Open 769: Venrob's PYP X/Y (Town Wins)

[nomnomnom]

I probably should post that kind of stuff in MD and see what people think about these concepts. Probably not much

[nomnomnom]

you know, i think kerset is pretty likely to be scum here

because it's like a soft accusation that i'm scum, but never actually says it. it's like, "haha oh yeah sure, you "forgot" - the natural follow-up would be to then say why they think i'm lying? or think i'm scum?

also: their only focus on all the content i've provided so far is not any of the opinions i've had about the game, but literally just the post in which i said, "i'm backreading"

this doesn't scan to me as town, whether new player or not.

VOTE: kerset

I think rb and me are very much like-minded in this regard and I think this very precise observation applies to most of Kerset's iso. This post sounds town.

[nomnomnom]

also most of their posts is just weak setup speculation

then an announcement that, "hey town seems clueless" - with zero attempt to actually provide a clue or direction

scummy as heck imo. complaining about a town performing poorly, without providing content to improve town's state of play is what scum do to look like they're frustrated town. but they really don't look that way at all to me

Yup. Rb's town. Fairly sure of it. We are on the exact same wavelength.

Let's go on Kerset instead, they're caught scum.

[nomnomnom]

aaron, opinions on kerset pls

@Luca: what previous experience do you have with Aaron that justifies him both having reasonable expectations of your typical towngame, and also, do you think that his confidence you're town is justified by your performance in this game based on that previous experience?

Two games previous, one where I was scum and he was town, and one where I was town and he was scum.

Kerset could be scum. They parked their vote on me pretty early for weak reasoning and posts have been mostly fluff other than early game setup spec.

forgot to say: vote kerset with me then? =]

This is also what I would do to someone that I previously scumread to check their alignment regarding someone that is simply more scummy all of a sudden. Typical questions and invitations to try and confirm or refute their own accusation and potentially trap scum into making mistakes. I resonate a lot with these posts. Rb is 100% town here.

[TheWizard]

PMysterious has been prodded for inactivity.

[Something_Smart]

A low ratio indicates someone that is more worried about finding reasons to shade and point fingers at people, rather than analyzing things and saying "yeah, let's vote here".

wouldn't that be town indicative? town just want to say their thoughts no matter what but scum are always using their thoughts to advance a specific agenda.

[nomnomnom]

A low ratio indicates someone that is more worried about finding reasons to shade and point fingers at people, rather than analyzing things and saying "yeah, let's vote here".

wouldn't that be town indicative? town just want to say their thoughts no matter what but scum are always using their thoughts to advance a specific agenda.

This is why I say vote/shade ratio, and not vote/thought ratio

[Flubbernugget]

What's my vote shade ratio

[nomnomnom]

What's my vote shade ratio

You're nearing 1, which is pretty good in my current standard, I guess.

Now I'm thinking of adding a shade/thought or shade/post ratio to all of this. I'll think about this later lol

[Something_Smart]

Shades are thoughts though.

[nomnomnom]

They're a subset of thought that are relevant, damn it!!

[Something_Smart]

But if shades are thoughts, then what makes them scummy?

[nomnomnom]

I explained that with my post... I never said all thoughts are scummy, nor that shades inherently come from scum, I am simply pointing out the vote/shade ratio. That's all.

[Wooper]

just +1ing rb is town
idk abt kerset yet but finding out is half the fun~!

[Kerset]

Yup. Rb's town. Fairly sure of it. We are on the exact same wavelength.

Are you?

and now the only content you're providing is to _defend yourself_

where previously all you did was talk mechanics, and complain about the state of the town's game

- with no effort to improve the state of the town.

you're more concerned about how you appear than in solving the game, it's obvious.

Picture this: someone's accusations or slight shades against people, and what they vote, can be seen as a ratio. I see it as a vote/shade ratio, where you can see what someone says in regards to people that could be seen as shading or outright accusation, and where they vote. In Kerset's case, their iso

is full to the brim with shading and accusations

, but the only vote that they've made is against rb.

So which is the case? Do I only talk about state of town and mech or maybe i throw a lot of accusations at people? That is contradiction for me.

[nomnomnom]

I don't see how that's a contradiction. Aside from my point about your ratio you are acting in a textbook pessimistic scum way which is where I agree with rb. I think you're really scummy overall, the ratio is one observation, the pessimistic scum archetype is another.

[skitter30]

what do you mean by 'low ratio' exactly?

Picture this: someone's accusations or slight shades against people, and what they vote, can be seen as a ratio. I see it as a vote/shade ratio, where you can see what someone says in regards to people that could be seen as shading or outright accusation, and where they vote. In Kerset's case, their iso is full to the brim with shading and accusations, but the only vote that they've made is against rb. That would mean a 1/X ratio which is extremely low. A low ratio indicates someone that is more worried about finding reasons to shade and point fingers at people, rather than analyzing things and saying "yeah, let's vote here".

It's somewhat linked to "voting entropy", the amount of times someone changes their vote. I think townies hit that sweet spot with the amount of times they vote/unvote whereas scum feels more calculated (low entropy) or very loose (high entropy). Again, stupid theory stuff, just constructing mafia theories in my own side but this is what I've been thinking about when analyzing games

interesting theory, a few questions:

a) what is my ratio?
b) have you applied this theory before and if so, what were your results? do you have examples of where low ration == scum?

[skitter30]

rb does feel verbose but I need to think about that.

I think Kerset's end of the interaction was very odd for sure. I'll even go ahead and VOTE: Kerset. That iso is textbook pessimistic scum having a very low vote/fos ratio. I think the key to decoding rb is actually residing in Kerset's wall.

ok

i reread:

a) rb is verbose, sure, but that's not what i'm particularly taking issue with, it's that his posts are manipulative and seemed designed to 1. get aaron to doubt his townread of luca 2. buddy aaron

b) this is why i found rb to be scummy

c) i still don't particularly have thoguhts on kerset. i read their convo a few times and it just kinda ~is~

[skitter30]

just +1ing rb is town
idk abt kerset yet but finding out is half the fun~!

disagree

[skitter30]

So which is the case? Do I only talk about state of town and mech or maybe i throw a lot of accusations at people? That is contradiction for me.

you're creating a fairly thin distinction that is all but irrelevant given what nom and rb are actually saying about you

@nom this is the scummiest thing i've seen kerset do thus far ^

[skitter30]

a) rb is verbose, sure, but that's not what i'm particularly taking issue with, it's that his posts are manipulative and seemed designed to 1. get aaron to doubt his townread of luca 2. buddy aaron

also nom what do you think about this?

[nomnomnom]

what do you mean by 'low ratio' exactly?

Picture this: someone's accusations or slight shades against people, and what they vote, can be seen as a ratio. I see it as a vote/shade ratio, where you can see what someone says in regards to people that could be seen as shading or outright accusation, and where they vote. In Kerset's case, their iso is full to the brim with shading and accusations, but the only vote that they've made is against rb. That would mean a 1/X ratio which is extremely low. A low ratio indicates someone that is more worried about finding reasons to shade and point fingers at people, rather than analyzing things and saying "yeah, let's vote here".

It's somewhat linked to "voting entropy", the amount of times someone changes their vote. I think townies hit that sweet spot with the amount of times they vote/unvote whereas scum feels more calculated (low entropy) or very loose (high entropy). Again, stupid theory stuff, just constructing mafia theories in my own side but this is what I've been thinking about when analyzing games

interesting theory, a few questions:

a) what is my ratio?
b) have you applied this theory before and if so, what were your results? do you have examples of where low ration == scum?

a) I noticed during our games that your ratio is naturally low. You're the kind of player who likes taking her sweet time sorting her thoughts out before voting, excessively so sometimes. Doesn't surprise me that you have a 2/10 ratio here. I think the more important facet is that while this is your ratio you have a lot of other posts that go in other directions (such as going back on one of your shading posts, observations, acknowledgement, etc). Compare this to someone like Kerset, where their posts are essentially only shading, so the ratio is more prevalent. I think I need to refine this theory by including shade% and stuff like that so it better reflects my train of thought. I'm not really good when it comes to statistical analysis but I feel I'm onto something.

b) I don't think so. I'm a much more emotional player. I "feel" rather than analyze. These are observations with the games I've went through rather than something I applied over and over, but I do feel it holds water.

[nomnomnom]

a) rb is verbose, sure, but that's not what i'm particularly taking issue with, it's that his posts are manipulative and seemed designed to 1. get aaron to doubt his townread of luca 2. buddy aaron

also nom what do you think about this?

I can see what you're saying and I see how their posts can be seen that way. I do honestly think though that they're following a more "trap the scum" train of thought. The posts were extremely snarky and had a provocation feel to them, so I doubt that the intent was to buddy Aaron. I feel this was much more of an invitation to make a mistake, since rb said they thought Aaron was scummy. As for your first point it didn't jump to me as much because I don't think of discussion that way. Second point is much more indicative of someone that's snarkily inviting people to do things, rather than buddying. That's how I see this interaction in particular.

[Wooper]

just +1ing rb is town
idk abt kerset yet but finding out is half the fun~!

disagree

agree to disagree.

[Xayah]

Don't know how I feel about the topic just being behind the Kerset and rb slot. Kerset has really bad arguments but the approach they bring to the game feels towny. I think we should still go for Aaron here. Rb is just gonna be...well rb