "background" to "plan" is valid.

475: I don't know if I agree that a fake gunsmith claim is so stupid for scum. For starters, it is a rare role - you aren't going to be countered. Secondly, providing you just declare negative results, you are only going to get countered by a power role with a gun (most likely cop/vig). Thus, the only way to have your claim disproved is by being countered by a valuable power role. I'm also confused about your explanation of the mistake. When I open up a sent PM, there is no option to edit or anything. Could you please detail, step-by-step exactly what you did. I also really doubt we have gunless GFs. Given that we had cops in this set-up, it seems far more likely for cop-immune GFs.

481: Ythill gives k7 as best lurker lynch, but it is clear from the preceding discussion that both him and Hypa are talking about content lynches of lurkers.

482: Kleb largely agrees with ythill

484: Kleb thinks hypa is scummy but wants to hear others' opinions

486: Ythill is correct that it is very unlikely he is scum pushing a mislynch of hypa.

493: Justin is very bombast about Hypatia's attidue to claiming being "is so shot through with contradictions and evasions that I’m not sure how she survived day one" I would like Justin go through this in detail. Largely, I don't think anything conclusive has really been shown to debunk her claim. Her behaviour around it is valid. I don't like her story, since it requires a fair amount of faith, but it is not ridiculous. I think it does justify her D1 hunger, since a claim would give her something to investigate N1. I think you do make a valid point, however, about her two-person ideas being dodgy. Whilst it is true that, on a reveal of contradiction, she might needlessly out a cop - the same goes for roles like trackers and so on as well (imperfect power roles). Justin votes Hypa.

494: Hypa makes a good point that she was not being ravenous for claims. She wasn't really being any different to my own view - claims at L-1.

495: ythill has spotted the weirdness in the night choice PM explanation

496: I agree with Ythill here. Justin makes one legitimate point (about the two-person plan). The suggestion she was ravenous for claims is simply not true. Justin missing something like this rings bells for me. Justin, what's your evidence to say she was ravenous for claims?

498: Justin provides the above "evidence". The following numbers are of the cited quotes in order:
1. Nothing out of the ordinary.
2. Ditto
3. Ditto. There's always a risk of a wagon outing a power role.
4. Ditto
5. Ditto. She says that there are two methods: a defense (she says this is ideal) and a claim (many people will not dewagon without one and expect claims by the end of the game
6. I advocated this same position myself
7: Same as 6
8. Makes sense given her claim
9. Same as 9.

NOTHING here suggests hypatia is seeking claims unreasonably. Her fondness for them is odd, but explained by her own claim. She has not unduly pushed anyone to claim. I am surprised that Justin would pull such a move.

499: Can't explain the PM thing. Details her plan timeline.

500: I agree with Ythill, but I do think what Justin is doing is scummy.

501: I disagree with you on whether she would claim one or two results if she were scum. She's going to come under the same immediate suspicion regardless of whether she claims 1 or 2. Hypascum might as well claim two "No Guns" to have more chance of outing a power role. It's not going to significantly decrease her odds of survival, if it does at all. The only risk for her is the vig not revealing himself and choosing to kill her at night - but if she really considered that a big risk, she wouldn't target a vig-suspect anyway. I'd like Ythill to reiterate his case on K7.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, what now?

I am most definitely NOT going to be voting Hypa right now. She hasn't been hideously scummy (though, see Vollkan I's most recent PBPA of her to show that she has done some things which are scummy) and the big concern of her plan has been sufficiently explained.

First and foremost, I will review Jennar. Then I will review Justin - His attacks on Hypa seem out of character for someone so meticulous.

[vollkan]

The thing that makes me think he is town is that if he was scum he is not likely to have killed vollkan, especially after attacking him so vigorously at the end of yesterday. This could all be a buttload of wifom though.

I've been rolling this around in my head.

Basically, I think that the crucial question is this: "Was Justin's case against VollI looking strong at the end of D2?"

See, I think I had effectively rebutted Justin's case. At any rate, I was feeling comfortable about having refuted it come the end of D2. With that in mind, I find it quite sensible for scumJustin to take VollI out, given that I was vigorously pushing against one of their own, that I was a loud member of the town and that there was a diminishing likelihood of successfully lynching VollI.

I'm not for a second saying that this scenario IS the case. But I am saying that I don't believe VollI's death actually makes it less likely that Justin is scum.

@VollkanII. Who is more likely scum – killa seven or Justin.

I can't answer this right now conclusively. However, given the arguments made against VollI by Justin and his latest attacks on Hypa, Justin is a real cause for concern. I don't have a clear enough read on k7.

Promised Jennar distancing analysis is forthcoming.

[vollkan]

Jennar Review

[/u]

The purpose of this is to identify and distinguish likely distancing/bussing from likely genuine behaviour. This is

NOT

intended to be an exhaustive PBPA but, rather, to identify interesting interplayer relations.

Jennar to All

5: Snipey response to Ythill after the affair where Jennar asked Voll-I about why I left players off my analysis.
7: Attacks and votes Spurg (who is now yours truly) for lack of posting.
8: Continues arg with Ythill
13: Large analysis:

Ythill

- Is reluctant to peg any of Ythill's play as town-tell. Thinks the attacks were justified. No effort to distance if Ythill is scum.

Mookeh

- Swipes at Mookeh for "shading", strategic lurking. Neutral read ultimately.

Hypatia

-Inconsistency and shading. Slightly scummier (than Mookeh I assume) but needs to form a case.

Kleb

- Nothing right now.

Spurgistan/DeathsDoor/Mr. President

- Lurkers.

What is interesting now is that he gives his top 3 as "Mookeh, Volkan and Deaths Door". Now, it's very common for scum to place a buddy in their top 2-3 suspicions. We KNOW that Vollkan-I was pro-town, which leaves Mookeh (Rogueben) and DD (Justin). The anomalous and unexplained singling out of DD among the lurkers is very interesting in this regard.

14: When called on about the DD peculiarity, he basically says that the suspicion stems from DD initially seeming inquisitive but then lurking off. What's interesting here is that he gives stronger attacks against Hypa really, but places DD higher in the top 3 - an inconsistency regarding these two.
16: Responds to interrogation by Ythill
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the strongest lead from this alone is the Mookeh and Justin listing, particularly the strange treatment of DD. Slight potential distancing to Hypa and Mook. neutral on Pres and Kleb. Arguments with Ythill look sincere.

Hypatia to Jennar

1: Random vote Jennar
24: Guesses Jennar as the likely scum on the Mills wagon. Says she doesn't like him, but this is inconclusive from his lack of posting.
36: has "no idea" on Jennar's alignment. Would support Jennar lynch if Voll-I came up town. She votes Voll-I and FoSes Jennar. Stresses her willingness to lynch either. This is a potential

FriendofScum

~~~~~~~
No direct engagement with Jennar. Weak early attack. Commits Vote/FoS combo

FriendofScum

(Which is where scum votes town and FoSes their buddy as a second candidate). Nothing overly clear here, but there is potential.

Justin Playfair (Death's Door) to Jennar

{DD}
2: His comments on Jennar are the least "game-relevant". His only conclusion is he would like more content from Jennar about the game, not theory.
{Justin}
No direct mention of Jennar. He just latches onto Voll-I and doesn't let go. I'm VERY surprised that Justin would not even take the time to evaluate the arguments I had made against Jennar.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
No effort at distancing here. As stated, the fact that Justin only pursued me and paid no attention to the arguments against Jennar I had made (odd, given that it would seem sensible to review the attacks made by your suspicion target) strikes me as peculiar.

killa seven (Mr. President)

{Pres}
Nothin'
{k7}
Nothin'
~~~~~~~~~
Unreadable

klebian (Autolycus)

{Auto}
Never posted
{klebian}
5: Thinks Jennar's analysis is largely repetition. Thinks Ythill defeats Jennar in an argument. Is concerned with Jennar's spurg vote.
13: Doesn't like the Mills vote by jennar and wonders how jennar will use the information he seemed so desirous of. Doesn't actually call Jennar scummy.
14: Asks why Jennar singled out DD
~~~~~~~~~~
Unreadable

Rogueben (Mookeh)

{Mookeh}
13: Thinks something is very much amiss with Jennar's play here, but also says that in a previous game a scummy jennar was FBI. Promises to post more, never does.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Unreadable

Ythill

19: points out contradiction from Jennar about lurking due to aggression
20: Responds to Jennar after Yth questions Jennar's pointed questions.
21: Argues with Jennar that his comments were not defences of me
22: Reiterates attacks on Jennar's duality
23: Is only significantly suspicious of Jennar and Mills. Would be most comfortable with Jennar lynch.
32: Jennar higher than Krad
34: Doesn't seem so suspicious of Jennar anymore
40: This is the post where yth votes Mills. He now covers Jennar with Krad under alignment and says "each of these guys made only one scummy post without provocation. Neither of them is even on my most wanted list at this point." Has Jennar as a poor option for consensus, since only I had high suspicion of him.
49: Once it looks like Mills has bailed out, yth swaps over to Jennar. Says he has a new case on Jennar.
59: Gives this light case. He criticses Jennar's voting behaviour for giving only enough reasons to cover himself. "his posts seem basically townie when he’s not voting or defending himself." So...Jennar is fine when he isn't doing anything important
74: Questions the Spurg vote by Jennar over the "worse than you" thing.
75: Follow-up questions.
85: Thinks my Jennar case was solid
86: Votes Jennar, seems mainly for dodging my questions.
89: Says he thinks Jennar is scummier than Voll-I, but would be willing to hammer Voll-I.
90: Rejects hypa's case on me. Thinks Justin's is more reasonable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think the biggest point in Yth's favour here is that he could have easily gone along with Justin and pushed against me but didn't and kept on Jennar. Other than that, it doesn't give me a firm read either way.

[vollkan]

killa seven (Mr. President)

{Pres}
Nothin'
{k7}
Nothin'
~~~~~~~~~
Unreadable

I stand by the belief that absolute failure of known-scum to mention/address a role, especially over replacements, is evidence of scumminess.

Ythill, what you refer to is my analysis of k7/Pres to Jennar. k7/Pres is not known-scum.

If player X is scum and player Y never addresses player X, is that a scumtell (without meta)?

klebian (Autolycus)

13: Doesn't like the Mills vote by jennar and wonders how jennar will use the information he seemed so desirous of. Doesn't actually call Jennar scummy.
14: Asks why Jennar singled out DD
~~~~~~~~~~
Unreadable

I disagree with your conclusion here. It is my belief that scumbuddies will usually distance, ignore, or support. One buddy raising good questions to another is counterproductive except in its WIFOM value of being seen as such. Even then, the trade heavily taxes scum. I think what you’ve pointed out about klebian must lend some credibility to him being town.

I maintain my position of "unreadable", for the reasons which follow.

Kleb's two references to Jennar:
1)

Doesn't like the Mills vote. Wonders about how Jennar will use the information.

- Certainly, these are good points, but he never follows them up with anything. Moreover, they are not damning to the point that I wouldn't expect a scumbuddy to ask them.
2)

The DD question

- This is a very good question but, when I think: "If I was scum with Jennar would I ask this?" I have to answer firmly in the affirmative: to prevent such a gaping hole remaining open for long and to gain townie-brownies for a good question.

Sure, kleb isn't buzzing my radar to any large extent right now, but I am not going to rule him out as scum based on his interactions.

Rogueben (Mookeh)

{Mookeh}
13: Thinks something is very much amiss with Jennar's play here, but also says that in a previous game a scummy jennar was FBI. Promises to post more, never does.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Unreadable

Are you kidding? Being a singular statement, this isn’t damning, but it is definitely a scumtell against the role. In fact, it’s probably the strongest one Mookeh dropped.
[/quote]

But it's a meta observation. If you were town in this game and had been in a game where you were town and power role Jennar was scummy, I daresay you would endeavour to make a note of it in a meta-chat within this game.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe it is the way I am wording this which is causing you to disagree with me so much. When I say "unreadable" what I mean is that I get no strong hints of either genuineness or distancing. I class avoidance as "unreadable" for the simple fact that it can be reasonable for two players not to have interaction for quite some length of time, just by the way the discussion flows.

Let me help you out. I’m town.

I believe hypa, so I believe you. But I won't pretend that I am not deeply worried about the prospect of me being tricked like in Mini 492 (Atticus fakeclaimed cop successfully).

[vollkan]

Regarding our level of disagreement: I don't know that it has to do with the definition/use of "unreadable" as much as with my perception of a change in your play from vollkanI to vollkanII. You seem less willing to commit in this incarnation and I am trying to determine whether I think it indicates your alignment or not.

"Less willing to commit"?

I've already come out swinging against Justin fairly strongly, and am reviewing him right now.

I acknowledge I have been keeping a very open mind in relation to the Jennar analysis I did. It stems from the fact that that there is very little clear distancing in what I saw, and little clear "genuine" scum-hunting. Behaviour such as Mookeh's concerns you, legitimately I might add, but it is not compelling for me on its own - since it gives rise to a very reasonable doubt.

Admittedly, when considered in conjunction with the listing of Rogueben with Justin by Jennar, more concern arises for me. And, certainly, those two end up looking the worst as a result of my analysis of Jennar. Justin more so, due to DD anomaly.

[vollkan]

PBPA of DD/Justin

{DD}
0: Meta-based random vote for Spurg
1: Here he is responding to Mills' attacks about the DD vote. Denies that he had intention to lynch Spurg. FoSes Mills in retaliation. Calls for the argument against Mills to end since it isn't going anywhere/
2: Big analysis.
Voll-I: He doesn't like Voll-I's aggression.
Ythill: Doesn't agree with Y's attacks on Mills (at least entirely...he doesn't dismiss them outright)
Spurg: nothing
Dean: nothing. Wants him to stop blending in
Mills: Unduly suspected.
Hypa: Doesn't articulate a clear position
Jennar: Mostly just theory dispute. Wants to see more content.
Mookeh: Nothing
Pres: Lurker
Krad: FoSes Krad for only demanding that Mills end the theory debate and for treating Mills in the same manner as Ythill.

This is interesting. He holds it as a reason for suspicion against Krad, but seems much more congenial towards Ythill about it

Kleb: nothing
3: Explains that the background players need to post fresh ideas.
4: Thinks the argument about Mookeh's reference was unnecessary. Suggests moving toward a lynch
5: Asks for extension
~~~~~~~~~
Basically no significant effort at scumhunting. His analysis is wordy, but mostly empty and non-committal. Moreover, his FoS on Krad doesn't sit all too well with the fact that he doesn't indicate any suspicion towards Ythill.
{Justin}
0: Welcome
1: Asks Ythill and Voll-I whether they think each other are scum.
2: Accuses Voll-I and Ythill of tag-teaming Mills. As I said at the time, whatever the appearance, we were arguing our respective issues. Justin presents this in as scummy a fashion as possible. It's not "Both Ythill and Vollkan present arguments aginst Mills" but it is "tag-teaming".

He attempts to hold Krad's death against Voll-I when there was as valid an argument that Krad was killed just for the purpose of embroiling me. In any event, whilst Krad did suspect Voll-I, his arguments were going nowhere and he was under suspicion himself - Justin ought to have considered all of this, but he didn't.

He then takes issue with the Ythill/voll debate, dismissing it entirely and suggesting it might be a scum distraction. I've engaged with enormous one-on-ones with Justin himself in the past, so he has absolutely NO excuse for attacking it in this fashion.

Then he raises the point about the "2. DELIBERATE LYING". In this case, I made an error by not being as subtle in the scenarios I presented as I ought to have been. However, the attack Justin makes of this is also conspiratorial. He later presents reasons for scum pretending such an error but does not, himself, give enough of a nuanced consideration of things to consider the possibility of reasonable error. He just dismisses it because I should "know better" (well, now we know that I am fallible )

He then attacks my escalation of Mookeh, which I explained honestly and reasonably.

Then there is the issue with me presenting the two scenarios of Ignorant or Scum. Justin attacks this as being inquisitorial and leaving it in people's minds. This ignored the actual chain of events leading to that post. Votes vollkan-I/

3: Reiterates that he doesn't like the time taken in argument between Yth and Voll-I (I've already explained why this is not legitimate criticism, especially from someone familiar with Y and myself). Says Y is less suspect since he seemed more serious. Suggests I was the primary architect of Mills' lynch and was consistently elevating mys suspicion of him and playing sneaky tricks in #58. I thoroughly refuted this at that the time and now I can stand in the knowledge that my refutations have been vindicated.
4: Suggests inconsistency in me on one hand wanting to "keep up the pressure" and on the other wanting to "open discussion"
5: Explains why scum could have made the DELIBERATE LYING error on purpose
6: He pulls up quotes which also surfaced in my debate with Yth and again presents them as a change of position. Then he accuses me of ordering hypa to vote Mills, which I flatly rejected - all I told her was that an IGMEOY was useless.
7: Points out another contradiction, though he doesn't understand what post I was referring to.
8: Again attacks the "apparent shift" post
9: Asks hypa "which lurkers"
10: Describes hypa's role-fishing as "almost comically over-the-top". Attacks the plan as being haphazard and not justifying her (actually non-existent) ravenous hunger for claims. Criticises the specifics of hypa's plan (which, I agree, was shoddy). Votes hypa.
11: THe list of quotes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As should be evident from the above. His swiping at Ythill and myself in the collective is very dodgy indeed. His attacks on my 2. DELIBERATE LYING error are conspiratorial. He rehashes the attacks on the "apparent shift" posts without showing any awareness of the original discussion of them. And now, he composes this garbage bullshit argument against hypa seeking claims, which he fails dismally to substantiate.

FoS: Justin

Next up: Rogueben goes under the microscope.

[vollkan]

PBPA of Rogueben/Mookeh

{Mookeh}
0: Random votes Voll-I
1: Meta
2: Asks what Hypa was expecting Spurg to say in answer
3: Doesn't like the level of game mechanics conversation since it isn't scum-hunting. Unvotes.
4: Says he doesn't feel safe with Mills because he used the same criticism as scum.
5: Supplies link
6: More meta. Exlains the ref that in the ref he was planting seeds of doubt.
7: Would rather not pull direct quotes from other games
8: Finds voll-I refreshing. Agrees ythill is sloppy (actually means Krad)
9: Clarifies the krad thing
10: Promises content
11: Explains the reference. Accuses Mills of strawmanning because he never called it empirical evidence. This is a fairly weak swipe from Mookeh - he said he had evidence from a game where he was scumy. It's reasonable to call it 'empirical', so this swipe at Mills is not justified.
12: Happy new year
13: Interesting post. He says that Jennar was scummy as FBI and that something "seems off". As I said, this is unreadable. If I had been town with that meta info, I might have raised it. What I missed in my previous analysis (the Jennar-focussed one) is the context of this post: Specifically that Mookeh emerges and the only comment he can make is this one in defence of Jennar. I did all my Jennar checks by just going Ctrl+F and searching "jen", which means distance between posts wasn't picked up. So, with this new fact, I concede that this Jennar comment is more unusual than I first picked up.
14: Promises more content
15: Guesses (wrongly) at my meta-reasons for the hammer. Promises content
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Very little scumhunting, and what there is I don't like. The straw-manning charge is dodgy and his singular defence of Jennar, whilst not compelling evidence, is weird. Certainly, it's a strange thing to post amid lurking.
{Rogueben}
0: Promises content
1: Ditto
2: Analysis:
Hypa: Concludes hypa's claim is plausible, but gives her 60% for scumtells (reasonable).
DD/Justin: Thinks DD was solid and had no problems. Thinks Justin's Voll/Ythill argument was slightly contrived. Calls out Justin for strawmanning my argument about lying being the alternative to error. Agrees with me on the Hypa quotes. Thinks Justin-scum would not have been likely to kill Voll-I. Gives Justin a 60%.
k7: Lurker. 55%
klebian: Solidly protown. 45%
voll-II: 55% due to the lurking of my predecessors
Ythill: Generally solid, with some weak points. 55%

Most suspects: Justin, Hypa and k7.

3: Agrees with me about Justin potentially NKing Voll-I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I largely agree with everything Ben has said so far. However, given Mookeh's play, he still has my eyes on him. Not a suspect thus far, but I will need to see more posts to get full peace of mind.

[vollkan]

@ vollkan: Would I be correct in assuming that your FoS on Justin would have been a vote if he was not at L-1?

Yeah. I ought to have specified that.

[vollkan]

Okay, I will also Vote: Spurgistan but let's hear something from him soon, because this puts him at four.

Why is this odd? Because, as was mentioned by several folks at the time, there was nothing for Spurgistan to comment on. There was no peculiar behavior to explain and no case to defend against. What was Hypatia asking for here, if not a claim?

Agreed. This was weird. She explains it in the next post you cite:

Next,

Ideally, something like "I'm here, here's why you shouldn't vote me, this logic is flawed, etc.": a defense (even though I'll admit it's hard to defend against a first day pressure because they're not based on a lot). Bandwagons do reveal important roles, but they also give scum a huge opportunity to trip up.

This was defensive and worth less, but it still applied to the Spurgistan wagon, and once again, there was no case made against Spurgistan. Also, I don’t like the slippery change from forcing claims to bandwagons. Curious that this doesn’t trip VollkanII’s memory of the incident, because he even pointed out at the time that early bandwagons based on nothing should never make it to this point.
Then,

SOME MAY SAY: "Oh no! There is a drawback, we may out a power role!"

BUT I COUNTER: "That is a risk we should take; it is a day start so we have no other info; persons rarely have incentive to give up information unless they are pressured."

Why? Because Hypatia is still trying to point to the bandwagon being the problem. Which it wasn’t at the time and which had already been made very clear to her. Hypatia can’t be construed to be honestly arguing about the validity of bandwagons here because there is no argument about this. She instead goes straight to the argument of the validity of making people claim, as she wanted to do with Spurgistan, over a bandwagon with no case attached.

I actually asked hypa a question along this same line in my PBPA of her:

2) Why did you believe Spurg was most deserving of the wagon (cf. another lurker, or even a serious vote for Mills/Jennar/Krad), and what did you hope to achieve (You say "defend and claim", but what was he meant to defend against?

and I also questioned her at the time:

1) What "flawed logic" (or equivalent) was there for him to address? You say "not based on a lot" but what arguments were there against Spurg? You seem to be trying to construe this as a serious wagon.

Her response to this was:

In the forums where I have played before, town has relied on bandwagons, and on bandwagoning basically everyone, waiting for someone to trip up. A good playstyle? Well, it's different from the playstyle current on this forum.

It's a day one wagon. It's not a serious wagon, unless he somehow does something incredibly scummy, or the town decides he is worth lynching; then it goes from a non-serious wagon to a serious one.

When I called her out for not answering the question directly, she says:

ONE: I was saying that this is a day one page 3 wagon, THERE IS NO LOGIC to it yet. I have explained about how day one wagons don't start off as serious but may BECOME serious, DEPENDENT UPON (among other things) how the bandwagoned player reacts; what s/he says; who jumps in or brings up other information.


THREE: If it's a "serious wagon" (and I assume it by "serious" you mean "it could lynch a player"), AND it's a DAY ONE PAGE THREE WAGON, who in their right mind would want to put someone dangerously close to a lynch from that wagon? What I was saying was, "I will take this bandwagon further. I want everyone to note that the vote count is getting up there so it doesn't put us at risk of doing something stupid." Perhaps we differ in what constitutes "dangerously close to a lynch". I wouldn't say three away is dangerously close, but another vote or two would have put him in a danger zone.

...

RESOLVED: Bandwagons are a major way of getting information on the first day

IN THAT: Scum can get caught in them and do something stupid or counterclaimable; and they also get people talking about the particular bandwagon.
<snip: the bit you quoted beginning with "SOME MAY SAY">

So, the situation as I see it is that she pushes a wagon on Spurg for nothing and demands that he add respond with a defence or a claim (implicit from the "bandwagons do reveal important roles" and clear from the "That is a risk we should take" and "counterclaimable" bit).

The question this raises for me is whether Hypa was actually seeking a claim directly (ie. a "ravenous hunger for claims), or if she just saw it as a potential consequence (as in a necessary risk). When I look at the "RESOLVED, IN THAT, SOME MAY SAY, I COUNTER" it seems that she saw it as a necessary risk.

Justin, I find it rather misleading of you to not include the "RESOLVED" and "IN THAT" parts, because they show that, in context, the bit about claiming (beginning with "SOME MAY SAY") was a response to an objection to her tactics.

That assumes that we know the wagon is on an innocent. In Day One we cannot know that without something like masons. So in order to turn around and lynch the wagoner, something must happen for the wagonee to grow a little halo. I've read dozens of games on this site and have seen COUNTLESS versions of the "Hey, X is at -2. Claim, X, or we will lynch you." X claims, town evaluates X's claim based on its probability and X's previous behavior. Either X is lynched, or the wagon moves elsewhere.
[/quote

This is in direct argument to VollkanI. And here we have Hypatia once more trying to pretend that there was anything for Spurgistan to “grow a little halo” over. What Hypatia did through these posts is turn her very specific actions regarding Spurgistan into what she could then claim was a theoretical case. But she never answered questions in a way that pertained to her actual original actions. And by inferring that the only way to stop a wagon at -2 was to make a claim she continues to push claiming as the only reasonable defense.

I concede you have a good point here, in that she seems quite clear in context that she thinks claiming is the only valid defence.

There are two main ways of defending oneself against a lynch: a behavior defense and a claim. It's best if one can say "No, my behavior was not scummy, I will explain and justify my behavior." But I've found in a lot of games people expect claims, and often won't debandwagon without one. And towards the end of the game everyone is expected to have a claim out there. (People differ over when all the claims should be out.) My playing experience is from a different forum where a lot of work is done based on claims and votes in the first few days, which is definitely a less sophisticated strategy than here.

Thank you, Hypatia, for finally admitting that defending oneself might be a way to stop a bandwagon. Though she then takes it back a little. Theory argument is fine, but when you misstate basic elements of game play repeatedly to suggest there is only one route for defense, it goes beyond theory.

She acknowledged defences earlier on, though that invokes the problem again of what sort of defense was she hoping for.

[quote="Hypa"
4. I would like the bandwagon to go quickly, so that Spurg has time to defend and claim, and we have time before the deadline to consider

Still wanting a claim from Spurgistan, who, considering the reasons the wagon was on him, would still have very little to defend against outside of not being around.

You neglect to mention that this came considerably later when Hypa was pushing Spurg as a lurker lynch. In that context, I would actually expect her to seek a claim. As far as the defense call goes, one can defend against a charge of lurking by, eg, "I have been sick/had lots of work/etc."

[quote="Hypatia"
Hypatia, realizing that many people will not defend or claim until they are at -2 or -1, would like any bandwagon to get to that point quickly, so that the bandwagonee has time to claim and defend and the town has time to evaluate the claim and defense, and if necessary pick another person. The closer it gets to the deadline, the more likely it is that someone dies stupidly.

After being questioned by Ythill, and once more pushing for claim territory on a bandwagonee who would have had little choice but to claim in order to mount any kind of defense.

[/quote]

No, Justin. In context, she was completely correct. The deadline was rapidly approaching and, thus, she was reasonably calling for Spurg to claim quickly. Her pushing of a Spurg lynch was something I profoundly disagreed with, but her approach to a claiming was suitable.

In general-meta-mafia terms, I do like claims. They warm my little heart. I realize their drawbacks, of course.

In this particular game, if I am alive and my plan works out, there will come a time when I will ask certain people for claims. I will not be doing it without good reason, and I will only do it if I'm certain it will net us at least one scum. This plan also keeps certain power roles safe; they will never be asked to claim. That's all I'm going to say for now, since any more information of how it works allows scum to work around it.

And here we have a flat contradiction. Because Hypatia has already tried to force claims on day one, and the claims could have been anything.

I am not going to respond to this point, because I want hypa to do this for herself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have a question for hypa: Did you want a claim from Spurg as a result of the early wagon?

[vollkan]

Also, I am not going to vote Justin just yet.

His latest post, explaining the quotes, has raised a reasonable doubt in my mind regarding Hypa. Specifically, because whilst she was not explicitly calling for claims, it seems that, given the impossibility of defense, she saw it as the inevitable result. Thus, in effect, being no different.

I want Hypa to go through Justin's post in full and respond. Justin has promised to catch up, and will no doubt respond to my case.

[vollkan]

As for Jennar, I was rather suspicious of him. Specifically, Jennar attacking VollkanI for posting his list in parts (this as a scum tell would make me scum in almost every game I’ve played in), which I thought was just a terrible deflecting move. But I was more suspicious of VollkanI, and since VollkanI was going after Jennar I thought it was more of what had initially raised my suspicions from rereading the day one attack on Mills. Which I thought was a case built from a pile of matches and pressed until Mills blew himself up. For me this ultimately came down to the possibility that Jennar was just a not very good and easily riled townie, where some of VollkanI’s posts seemed out of character for Vollkan.

You did not really answer my question, Justin. I wanted to know why it was that you didn't at least evaluate my arguments against Jennar. One would think that, if you were trying to make the argument that voll-I was scum, the best thing to do would be to show him pushing a dodgy case. Moreover, examining such a case would seem like an obvious means of ensuring that you were not potentially 'barking up the wrong tree'.

And the fact that some of my posts were 'out of character' (I disagree) is irrelevant to this fact. The main points you seemed to have against Voll-I were the "Mookeh LYING" post which was a genuine error from my part and which you beefed up with a conspiratorial idea about my objectives in doing so, and the "Apparent shift" post which I had already explained in full.

[vollkan]

Which seems a moderately curious statement given everything Hypatia had said on “game theory” throughout day one.

In what way?

One thought I had was that if the wagon got close on VollkanI Hypatia might very well jump off.

Why?

As for not posting on others, I came in close to deadline and didn’t have time to do the kind of post-stripping I usually do before making cases, but I use that only as a reason why I didn’t post more on others, not why I went after VollkanI. I was sure. And I was wrong.

Justin, not posting an enormous review of everyone is justifiable, but you effectively just opened up with broadside against me - rather than at least making some level of general comments. Again, you are a thorough and meticulous player and this sort of thing seems highly out of character for you.

If Hypatia dies tonight you do no worse than you would if she was lynched today. But if she’s alive tomorrow, are you really going to lynch a claimed power role in that situation? What if she’s alive tomorrow and claims she’s found a gun on someone (or clears someone, for that matter)? Would anyone in town trust her word enough to follow her lead? What value does she have to the town as a power role when the first and probably only test of her reliability would ultimately be the same decision you would make today, whether or not you trusted her claim? There is no logic at all in me attacking Hypatia after her claim if I’m scum. If anything she would be of more value alive.

Hypa coming up with a gun tomorrow would be taken with skepticism from me. Most likely, I would review tediously and try and come to my own conclusions. In other words, I would treat Hypa as an input, a guide - but not as firm proof of anything.

I reject the idea that you, as scum, would want to keep her alive. As Ben has said, it makes for a plausible mislynch - of a player that could, if he claim is true and believed, bring heat to bear on a scumbuddy.

I think it's about time that Justin claimed.

Seconded.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: I see Ythill got to it before I did

[vollkan]

@ Justin: Please don't pull a Mills if you are town.

I have confidence Justin will not be pulling a Mills even if he is town.

[vollkan]

vol-II: MotR. There is a difference between the play of vol-I and vol-II, and this from someone who prides himself on being meta-consistant. It could be the difference between early and mid game though. The one consistancy I do see is him playing both sides of a wagon, but that is something I found scummy in vol-I, so it doesn't make me see him as more town.

I don't believe there is a difference. I think any subtle changes may simply be due to the markedly different circumstances from when I left: I am no longer being questioned, my prime target (Jennar) died, Hypatia has claimed a power role and you have been declared clean by Hypa. All of this makes the game more complicated.

At this point it may be worth considering a ythill/hypat pair

I've considered this mentally, and its a source of much frustration for me. If this is the case, we are in serious difficulty. Ythill himself has never struck me as viable scum - and, as he says, his choice to push Jennar rather than anyone else seems very peculiar if hypa and ythill had pre-planned this all (eg. Ythill could very easily have knocked off voll-I and then had hypa claim him as innocent). Hypa, on the other hand, was suspicious - and that raises doubts.

One other possibility is hypa being scum

without

Ythill. I haven't crunched the numbers to see whether this is a viable move strategically, but it is a plausible scenario.

This is interesting. After 547, every player in the game has either strongly attacked justin or made a statement about willingness to lynch him. I would say k7's is the least genuine. Rogueben is completely right in saying for the most part k7 is just repeating what others has said (other than his saying that Justin has 'given up' which he refutes in the next post). His last sentence amuses me, but I still think for the most part he is echoing (of course this is hard to support when he only makes small, infrequent posts). I also like how he now thinks I am town atm. Ythill points this out but I will make it more clear.

{In response to Vollkan's 60% analysis of me Day 2}
hmm all good points, klebian seems to be flaky and not really doin much mostly lurking, occasional bw junp in so ima going to vote him i need to squeeze a vote in.
vote klebian

First I will say that I won't agree that I had been bw jumping. I've not been using my vote this game much as has been pointed out and I definitely can't see anyway you could say I was bandwagon jumping. But this is too late to really be arguing this so I will move on. Anyway Ythill soon (close to the deadline) tells k7 to abandon his case on me until tomorrow. K7 unvotes. Now, he thinks I am town.
The main problem with this switch, IMO, is that my being town is a sentiment that has been expressed by others. I think this highlights most clearly that k7 is paying the least attention here (though this does mean that he is reading to some extent, though it may just be player analyses). I find it likely that k7 in making his latest post forgot that he had a case on me yesterday, and found it convenient to agree with the majority (I think that about 3 people have expressed beliefs that I am town).

I hadn't actually noticed that he goes from voting you, to unvoting on an order from Ythill, to declaring you town. The way he talks about giving hypa another day in that weird last sentence suggests he is trying to setup lynches (=scummy).

I just run a relationship check on justin and k7. Justin never takes a stand on k7 (there is one sentence addressed to k7 explaining his defeatist play, but nothing else) and k7's first mention of justin is as "the best lynch".

[vollkan]

Once again, though, if I am to be today’s lynch, I ask for a brief period tomorrow before the final vote is cast. I don’t want anything I say today to be explained away as a desperate townie OMGUS tomorrow, and am certain it would be portrayed as a desperate scum OMGUS today.

Justin is not to be lynched until he gives his thoughts.

and that's an order

[vollkan]

Gosh, a lot's been posted.

the way u quickly voted for hypathia day 2 and 3 had big cases on her then.. quickly moved on to someone else ie jennar, then day 3 me then justin now me again.

So you think it’s scummy for someone to change their mind as more evidence is revealed? Please note that three of the four people you’ve accused me of swapping between are my current top three. The last one was confirmed scum. You’d have been better off mentioning Mills and Dean.

@k7: Why do you think Ythill changed his mind? Since you obviously disapprove, enlighten me as to what he should have done (on the assumption that Ythill is town, obviously)?

His vote on Klebian, based on VollkanI’s readings seems very nearly random, as though he just picked someone to be suspicious of. For one thing, even though VollkanI says that Klebian is actively lurking (and in fact Klebian has had a low output) it doesn’t lead at all to Killa Seven’s only comment about VollkanI’s pbpa, that “klebian seems to be flaky and not really doin much mostly lurking, occasional bw junp”. Klebian had in fact pointed out suspicions against a number of players. VollkanI was pointing out that Klebian was mostly jabbing and not putting combinations together, which is a fair assessment.

On this, @k7: define "flaky"

I disagree. The most suspicious thing was that he only took definitive action when a (now confirmed) scum seemed like the most likely lynch. Whenever a player acts outside his habits, there must be motive. What do you think motivated k7's vote on klebian?

Judging this is rather difficult. As you say, acting outside of habits suggests motive. It's interesting how he follows Voll-1 on klebian, but doesn't make any mention of the Jennar case, particularly given how much more substantial the Jennar case was. This is a very strange course of action to take if he is town. The other consideration, however, is that he can hardly be accused of trying to spark an alternative wagon - the klebian case I had formed was not going to gain momentum.

Finally, @Justin: Do you believe hypatia?

[vollkan]

@ Justin: I don’t think your last words are OMGUS at all. The endgame speculation could have pre-lynch value to scum but is otherwise indicative of a town alignment. Most importantly, I see in these last words a great deal of the townie variety of creative thinking we discussed. If you’d posted these thoughts closer to the beginning of the day, I probably wouldn’t have suspected you, but you didn’t. There are holes in your case against me but, again, the timing and nature of that case requires that I refrain from defending at this time. Other than the above, I’m going to let your last words stand without comment because it is time to make our decision.

Reading this by you prompted me to look back over Justin's play of late. The way he has been posting recently seems so much truer to form and so well thought-out that it really raises a huge doubt in my mind.

I cannot agree with a hypa lynch. I've held this position for some time now, and I stand by it. Ythill, if hypa is scum, that would mean that she took the risk of pegging you as having no-gun. That seems a very serious gambit for her to take. It suggests to me that it is more likely she is telling the truth, or, alternatively, that you are both scum and she knew she would not get countered.

My vote is going onto k7:

Vote: k7

.
Reasons:
1) Voting kleb for an insubstantial case presented by me
2) Hanging around in the background
3) Backflip on klebian
4) Vaguely expressed suspicion of Justin, coupled with an attack for giving up (suggests he is trying to appear to be adding content to the case, but the content he gives is dreadfully weak)

[vollkan]

@ vollkan: No argument with your case against k7 but I will be interested in hearing how you came to this decision when D4 dawns. Specifically, why you chose k7 over the other candidates. And I'd like to hear it even if I'm the NK, okay?

I'll give my thoughts loosely now.

I am inclined to believe hypatia at this point. Thus, I think you are also pro-town.

Justin was suspect, but his responses have been of a high standard and seem genuine. As I read over the most recent stuff, I became more and more uneasy about his lynch.

That leaves k7, Ben, and kleb. Of those 3, k7 is the one I find most suspicious.

[vollkan]

Problem is, who does that leave as k7's buddy?

Good question.

First off, I am not assuming Justin as town. His responses have been of a standard sufficient to cast serious doubts on my suspicion of him. He's a viable scum-buddy for k7.

Same with Rogueben. I haven't seen anything damningly suspicious from him, but I am holding him out as another potential.

Obviously, this rules you out as a scumbuddy Ythill, since that would require hypa also.

Hypa is possible, but I believe her claim - I see this as unlikely.

Klebian is also viable. His vote for Kleb on D2 was for a very weak case, and he soon abandoned the vote. It looked like distancing. Klebian's attacks on k7, meanwhile, are potent enough that I doubt they are distancing.

Perhaps the more important question is, was Jennar crafty enough to claim-fish a scumbuddy? It was his only instance.

Where did Jennar claim-fish?

[vollkan]

Combining my incarnations, I have pegged two of them so far.

I had an inkling that klebian was a vig

That was my other big concern regarding klebian. My intent yesterday in keeping him as a credible suspect was to try and make him less of an appealing target, since you had written him off. In Mini 500, I was mafia and we took out the vig - the town was stumped as to how we knew - they thought we had found a breadcrumb - but the methodology was rather simple: We traced the past NKs and matched them with suspicions.

Note to the field: unless you suspect there might have been 4+ scum, I am now confirmed town because if Hypatia is town she is telling the truth about me and if she is scum, she's the only one left.

Given that we have had a MRB, I think 4+ scum is probably a stretch. Thus, I think you are pro-town. Setup-wise, that puts us probably at 4:1.

@ Everyone: What are your opinions about a mass claim at this point? Would anyone but Hypatia claim anything other than vanilla? The only ones left who haven't are vollkan and ben. It could be very smart to do this before Hypa gives her result, though it may be pointless because I'm pretty sure we all know who she investigated.

At this stage, there is no reason not to mass claim.

I am vanilla

again.

Justin Playfair does not have a gun. (Sorry about the whole trying-to-lynch-you thing.)

Ergo, we assume Justin is innocent.

That means the scum is either vollkan2 or Rogueben.

You are also potential scum, Hypatia. This raises an interesting dilemma for us all - we can safely mislynch once. Or, alternatively, we could NL twice.

I favour taking the former option, and I shall explain why.

Why lynch is good

Subjectively, a lynch of Ben will either win us the game, or confirm to me that Hypatia is scum. I know that my actions yesterday won't be enough for me to rely on to convince the rest of you to trust me, so I can't justify this course of action subjectively alone.

As far as the setup goes, I think it lends some credence to Hypa's claim. Cop, cop, vig - What do they all have in common? Guns. Throwing a gunsmith into such a set-up would be a classic double-edged sword.

Why NL is bad

We have two confirmed (if it is indeed 4:1) townies in Ythill and Justin. Those who are doubtful are Ben, Hypa and myself. If we NL, it stands to reason that one of Ythill or Justin will be most likely NKed. Then we are at 3:1. Hypa declares a result and we have to decide whether or not we trust her. A second NL kills the remaining of Ythill/Justin and, again, come the next day it is a question of judging hypa, with the three of us left to decide amid uncertainty.

I submit that our best course of action is to lynch Ben. Since I have some faith in hypa's claim and I don't think we are at 3:2, this causes me to:

Vote: Rogueben

If he comes up town, then the heat is well and truly on and I will need to prove Hypa's guilt. If he comes up scum, we win.

[vollkan]

EBWOP:

Then we are at 3:1. Hypa declares a result and we have to decide whether or not we trust her. A second NL kills the remaining of Ythill/Justin and, again, come the next day it is a question of judging hypa, with the three of us left to decide amid uncertainty.

After the first NL (D4), we could obviously lynch (D5) when we are at 3:1. By that stage, Hypa would have declared a result and we would have to decide how to respond to her - the same situation we will be in if we mislynch today, except we will lack one contributor to discussion.

[vollkan]

Have any of you seen or heard of a godfather being immune to a gunsmith before?

Never heard of it. I suppose it is technically possible, but I don't consider it a viable option.

Regarding the proposal you lay out, I will abide by it unless I think something important has been missed. I intend on reviewing Ben myself (I won't post my review in thread unless requested to). If I think your bloc misses something vital (which is very unlikely given its constituency) I will not hesitate to raise it.

I'd personally love to get into an argument with Ben at this point - but I'll refrain from doing so if the bloc wishes it to be that way,

[vollkan]

Something that we should be careful of is Hyp-scum, if this is the case and there is a townie lynch today then it still doesn't confirm Hyp as town. She would have had to play a brilliant gambit as scum to pick both Justin and Ythill as gunless town members but it is still possible.

The identification of Ythill as vanilla was, absent any possible hinting from Ythill, very fortunate for her if she was scum. Justin, in contrast, is a little more explicable if we assume kleb was killed out of the belief that he was the vig, which seems likely given the choice not to kill Ythill the Confirmed.

It's not beyond the realm of reasonable likelihood (as in, I don't think it is a far-fetched idea). That said, I maintain my belief in Hypa's innocence (I will, however, make myself useful today by going over with a toothcomb).

@Vollkan. I just want to hear your opinion on the possibility of a 4 member scum team.

I think it highly unlikely, given the setup as we know it. A mass claim will help on this. Assuming we do not have any other power roles, I think that the "double-edged sword-ness" of vig and gunsmith, coupled with the mafia have a RB (and potentially a GF) balances things. 4 mafia would, I submit, be too much. That would place the game at 8:4 at the start. With the usual D1 mislynch, plus a mafia NK and a vigging, you are looking at 5:4 come the start of D2. Such a setup would be absolutely brutal for town. I am not saying this is not a

possibility

, but it would really surprise me if it were the case.

[vollkan]

And just to clear up now. I would have hammered k7 but I was out all day with no net access and by the time I got home it was already done.

I would ask why you bother to say what you

would have

done, but the Politburo has mandated self-censorship.

Thus, I merely sing my praises to Noble Leader Ythill.

[vollkan]

He entered this morning with a plan that protected him from today’s lynch and set him up for a D5 confrontation with Hypatia. No offense Hypa, but I believe the suggested argument would be won by vollkan regardless of your alignments and, more importantly, I think vollkan believes this. What’s more, the tone of vollkan’s #603 seems to inspire townie confidence and rush our decision. He achieves this with a false dichotomy. This entrance is, IMO, quite scummy.

I've been in a very similar situation to this before in Mini 495. To quote myself from the end of that game:

Our situation is now 4:1. Those numbers are very encouraging. We now have two potential lynchees: Gemelli and Lucienne. Let me just run through the numbers:

D4 is now 4:1
Mislynch = 3:1
-MafNK = 2:1
--Mislynch = 1:1 LOSS
--Maflynch = 2:0 WIN
MafLynch = 4:0 WIN

Now, with those numbers, we can simply lynch Gemelli and Lucienne (in any order) and we will win regardless of whether or not we are wrong the first time. Such a course of action assumes Elias, Spurg and myself are pro-town. I want to know what people think of this idea. I have very little doubt regarding Spurg, and slightly more on Elias (though still I think he is most likely pro-town now). Thus, I think this would be a good idea.

There I was town and I also pushed a "Lynch A, if that fails lynch B" The exact situation was similar to this one. To describe it exactly: We had a claimed tracker. I had been a successful scumhunter and was not in serious doubt by most of the players. I had mentally cleared Elias and Spurg based on their behaviour. That left Gemelli and Lucienne as the scum. Thus, I just called for one to be lynched and then to lynch the other). Even there, Spurg (the claimed tracker) claimed that my play was "freaking him out" and he actually suspected me more than the scumbag.

So, I don't expect you to follow along with me here in this game Ythill, either - because you have a reasonable doubt about me. However, that is not going to stop me from declaring support for what is evidently, to me, the best course of action.

This entrance is, IMO, quite scummy.

Combining my incarnations, I have pegged two of them so far.

That was intended to come across as "I'm pleased with my effectiveness this game" rather than "Look how pro-town I am!"

Vollkan really wants to argue with ben. His #610 clearly violates the call for silence. I wonder if this is ego, or scum concerned that his manipulations are being shut down.

It's ego. I like arguing and having someone that I am reasonably sure is scum as my opponent is something I always find fun. Should I put future violations of the diktat in spoiler tags for you?

There’s one more thing but it relies on an assumption so I’ll check myself before giving the read. Vollkan, who did you think Hypatia was going to investigate and why?

I didn't actually make any predictions about who Hypa would investigate. I see no reason why I should have done so.

[vollkan]

For the record I still see 4 scum as a possibility, I have been in 12 mans with 4 scum before and this is why I was mentioning the Ythill-Hypa pairing.

Can we have a link? I want to see the set-up.

As for it being defensive, I expected the question to come at some point today, because I would have asked me that question too. I wanted to clarify it before anyone asked, because otherwise it makes the defense seem concocted (which it is not).

What question were you expecting to come up today?

[vollkan]

#213: spurg living on a couch, “Not quite sure where the (justified) lurker wagon is on me”

Is this spurg telling Bush about the trap?!?

I'm not sure what "trap" you are referring to. Could you clarify?

# #288: spurg’s meta reads; vol-I is town, DD could be scum, Dean is definitely scum; spurg says he has a history of lurking as scum

The most eloquent is the most townie, and on down the line. All turned up town in the end.

I think the way you describe what Spurg said here is slightly wrong, and I will show why:

The one thing I'm reasonably sure of is that two of the three players I've played with are playing like they did in our games. Death's Door didn't post (basically at all) as scum and Volkann wrote reasonably intelligent epic poems as town. I feel that that is more indicative of Volkann being town than DD being scum, he just doesn't seem to be here. I also wouldn't put it past Volkann to be smart enough to have consistent playstyles.

The first point he makes is that DD lurked as scum and that I waxed lyrical as town.

But he then equivocates and suggests that the "voll-I as town" indication is probably more accurate a towntell, than lurking would be as mafia. However, he then makes the good observation that he wouldn't put it past me to have consistent playstyles.

Then we get to his comments on Dean:

The player I would say is playing differently is Deano. In our Newbie game, he was posting consistently, if (sorry) not very well as a townie. Now, his posts are few and far between, never mind severely lacking in content (again, hey Mr. Kettle... you're black). But Vote: Dean for taking a page from the scum who won by sitting back and watching the game swirl around him. Me.

Regardless of how "good" a player Dean is relative to DD and myself, the meta point he makes here is valid. If Dean is usually a frequent poster, lurking suggests something off which is worth pursuing.

So, Ythill, I firstly dispute that Spurg actually forms any real ideas about DD or myself from this - he quite clearly maintains an open mind. Regarding Dean, yes he does have the most incompetent player as the most suspect, but the point he makes is valid.

#297: Jennar role-fishes spurg

I think this is a very important detail, but it’s a huge WIFOM trap.

It's a wifom point indeed. Given my position, I know Jennar was not fishing a buddy, but that's purely subjective. Objectively, I think Jennar's play was of such a standard that he wouldn't be up to setting up that sort of thing (he wasn't a fantastic player). But, I know these sorts of points are fraught with uncertainty, so I think that, in your position, an inconclusive stance is reasonable.

#299: spurg says mafia usually kill light content players and drops the most chilling scumtell of the game, “Also, while I generally hate self-voters, Mills has played reasonably well except for that, and I seriously doubt he would self-vote while asking for a replacement if he were scum. It's not like we had him particularly well to rights, or anything.”

Note the tense of the last sentence and the fact the Mills hadn’t been hammered yet. Very creepy.

I read over 299 several times, and the last sentence is incoherent to me:

Seeing as I'm almost definitely getting NK'ed, posting seems sort of silly at this point. However, I'm trying to get a little mafia karma back by posting the last few days before deadline. Here goes.

Why do you think you would be NK'd? What makes you more a target then anyone else? It bothers me any time anyone thinks they are high on the mafia hit list.

-J

I would consider myself to be a likely NK (either for the vig or Mafia, probably not SK) because I haven't posted at all, there's nobody to tie me to. Also, while I generally hate self-voters, Mills has played reasonably well except for that, and I seriously doubt he would self-vote while asking for a replacement if he were scum.

It's not like we had him particularly well to rights, or anything.

"particularly well to rights, or anything"? What does that mean?

Maybe you've gotten an understanding of what that sentence means, but I think that the tense is justifiable if he was talking about something happening around the time of the self-vote. If you understand what he meant, clarify and I will come back to this.

(1) Note how Jennar subtly demands that at least one of his buddies get replaced. It might have been directed at spurg and Bush. Three posts later, spurg has asked for replacement.

It's worth remembering in context that Jennar hadn't posted for six days before Jennar made that post, and the replacement request was confirmed by ChaosOmega

three days later

(You say "three posts"). My point is that there was a considerable delay both before and after Jennar's post. Assume Spurg is a town lurker - he doesn't post for 9 days. He's going to ask for replacement. You've suggested a link here on conspiracy grounds.

I don't think this can be read as a subtle demand for buddy replacement (Why bother doing something like that in thread when one could just PM the mod?).

[vollkan]

@ Hypatia: Yes. MotR = Middle of the Road.

• #192: Bush: “im willing to vote 4 anyone whose lurked more than me”
  (see next entry)
  
  
• #202: Yth argues that spurg is a worse lurker than Bush
  I never got to use this trap because Bush never posted again but, see next entry.
  
  
• #213: spurg living on a couch, “Not quite sure where the (justified) lurker wagon is on me”
  Is this spurg telling Bush about the trap?!?

I'm not sure what "trap" you are referring to. Could you clarify?

I think it was clear from my post. I’ve expanded the block-quote you made of me to include the relevant information.

Do you understand now, or do you want me to explain further?

No, that's fine. I read the remarks on #213 then backtracked and read that section and couldn't work it out. It didn't occur to me that I should just read your own post.

As I understand it, Spurg is saying that there is no justified lurker wagon on him. The way I read this, without the gloss of conspiracy you add, is that he is simply wondering how a lurker wagon on him can be justified. It may well have served as a potential deterrent for the trap, but to suggest that was his deliberate intention is making an assumption.

I read over 299 several times, and the last sentence is incoherent to me:

Also, while I generally hate self-voters, Mills has played reasonably well except for that, and I seriously doubt he would self-vote while asking for a replacement if he were scum.

It's not like we had him particularly well to rights, or anything.

"particularly well to rights, or anything"? What does that mean?

I trimmed down your block quote a bit to leave only what matters to this point. What is it you don’t understand? The idiom?

Having someone “well to rights” = having them in a inescapable position. In this sense, “particularly” inescapable. In the context of this game, spurg was saying that Mills wasn’t obv-scum based on the cases at that time.

What’s creepy about this is it comes just before Mills’ death. Spurg points out what he believes to be a serious scumtell (the self vote) but diminishes its meaning with a “serious doubt” that is not fully explained. Then he throws that last sentence in, which suggests that spurg knew Mills alignment and was posting his scummy “ooooops.” Problem is, Mills wasn’t dead yet.

I'd never heard that idiom before.

Anyway, now that I understand what that meant, the meaning of Spurg's post becomes clear to me.

Scum usually only scumclaim when they are "well to rights". Spurg is arguing that the scum-claim is not scummy and his reasons are:
1) He asked for replacement, which scum giving up don't do when they scum-claim.
2) He scum-claimed despite not being "well to rights". Scum usually only scum claim if they have no other option.

The past tense is referring to Mills' state of mind at the time of the claim. He was not "well to rights" and, thus, the scum-claim seems odd to Spurg.

I don't think this can be read as a subtle demand for buddy replacement (Why bother doing something like that in thread when one could just PM the mod?).

I don’t understand how you can claim this is a valid argument. Of course the statement

can

be read this way because, no matter what we think about spurg, the statement

did

serve this purpose as regards Bush, who has been confirmed scum. The only question was whether it was also directed at spurg.

Well, first off, I don't know if it was specifically meant to even call for Bush's replacement. He made a post calling for the replacement of a lurker. Obviously, he would want that lurker to be Bush, but I imagine that scum in his position would make a replacement call anyway just to appear to be taking a normal response to the lurking whilst, at the same time, begging for replacement of their buddy.

In the alternative, suggesting that it could be about Spurg also is reading ideas into what was posted and, again, enters the zone of conspiracy.

Assume Spurg is a town lurker - he doesn't post for 9 days. He's going to ask for replacement. You've suggested a link here on conspiracy grounds.

Spurg had periods of inactivity lasting longer than nine days, yet he didn’t ask for replacement earlier. I think you might be using “conspiracy” in a different sense than I do. This link is not based on conspiracy grounds because Jennar’s alignment is confirmed rather than assumed.

Please explain what you mean by “conspiracy grounds.”

Yes, he had had longer periods before - I fail to see how that is significant. After having lurked all game and not posted for nine days, replacement would be viable for him. As in, whilst it was not his longest lurking period, it became clear during that break that he was not going to ever be able to properly contribute.

Conspiracy

- Reading ideas into a post, usually with the effect of generating suspicion, when those ideas are not immediately apparent. As in, the replacement request is conspiracy because it relies on the question "

What if

Jennar also meant Spurg?" Obviously, in this game we have to judge intention at some point (there are no universal scumtells), but there is only so much leeway that can be taken with a single post.

[vollkan]

I see this very differently than you, and don't forsee my mind changing. I think spurg was asking where the wagon was (i.e. why are only Ythill and Jennar voting him for lurking) though a larger wagon would be justified because he has been lurking badly. I think this is clear from his post and in context considering his other posts.

Okay, I will accept your interpretation for now. It wasn't what I got on my reading, but it's a reasonable view.

As for whether it was a mention of the trap, it's possible. I'm not saying it's fact.

Okay, for an objective stance that's fine. I just wanted to make sure you weren't mixing possibility and reality.

Regarding "conspiracy grounds," I now understand what you are saying. Much of what I (or anyone) brings up about you or ben at this point is going to be at least partialy founded in what you call conspiracy grounds. I agree that this diminishes any specific post as damning evidence, but I don't know that it diminishes the validity of multiple points when viewed in a more global sense.

Multiple posts which can be construed conspiratorially do make a suggestion that "something's up" - but it is important to keep in mind the level of conspiracy involved in the interpretation of each individual post.

[vollkan]

Yes, but I agree more than you

[vollkan]

@ vollkan: If you are scum this time, how will you record the win and loss in your sig?

In theory, I suppose it would only be fair for me to count it as a scum game if I was in that situation (ie. starting as town but replacing as scum). If scumVollkan (nee town) were to keep a town win condition, that's a disincentive. And "You win regardless" is just stupid.

[vollkan]

I will have content up tomorrow. My apologies.

Looking forward to it.

[vollkan]

I've finally gotten round to finishing my review of Hypa. I've started from post 0 (rather than from where I last left off) so that I don't let anything slip through.

PBPA of Hypatia

0: Nothing
1: Random vote Jennar
2: Votes Spurg. Notes it is a fourth vote. Hopes to hear "something" from him soon.

As I said at the time, this begs the question as to what Hypa wanted him to address. Discussion on this point ensues.

3: Says she wanted a defence, but admits it will be difficult given the nature of the wagon. Interestingly, says that BWs do reveal "important roles, but they also give scum a huge opportunity to trip up. "

Reading this carefully, it seems clear that she considered a role claim to be a viable outcome of the wagon she joined. Now, accepting her gunsmith plan as genuine (despite the problem's with it), this makes sense. The alternative view, however, is that she was trying to push a role claim - potentially nefariously

4: Attributes her BWing to her experiences outside of this site

She has admitted in a later post that this was a lie designed to hide her investigative role.

5: Most notable here is her express affirmation of outing a power role as a reasonable risk to take
6: A dewagoning requires something to "grow a little halo". The example she gives is, surprise, a claim.

Justin's analysis of this shows that she was pushing a claim again

7: Unvotes
8: Reiterates her view that wagons are good because they let people defend themselves and scum slip up
9: Is tired of addressing her page 2-3 play
10: Returns from holidays
11: Has nothing really to comment on. Says she

would

be willing to BW Mr. Pres for OMGUS, though she equivocates by saying that it is hard to get information from lurkers

A brief read of the rest of that page shows me that there wasn't anyone else pushing for Bush to be BWed. She suggests a possible acceptance of BWing Bush, but then denies the potential for this to achieve something. It's very wishy-washy.

12: Agrees it is ironic she is pushing someone for lurking
13: Thirds extension request
14: Expresses a really naive understanding of what claim fishing is (it's "fishing" because it's done subtly). Says behaviour defences are best but some people won't deBW without a claim.

I don't see why these 'people' are relevant. More over, as has been noted subsequently, the lack of a means by which Spurg could have defended himself again shows a wanting of claim.
15: Pushes a wagon on Spurg. Votes Spurg

This seems just purely lurker-based

16: She wants Spurg to "defend and claim"

Absent an excuse like "I've been sick/busy" it's hard to defend against a charge of lurking. Thus, that lends itself to a claim being sought. Obviously, she was pushing a lurker lynch here anyway, so the pursuit of a claim is understandable.

17: Expresses desire for the Spurg wagon to reach claim point quickly

As I said earlier on (in another post) her pushing Spurg's lynch is something I disagree with, but her attitude to claiming is correct at this point

18: Clarifies that she does not want fakeclaims (after a question from Y)
19: Unvotes Spurg due to being convinced it was a bad idea.
20: IGMEOYs Mills based on him calculating her as the best lynchee. She declares here that she has "specific reasons" for wanting claims

This is the first time we see her hinting substantially at having some ability. I frankly don't think that this makes her survival that scummy; since it is fairly ambiguous. That said, it would be a reasonable inference to view it as power hinting.

21: All mysterious about her plan and votes Mills

No explanation for the Mills vote. And, again, the hinting is ambiguous: It can be read as power hinting or just suggesting some sort of strange strategy

22: Is willing to lynch Mills
23: Frustrated at Mills' behaviour
24: Thoughts on the living:

DD

- Protown when he posted, but is now ambiguous due to lurking

Jennar

- Suspects he was scum on Mills wagon, but is again inconclusive. It's unclear why she suspects him

klebian

- Criticises one of his posts, but is again inconclusive

Mookeh

- Has comments both ways. Inconclusive.

Spurg

- Wants talking ABOUT spurg.

Voll-I

- Not scummy, but makes her nervous

Ythill

- "A weirdo, but clean for now."
25: EBWOP
26: Kicks game
27: Explains nervousness about Spurg
28: Wants to hear from Mookeh and replacements
29: Asks Y why Dean's death defends her
30: Reiterates that when she said Spurg was close to lynch and voted him, she was just trying to point out wagon size.
31: "Look all you want, Mr. Vollkan."
32: Admits she had no idea about how Spurg was meant to defend against the wagon

True to the general pattern here so far: this would be scummy, but it makes sense given her claim and claimed strategy

Again says she has a plan.
33: Is PBPing Voll-I
34: PBPA of Voll-I. She raises the point about Voll-I saying that Mills was either being ignorant or scum. Doesn't like Voll-I's exchange with Mills about the DD vote.

I showed how wrong hypa was on this point. Mills relied on feeling - which means I go rapid

35: Glad to see Jennar posting
36: Uses the fact Voll-I attacked 3 townies as a reason for suspicion against him. Expresses suspicion of Voll-I and Jennar (is comparatively vague on him), but votes Voll

FriendofScum. Probably the worst thing I have seen thus far from Hypa (given that much of her scumminess is explicable by her claim)

37: After I point out that, in her analysis of who I attacked, she raised nothing as specifically scummy she dodges this by saying: "Frankly your entire playstyle seems scummy to me." Reiterates that she suspects Voll-I and Jennar
38: QFTs Justin. Justifies my lynch further by reference to what it will reveal about my behaviour
39: Suggests we pursue lurkers
40: Wants lurker wagons on rogueben, klebian, and thinktank to pull them out
41: Claims power role and states the following plan:

Why have I been playing scummily? Because smart scum will keep me alive then as a a smoke screen. As long as I didn't get lynched, that's fine, because what I needed was time to get several night's worth of results and pair them up. I expected the game to have one cop and perhaps a vigilante (well, I was wrong about the cop, but the deaths of Mills and Krad then seemed very helpful to me). So when I got two people with guns, I would have them both claim, and there was a good chance one of them would claim a role like doc or vanilla or something. Then I would have caught them in a lie. Sure it might have outed the cop, but it would have been a one-for-one scum.

This plan has already been criticised in detail. Needless to say, to play the game based on the hope of getting two gun results and then being able to "have them both claim" in a ruse to catch the scum, is hardly a good strategy. It outs two power roles for a single scum

42: Specifically claims gunsmith.

But claiming gunsmith is INCREDIBLY STUPID because scum know that their buddies have guns, but don't know the identities of cops, vigilantes, etc. Therefore their claim is very easy to disprove.

Not if you only claim negative results. At worst, you trade yourself in for a cop or a vig. If you only claim negatives, odds are you will be correct anyway.

We then have the weird explanations about sending Ythill twice.
43: Hoped to live long enough to catch a scum. Explains that the site difference thing was just a trick.
44: Agrees that Justin and Klebian are not lurkers and should not be lurker lynched.
45: Says her plan, whilst difficult, is the most responsible way of being gunsmith

Hardly! Throwing breadcrumbs all over the place, pushing for claims, relying on blind luck. If you are a gunsmith it was a totally irresponsible means of playing - you should just treat the role as a "vanilla detector".

46: Explains the PM discrepancy as a "brainfart"
47: Suspects Justin most highly. Thinks Ythill is town. "Buys the arguments" for k7 being scum. Is unsure on kleb and ben. VollII gives a town vibe.
48: Votes Justin, since he cannot be the vig
49:Explains 48 on the basis that Justin would have vigged Voll-I, not Jennar
50: Promises content
51: Thinks she is useful to scum whilst the second killer is around
52:

My vote's going to stay on Justin for now. He is my top suspect right now.

Then in order of most-to-least-possibly scum off the top of my head (without a reread right now, so I might post a new list later:)

killa seven / klebian (roughly equal)
rogueben
vollkanII

53: Will hammer if necessary
54: Votes k7
55: Doesn't think she was RBed N2
56: Justin is vanilla
57: Seconds Y's plan
58: Asks for clarifcation of MotR
59: Promises content
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The big issue here is that her play is scummy, but that scumminess is explained by her claim. However, aspects of her claim cast considerable dubiousness upon it: the plan itself and the PM muddle. Thus, the extent to which Hypa can be accused based on her play is largely linked to the credibility of her claim - which justifies her play.

[vollkan]

105 – Analysis of Jennar generally embroils Justin, Ben, and Hypa. Clears Yth. Neutral on others.

This post seems very scummy to me. Note how the most embroiled are the three people that vol-scum needs to out-argue to win the game. And, like I said in thread, I felt like vol-I, who was town, would have drawn more conclusions from the information at hand.

I formed that post based on the evidence I gathered about interactions with Jennar. I find, therefore, the way you treat it here to be too superficial. The fact that Justin, Ben and Hypa are the three most suspect is a null-tell with respect to my own alignment. What

is

important is the evidence I present against each of them - and I notice that you fail to look at my post in that level of detail.

In fact, when you commented on this in thread, you actually agreed with what I had said on Justin. Moreover, the only disagreements you expressed were with me ignoring k7 and klebian's lack of interaction with Jennar and with me and my not thinking Mookeh's statement was scummy.

107 – Defends against “less willing to commit” by citing his suspicion of Justin.

The defense here really doesn’t apply to the attack, which accused him of being less willing to commit on people other than Justin.

1) You weren't clearly talking about "people other than Justin". You just generally said that I am less willing to commit
2) Moreover, I DID address more than just my stance on Justin:

"Less willing to commit"?

I've already come out swinging against Justin fairly strongly, and am reviewing him right now.

I acknowledge I have been keeping a very open mind in relation to the Jennar analysis I did. It stems from the fact that that there is very little clear distancing in what I saw, and little clear "genuine" scum-hunting. Behaviour such as Mookeh's concerns you, legitimately I might add, but it is not compelling for me on its own - since it gives rise to a very reasonable doubt.

Admittedly, when considered in conjunction with the listing of Rogueben with Justin by Jennar, more concern arises for me. And, certainly, those two end up looking the worst as a result of my analysis of Jennar. Justin more so, due to DD anomaly.

Paragraph 2 explains any semblace of not committing - that I cannot find anything concrete either way.

117 – WOW defends against allegations of changes in his play (the only difference is situational), claims to have thought of but dismissed the idea of a Hyp + Yth scum pair, is motivated by kleb to further investigate k7 and is swayed as to k7’s alignment.

For difference in play, see below. I don’t buy for one second that vollkan thought of a Yth + Hyp pairing but didn’t bring it up. Why? Because vol thinks out loud about less viable theories. That said, I feel that scum wouldn’t discredit this theory. The sway towards k7 fits with my earlier analysis of the process of vol-I changing his mind and therefore seems natural.

On Y+H: You equate this to a "theory", but it ought to have been clear from what I said that this was not what I had.

I've considered this mentally, and its a source of much frustration for me. If this is the case, we are in serious difficulty. Ythill himself has never struck me as viable scum - and, as he says, his choice to push Jennar rather than anyone else seems very peculiar if hypa and ythill had pre-planned this all (eg. Ythill could very easily have knocked off voll-I and then had hypa claim him as innocent). Hypa, on the other hand, was suspicious - and that raises doubts.

I knew it was

possible

(in the same way that Kleb's post showed he knew it was possible) but that was the extent of it. Ythill's behaviour made me doubt it as a possibility. It was still something I was pondering seriously, but I never had any really tangible ideas about it.

Vollkan claims that there is no difference in his play between incarnations and says that any apparent difference is circumstantial. This could be true but a factual difference exists and it suggests manipulation. In vol-I’s PBPA of DD, he finds DD’s large analysis (#2) reasonable. Vol-II offers a PBPA of DD in which he finds one point of the same analysis scummy enough to warrant discussion in the post bullet and further mention in the summary. This when Justin was vol’s preferred target.

I will address this factual difference which you claim suggests manipulation. I fully acknowledge that my thoughts on DD's post in Voll-II's were different to Voll-I's. In my initial analysis, I did not pick up on the point I subsequently found. There's nothing more to it than that. One reason I rely on my PBPs so much is precisely so that I can review things and pick up new angles. Was my (Voll-II's) criticism of DD unreasonable in some way?

Suspicions of Justin falter based on a point that doesn’t make much sense to me. Vollkan has already given Hypa a bye for role-fishing but he backs off of Justin when evidence of her fishing becomes more clear. Backing off Justin is further attributed to a reread and the case on k7 builds over a few measured posts that follow. This feels a little like vollkan made a tactical decision to bus k7 after he’d already started down another course.

That's your judgment of my potential intention, and I think you know you are verging on the conspiratorial.

I initially did not see the arguments about hypa role-fishing. It all seemed wrong. Then Justin got back in form and clarified things considerably for me - specifically on the issue of the impossibility of defence. This, in turn, made me less suspicious of Justin. As I then reread them, it became clear to me that Justin had picked up his game considerably and, moreover, that k7 was a much better lynch.

[vollkan]

Just a thought I had after looking at the hypa analysis:

The power roles we have seen thus far are two cops and vig. I have to say, that's a tremendously unusual sort of set-up. A gunsmith amid that setup makes sense - it throws in a double-edged sword.

Hypa declared to have a plan and pushed for claims prior to even a single cop being revealed. The fact that the setup so perfectly suits a gunsmith (since all the power roles have guns) suggests that her claim is either genuine, or she is exceptionally lucky.

In essence: I believe the setup lends further credence to her claim

[vollkan]

The fact that Justin, Ben and Hypa are the three most suspect is a null-tell with respect to my own alignment. What is important is the evidence I present against each of them - and I notice that you fail to look at my post in that level of detail.

In fact, when you commented on this in thread, you actually agreed with what I had said on Justin. Moreover, the only disagreements you expressed were with me ignoring k7 and klebian's lack of interaction with Jennar and with me and my not thinking Mookeh's statement was scummy.

I did look at the evidence and still agree with it, therefore saw no reason to bring it up in the analysis. I do not find it odd that the “Best Newbie” (congrats on that BTW) would be capable of stating valid evidence whether or not his search for that evidence was honest.

Your conclusion that interactions with Jennar found these specific people scummy is as much a function of your lack of evidence on others. This aspect was one I disagreed with at the time and still stands out to me here. My assertion here is not that you created false cases but that you unrealistically supported those cases by omission in other areas.

To make sure I understand this: The evidence I had on Justin, Ben and Hypa was valid, but you allege I artificially inflated it by omitting evidence on k7, kleb and ben.

This is an unfortunate result of the fact that I read k7's, kleb's and ben's non-interaction with Jennar as being "unreadable" - an interpretation I stand by. I will always see positive behaviour that resembles distancing/scummy support as more of a scumtell than non-avoidance. As I said back then, it can be perfectly reasonable for two players not to interact - if the conversation flows that way. It doesn't work against a scum link, but it isn't evidence.

I can't defend against your interpretation of the results of my analysis. I can only say that the evidence I found lent itself to the conclusions I made.

You weren't clearly talking about "people other than Justin". You just generally said that I am less willing to commit

I'll agree here because you inserted "clearly" but my statement was made in conjunction with my opinion of your reads on kleb, k7, and Mook and I think you're smart enough to have understood what I meant. I still think the I-am-attacking-Justin defense is inapplicable and a little opportunistic, but the rest of your defense here is sufficient.

The context was something I had missed at the time. Hence, I responded to what I thought was a general charge of being non-committal.

As for the suggestion that the I-am-attacking-Justin defence is "inapplicable and a little opportunistic", you are missing the forest for the trees again.

I thought you were making a general charge, so the Justin defence was valid. BUT, as you say, the rest of the defence is valid. Moreover, the rest of the defence is precisely the answer that I would have given had I properly understood what you had said.

The I-am-attacking-Justin defence is perfectly reasonable given my interpretation and cannot be construed as opportunistic because I addressed my global attitudes as well.

[vollkan]

Ben has not posted here since the 5th, and he has posted in other games as late as the 7th.

[vollkan]

@ vollkan: What's with the avatar? I've seen a lot of peep's pics changing to include that monkey. It's Erg0's old avatar, isn't it? Is there some sort of inside joke or are profiles getting hacked?

You obviously don't use GD

It's Nibbler from Futurama. It's become the latest "fad" to put it into avatars. Harmless amusement.

[vollkan]

EBWOP: This is where it all started Link?? Where?!?

[vollkan]

*tumbleweed*

I'm awaiting Justin's analysis.

[vollkan]

Yay!

Great game everyone. And thanks to Chaos for modding. I really enjoyed this game - lots of deep-level analysis.

[vollkan]

Yes, very interesting setup. I like double-edged sword power roles and I think that having only gun-toting power roles with a gunsmith makes for a good combination.

Out of interest, was Ben investigation immune, NK-immune or both?

[vollkan]

cross posted.

[vollkan]

Question to the mafia: Why did you choose to kill Dean Harper on N1?

[vollkan]

The fact that Vollkan replaced back in straight after we killed him was a bit frustrating too. We killed him for being a strong player, and latching onto a couple of scum. Lo and behold there he was again.

I had the same thing happen to me in Mini 500 when my mafia group killed MoS for the specific reason that we wanted to get rid of MoS - a strong player.

I have since rationalised it as follows: There is never anything preventing a very good player from replacing into a game. In theory, therefore, you could have had one of the really pro players enter this game as the replacement. In that light, having the entry of anybody skilled is a disadvantage for the scum. Thus, having someone replace back in really is no different to having a new skilled player enter the game.

[vollkan]

@ vollkan: IMO, replacements are a huge advantage to town, sometimes because of the chance of getting (or getting back) a good player, but constantly because of the chance to get two different reads on two different players that only have a role in common.

Absolutely, I agree that replacement is a massive boost for the town.

My point was just that having previously-dead player X replace back in is no different to, say, having awesome new player Y replace in.

[vollkan]

You claimed GF. You have waived the right to any recognition.

[vollkan]

Does anyone have some pointers for improving my play? I'm still pretty new to this so some outside opinions would be more than welcome.

I think you did quite a good job of appearing pro-town and staying out of suspicion. I think what let you down at the end (at least insofar as you became a more viable lynch than me) was that you hadn't been assertively/aggressively appearing to scumhunt. As in, you spent so much time staying out of the limelight, that it ended up working against you (because I had k7's scalp as my badge of towniness).