Mini 856 - Star Control: Zeta Sextantis - Over

[Dry-fit]

No, it's not what he wrote, but so what?

You lied; and you think it's not a big deal?

No, I didn't lie. I never claimed that quote was frome sigma. The reason I used that quote is because that post was a response to Kast, who had used it.

Here is sigma's claimed reason for voting:

Don't you think it's a little early to start convincing players that you've found scum?

Here is what Kast wrote:

Sigma clearly contrasted posts which are intended to "generate discussion" from posts which are intended to "convince other players to vote your lynch target".

Do these really seem that different to you?

What do you say about Sigma's view: "My opinion is that this could possibly be scum trying to appear like the stereotypical aggressive pro-town player, and I voted him to underline this point." Plum tells us in #84 that KMD has been known to do this as scum in other games.

It's pure speculation.

-You posted an attack on Sigma. Does this imply that he is your top suspect?

Actually, yes, but not so much because of what I called him out for before. His votes for Locke and Keelie look like attempts to place an easy vote without scumhunting. His vote for Keelie is especially bad. A day 1 lurker lynch with plenty of time till deadline nad a lot of other stuff to go on is bad.

He also won't stop talking about Porken's vigging statement. He's mentioned it three times. It's blatant rolefishing, especially:

@Porkens: were you serious about vigging KMD?

Yes, I have seen scum rolefish this blatantly before.

-Do you think anyone else has been suspicious?

Plum would probably be my second suspect.

-You felt that KMD's vote on Zito was not intended to lynch, but rather to generate discussion. The wagon on Zito is still there; what do you think about each of the other players and their reasons?

As far as I know, there are on 2 people voting Zito. I already stated suspicion of Plum, and will elaborate when I'm not so tired. I pretty much have a neutral read on Excedrin, as most of what he has posted has been related to theory. His reason is okay for an early vote.

[Dry-fit]

Forgot to

Vote: sigma

[Rising]

I think it's anti-town to intentionally use bad arguments to pressure other players

I'm not just gonna sit around and

wait

for someone to make a mistake. And so far, I don't think

anyone

can claim to have a really good argument against anyone else. It's just too early for that. We have to make due with what we've got. Unlike many other players in this game, I'm honest about how vague and weak I think my tells are. I don't claim to know for sure that a player is scum, unless I really think so.

But I never intentionally use bad arguments. I use arguments that make sense to me, at the time when I write them, and I gladly explain

why

they make sense to me.

You

might think those arguments are bad, however. I'm not really interested in debating what you think are good principles of scumhunting, though, I rather try to win the game.

You appear to believe that Excedrin's post supports eliminating (2). At most, I could see that it would decrease amount S proportionally with how likely a given player already thinks Player F is scum.

This is like a logical machine talking. "Decrease amount S proportionally..." I don't think this is how the game works. Sorry, I can't reply to you. It's like you're explaining the mathematical foundation of bluffing in poker, when I'm looking at people's eyes and faces, trying to get a read on them. You're saying that if a statement has no logical meaning, then it can't be said to have any implication in the game, and I disagree.

Just like poker. If I see a player wetting his lips in excitment, I'll let that affect my play. What you're saying is like: "But he hasn't

done

anything! His cards are the same, and he hasn't bid anything!"

And before you reply to me that I'm wrong (you always do that when you don't understand) - this is how

I

see it, when you write things like post #139; where you said that Excedrin had nothing to add on the Zito case. He

did

; in the way

I

look at things.

I'm not wrong. This is my

opinion

.

What has been pointed out to you repeatedly is that Excedrin did not setup a trap. You have never once posted any evidence that he setup a trap.

There you go again. Evidence. What

would

an evidence be of an opinion? I like ice cream, but you know what? I can't prove

that

logically either. But if I said "Omg! This is delicious! I love ice cream. Omnomnomnom!" it would probably imply that I was telling the truth. It cannot be

deduced

from my statement, but it certainly can be

induced

. And induction is a part of logic, too, you know. (I'm not going to debate the philosophy of logic with you, though, just trust me on this one).

My point is: This is not a conflict between a rational player (you) and an irrational player (me). Please don't try to make it sound like it.

It's not only a bad case, but a forced one.

What does "forced" mean in this context?

I mean; in post #58, I wrote "It's obviously not a

strong

scumtell by any means (not even for day 1)"

And when Locke asked me if I was reaching with my tell on Excedrin, I told him (#65) "Of course. It was my first post in the game. How could I be certain of anything that soon?"

When you and a few others have been saying that you're "sure" X or Y is scum, I've never said anything like that. That's why this talk about me having a "forced" case doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean?

I can tell you right now that I'm not really super happy about my vote on Dry-fit either. I thought I had enough of a tell to put some pressure on him and get a better read on him (and I'm glad I did), but I seriously do not think what I found is enough for a lynch. I'd rather switch to one of the players that aren't contributing in any helpful way: Porkens, Rosso Carne and that lurking player whose name I've forgotten at the moment. I'm telling you this right now, because I can already see a shitstorm of accusations coming when I perform that switch.

[sigma]

Actually, yes, but not so much because of what I called him out for before. His votes for Locke and Keelie look like attempts to place an easy vote without scumhunting. His vote for Keelie is especially bad. A day 1 lurker lynch with plenty of time till deadline nad a lot of other stuff to go on is bad.

How is voting for Locke and Keelie an easy vote? Usually, easy votes are placed on people who have already been seriously voted before. Both of my votes were their first non-random votes.

If she keeps lurking, she should be the lynch. Obviously, we should wait until pretty close to deadline to lynch anyone. I'm voting her to encourage particpation if she's still reading this. If she continues not posting, she should be our lynch today and I challenge anyone to convince me that this isn't the case.

He also won't stop talking about Porken's vigging statement. He's mentioned it three times. It's blatant rolefishing.

I've already addressed this. Here was my original question:

Can you elaborate? Given that you're voting for Zito, do you believe that KMD and Zito are both scum who are engaging in early-game distancing?

Here's my explanation to Kast:

I interpreted this as meaning that he found KMD scummy in some way, or felt that he'd shoot KMD N1 in a hypothetical porkens-vig scenario. I don't think, however, that he's seriously saying anything about his role at all.

I don't see how I'm role-fishing. The statement you refer to was just a quick way of re-asking Porkens the question. The only reason "OMG ROLLFISH" sensors are going off is because saying "hypo-vigging KMD" instead of "vigging KMD" would have been clearer as to my intention. I want to know if Porkens found KMD scummy at the time of making his original statement. That's my goal. I do not think my questions will tell anyone anything about Porkens' actual role.

[sigma]

Actually, lynching the lurker as a good strategy depends on how the ruleset works.

@Mod: Can you define "full deadline game-day" for purposes of a mod-kill? Keelie has posted today, so would she not get mod-killed until day 2 if she continues not to post? If there is a mod-kill, does it work in the usual "harm the mod-killed's faction" way (town mod-kill ends day, scum mod-kill continues day)?

If Keelie does re-appear, she's got a long way to go to convince me that my vote should be elsewhere. I won't accept active lurking, and I feel that lynching one of the active lurkers give us just as much information as lynching one of the talkative players.

[SpyreX]

Vote Count:

Kmd4390(1): Locke Lamora
Dry-fit (1): Rising
Locke Lamora(0):

Papa Zito(2): Excedrin, Plum

Excedrin(0):

Plum (2): KeelieRavenWolf, Porkens

Rising (1): Kmd4390
Kast (0):
KeelieRavenWolf (1): sigma
sigma (1): Dry-fit

Not Voting (4): Kast, Papa Zito, Rosso Carne

Deadline: Thursday, October 7th, 1030 PM PST

Q&A:

1.) Players not in a vessel at daybreak will be announced in thread.
2.) Modkills for reasons OTHER than lurking follow the "harm the faction" idea. Modkills for lurking will happen at the time of lynch. A "full deadline game-day" is just saying that if you chuckleheads powerlynch everyone who didn't post that day wont be killed - if a day goes the full week without a post then they will get killed (at my discretion - if I know of a V/LA, etc then don't count on it).
Everyone has posted today, so there could be no modkills day 1. Really, there better not ever be modkills.

[Locke Lamora]

Kast: I think Porkens' vote was a case of seeing where KMD was going with Zito and adding some extra pressure to see his response. Excedrin's was similar, in my opinion. Zito was visibly getting annoyed at KMD's method of attack so I can see why they would want to pressure him; equally, I can see why Zito thinks they're opportunistic, because they were playing on his frustration with KMD. All in all, a null-tell for me. Plum's vote I like less, mainly because I don't really see how Zito was 'pushing BS'. I don't think it's an uncommon townie reaction to see two people quickly hop on your bandwagon and think that at least one of them is opportunistic scum. I'd like to hear what's so BS about it.

That said, I need to read some Zito meta to determine if this is really very unlike his town self. I'll check out Boost 2 as soon as I can.

[Kmd4390]

Kast, why does Rising have to play poorly to be scum?

Excedrin, search isn't disabled anymore.

Rising, "forced" means you don't seem to actually believe it, but are pushing it anyway. By admitting that it's reaching though, you make my point. No, admitting something doesn't make it less true/scummy. Just sayin'. Of the players you name as your likely next vote, Rosso is the only one I could see myself getting behind. Porkens is obvtown and Jelly doesn't seem like scum, although that read only comes from one post.

[Excedrin]

Excedrin, search isn't disabled anymore.

Turns out that Papa Zito has an updated wiki page with all of his previous games.

[Plum]

-I'm not clear on what specifically you are looking for in my other games. I think I play fairly similarly as town or scum. It sounds like you want to see some examples of my town play to determine Kast-as-townie also engaged in the behavior that you dislike in my current play style?

Yes; thanks. From a cursory glance fair enough.

Plum, I think Rising realized he had a bad vote out and was looking for somewhere to put it and found Dry-fit.

Taking a look back at that . . .

Rereading stuff on evolution of Rising's positions, especially in the theory discussion. Sorry if this contains more info than analysis; I find it personally useful to type out the line of logic and it may come in handy for someone else, so here we are:

If you're saying that scum has to be proven by a case that includes multiple points, then I disagree.

For example, you have a reliable read based on meta that whenever a particular player does X, they're likely scum, then you observe that behavior on the first page.

Actually, I find that scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town as the game progresses because they explain away and fix their scummy behavior.

^^ Okay, that's the post Rising objects to. In context of the flow of conversation at that time, Excedrin was explaining to Sigma why he believed it's never too early to try to convince people you've found scum. He elaborates why early-game reads can be extremely significant in finding scum, which is very true (case-by-case basis, but true) and therefore that if one thinks one has found a strong scumtell, even in early stages, starting to convince people that the person who committed the scumtell is scum is entirely appropriate. Furthermore, he adds the last sentence, which comes to indicate further why early-game reads are extremely significant: scum can slip up early and eventually cover up and explain away their early scummy behavior, making an even stronger case for acting strongly on early-game scumtells.

First Rising calls it a trap; he used the word "reinforces" which was clearly misrepresentative of Excedrin's position. He also for the first time calls it a "trap". It clearly was not a trap of any sort; it was Excedrin's view of how to weight early-game scumtells and why not to downplay their importance. He calls the "trap" "not pro-town". But even misinterpreted, why does Rising vote Excedrin on what should be considered a theory disagreement not indicative of alignment? Why did he not at least try to determine whether this was a scummy, manufactured stance or one which Excedrin, regardless of alignment, stands by? He later, in response to me, actually calls it a tell. And implies that it's one of those fairly strong early-game tells we've been discussing.

vote: Excedrin

becuase I disagree.

He states explicitly that it's because he disagrees and later calls it a tell. So Rising, when did a disagreement with you on theory matters turn into an indication of alignment rather than, you know, a more overarching thing like

disagreeing with you on a theory matter

?

I'm trying to refrain, looking at Rising's posts in isolation, from writing another few paragraphs of frustrated rantings on how Rising is grossly misinterpreting, whether through error or malice, Excedrin's point. Must. Refrain.

[quote="Rising"I think it is a pretty good scumtell and I'd like to hear Excedrin explain himself so that I could get a better read on him.

^^Keeping an eye on that statement to see if anything materialized.

Yeah, and then Rising says that his beef with Excedrin is that he "

justified and over-explained

" his vote on Zito, which was clearly not his problem when he voted him (which was actually that he thought that Excedrin's "I find that scum sometimes does something really obvious at the start of a game and then gradually appears more and more town as the game progresses because they explain away and fix their scummy behavior" statement was what he considered the scumtell and the reason for his vote.

The thing I can see in Rising's favor is:

uot;]

it's about being "screwed" if one makes what he considers a strong early-game scumtell period.

If this was a case of a really

strong

scumtell - an actual "mistake" - then of course I would've been fine with it. "Ouch. You did something really bad there, buddy. There's just no way for you to talk yourself out of this mess, I'm sorry. You're definitely the lynch for today." Nothing wrong with that. But when all you've got is a person that didn't post a vote in his first post, and responded with a sarcasm when attacked for it, then it's a completely different issue. I don't think what you just wrote applies to this case - or anything that I've written (or at least what I meant by it)

at all

.

There's a huge difference between:
1. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before." - Perfectly reasonable for a pro-town scumhunter.
and
2. "Hmm... I've noticed scum do this before, and they always come up with a good explanation afterwards, managing to explain away and fix their scummy behavior. " - why did this person add that last part? That wasn't necessary for pointing out the scumtell. This sets off my alarm, because scum have a tendency to go ahead of themselves, like proposing chain lynches (another scumtell I believe in).

It's obviously not a

strong

scumtell by any means (not even for day 1) but I would still like to hear Excedrin comment on it.

Here he connects Rising's vote and statement back to Excedrin's actual Zito vote based on what Zito implied he considered a strong early-game scumtell. If he believed, as I'm stating to see is likely, that Excedrin, according to his statement would not let Zito go whether or not he gave a good explanation for his actions . . . he wasn't extremely clear about that in his previous posts:


Okay, so I'm sorta kinda feeling better about Rising's actions now. Next comes the something that made me not want to do this whole recap/analysis earlier because I didn't have the time or desire to see how hard it was to parse through Rising's vote in Dry-fit.

]

The reason I disliked his [Sigma's] vote

is because I don't believe Kmd was seriously trying to "convince other players

to vote your lynch target

" at all, and I don't see how his post could have possibly been interpreted that way.

O RLY? Because what Sigma said

when he voted

was "Don't you think it's a little early to start convincing players

that you've found scum?

" That is hardly a misinterpretation, since KMD said "Yep. You're scum. I'm sure of it."

Sigma didn't suggest that KMD was trying to convince other players to

vote his lynch target

until his

next

post, #38, so you're clearly not remembering things right. And if you thought this was such a misrepresentation, why didn't you

say

so in post #43? In post #43 you discussed a

completely different

(and quite silly) issue.

I think you're making this up in retrospect.

If there's anyone who's overexpaining here, it's you

Yeah, you've convinced me. My case against Excedrin was a bit too much of a stretch, I'm actually much happier with a vote on you.

Unvote.
Vote: Dry-fit

Because Sigma actually posted both clauses ("convince other players to vote your lynch target" and "convincing players that you've found scum?") before Dry-fit's comments and Sigma's actual posts make it pretty clear that he equates the two clauses. It's not in any way a case of Dry-fit "not remembering things right", it's a case of Dry-fit not liking the vote or the little bit that expounded upon the vote/reexplained it. Also Post #43

does

imply a misrepresentation of Sigma's part to Dry-fit's mind clearly indicated when Dry-fit stated his entirely different (from Sigma's) interpretation of Kmd's post and questions him with implications of Sigma-suspicion/incredulosity at Sigma's interpretation of said post.

Therefore the entire argument starts to look kinda fabricated. You know what I mean? It's quite possible that Rising felt pressured, after his logic regarding the Excedrin vote was shown to be severely lacking by multiple players, to come up with some other case to jump to and making up one which was even worse.

KMD was just instigating with his

first post

- that's true - but Sigma responded to a later post, where KMD said that he was

sure

that Papa was scum (and KMD

has not changed his opinion since then!

- he does it again in #71). That's how serious he is.

Not sure what to make of Plum's reaction. Yes, the original attack was weak. But Plum has been around long enough to know when someone is looking for a reaction. Hmm.

Clear implication that he was not

sure

that Zito was scum and that his vote was more to draw reactions than to vote someone he was certian, or near-certain, was scum. Post #71 indicates that Kmd continued - for reasons other than just his original attack - that Zito was scummy, but not that he was sure that Zito's scum.

I will say that Rising, Kmd made it clear that he was not sure Zito was scum

Which is what I meant. Also I meant "considering how you emphasize Kmd was sure that Zito's scum" when that's not the case. Again, if you believe(d) that Kmd thought that Zito was certain scum, what is/would have been your comment on the fact that he wasn't and isn't voting Zito?

Ok guys, TOO MANY WORDS. All of the megaposting should stop now. It is detrimental to the town's motivation and ability. I beg you to keep things concise and easy to follow.

unvote

You know, I wouldn't be TOO surprised to see the scum budding up right away. A town-plum shouldn't have defended Zito at all. I can't seem to let that go, despite all the other noise in the thread.

Vote: Plum

At first I twitched a good deal at Kmd because, as I said, I saw similar behavior very recently from Kmd scum. The other bits, where I questioned you and Excedrin, were to gauge how serious you were in your votes and if the reasons for your votes looked legitimate (not scum-motivated) or good (possibly indicative of scumhood in my mind). Along we the other stuff in the thread it got some attention from me especially since sarcasm without context does not, to me, a viable scumtell make. Excedrin's reason for considering Zito's sarcasm a scumtell looked legit and Kmd's looked good, or verging on - I thought it had some merit as an insight.

I wouldn't say react less. Just.. I don't think it bothers town as much as scum, so it doesn't distract them from scumhunting. TownZito is better than this. In Boost 2, he was actively scumhunting and recieved one of three boosts (mechanic where players vote to boost protown appearing players) for it. Here, he's managed to suspect two players on his wagon for their votes on him and that's it.

Yes. From what I've heard about Zito, he's a pretty decent player. Not the sort whose suspicions basically boil down to "OMGUS, and yes that's a legit scumtell because the early-stage votes are on me, a Townie". hat is lack of scumhunting or interest in scumhunting and that's a major effective scumtell in my book.

@Zito

: What do you think of Porkens, who has removed his vote from the wagon on you and is now voting for me?[/b]

Jelly, for goodness' sake SHOW UP. Though I dislike Sigma's willingness to turn and lynch lurkers at this point. I generally avoid policy lynches because I still find that going after actual scummy players is better for the Town.

@Locke

: Re: Zito pushing BS:

The fact that he insists getting on his own bandwagon early was opportunistic and scummy (and that not doing so was a towntell) is pushing BS.

Getting on an early bandwagon - page 2 - is not opportunistic and scummy, especially because at least one of the two gave what looks to me a legit reason for doing so, mostly because page 2 bandwagons that reach three players are not opportunistic. They're game-starting; as Porkens appeared to do it for reactions (nulltell, plenty of motivation as just about any alignment) and Excedrin indicated that it was a slight tell (appropriate for that stage of the game) which I believe to be okay (scum try to dismiss attacks on them as worthless and sarcasm can be used as a tool to dismiss attacks as worthless). It's unlikely to be truly opportunistic (pouncing on a case or wagon with the intent to exploit the opportunity for a lynch) at that stage of the game and it's nearly impossible to discern true opportunism from doing the best you can with the RVS one a Page-2, three-vote bandwagon.

But moreso: Townies mislynch and Townies suspect townies. A heckuva lot. The statement that because someone wasn't on a wagon that was on a Townie is itself a Towntell is completely fallacious.

I bet I could explain that with better wording if it wasn't 2 a.m. and I hadn't been working on this post for around and hour. Toss in Zito's lack of vote and more importantly general lack of real scumhunting (the above OMGUS-genus suspicions above + flavor info don't count as decent scumhunting, what with basically ignoring everything else, a related problem) in this game and I like Zito vote.

FOS: Rising

@Excedrin

: Further thoughts on Zito as he's progressed through the game thus far? New impressions? Reinforced impressions?

[Rosso Carne]

mmhmm

i was right

kast needs some votes please.

[Porkens]

Therefore the entire argument starts to look kinda fabricated. You know what I mean? It's quite possible that Rising felt pressured, after his logic regarding the Excedrin vote was shown to be severely lacking by multiple players, to come up with some other case to jump to and making up one which was even worse.

This resonated with me. But scummtell or nulltell? I'm not sure.

too many nulltells = a scumtell in my opinion today.

unvote

[sigma]

mmhmm

i was right

kast needs some votes please.

@Rosso: I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning. After reading up on Kast's meta a bit, I think he's null right now, and I'm interested in what you've picked up on. Ready to reveal yet?

@Mod: Can you prod KRW? Are there prods in the BaM ruleset?

---

I like plum's 159. I've been having a lot of trouble getting reads on Rising, Excedrin and Kast, since they've all been involved in big walls of text, and that post helps me organize the morass of posts a little better.

---

I'm a little concerned about dry-fit. Here's what he's done so far:

1. Scumhunting/attacking me.
2. Defend himself from Rising attacks.
3. Respond to Kast questioning.

and that's the complete sum of his actions this game -- he's literally done nothing else. That seems like a very small contribution, honestly. After having read up on his meta, he seemed to contribute more in his one completed game as town. On the other hand, in that game he also focused on one player as scummy initially and then voted him later -- so his focusing on me early seems to be playstyle and not indicative of a scum-tell.

I have an obvious bias because he's voting me, and I'd like to get others' reads on Dry-fit -- any takers?

[Excedrin]

@Excedrin: Further thoughts on Zito as he's progressed through the game thus far? New impressions? Reinforced impressions?

I actually read some of his completed games, in his 1st game (ever, and as scum) he was very scummy, but that's to be expected. He's at least not that obvious now.

In Mini 817 Papa Zito (town) was wagoned to L-2 very early. His reaction was basically, "so, I'm at L-2 on page 2" and then voted someone who wasn't on the wagon without stating reasons (at the time, he justified it well shortly afterwards) who later flipped scum. He was also (joke) voted for not RVS voting in his first post in this game.

I also read Boost 2 and /in-vitational 2 and his tone is often joking / sarcastic and his posts are typically brief. He is aware that voting without reasons can be OK to pressure someone, it seems odd that he'd be as bothered as he appears to be by Kmd4390's initial post and vote. It's starting to seem likely that he isn't actually bothered by it, and his responses are typically sarcastic regardless of align. So the only question is why isn't he scumhunting more (obviously right now he's V/LA, but aside from that)? Maybe he is and we'll see some good analysis when he catches up.

[Rosso Carne]

mmhmm

i was right

kast needs some votes please.

@Rosso: I'm genuinely interested in your reasoning. After reading up on Kast's meta a bit, I think he's null right now, and I'm interested in what you've picked up on. Ready to reveal yet?

@Mod: Can you prod KRW? Are there prods in the BaM ruleset?

---

I like plum's 159. I've been having a lot of trouble getting reads on Rising, Excedrin and Kast, since they've all been involved in big walls of text, and that post helps me organize the morass of posts a little better.

---

I'm a little concerned about dry-fit. Here's what he's done so far:

1. Scumhunting/attacking me.
2. Defend himself from Rising attacks.
3. Respond to Kast questioning.

and that's the complete sum of his actions this game -- he's literally done nothing else. That seems like a very small contribution, honestly. After having read up on his meta, he seemed to contribute more in his one completed game as town. On the other hand, in that game he also focused on one player as scummy initially and then voted him later -- so his focusing on me early seems to be playstyle and not indicative of a scum-tell.

I have an obvious bias because he's voting me, and I'd like to get others' reads on Dry-fit -- any takers?

nah

and may the town know that its your fault too.

bitching about my quoting. rudeness will never get you anywhere little man.

[sigma]

I love you too, Rosso.

[Rising]

Of the players you name as your likely next vote, Rosso is the only one I could see myself getting behind.

Ugh. Hate this post. It looks like you're suggesting to me where I should place my vote.

Porkens is obvtown [/KMD]

Really? He is just irratic as I see it. Could you explain this?

he used the word "reinforces" which was clearly misrepresentative of Excedrin's position.

Well, I

asked him a question

.

Excedrin: "I think X"
Rising: "Does that mean Y?"

I never

argued

that Y would follow logically from X, I

asked

him if it should.

But yeah, I

do

agree that this was an uneccessary stretch. I've already told you so, if memory serves me right.

Why did he not at least try to determine whether this was a scummy?

Like... asking him a question? Because that's exactly what I did. When Excedrin answered, I was able to get a better read on him, and I changed my vote not long after that.

It clearly was not a trap of any sort

Wrong. It was most

definitely

a trap

according to my definition

, which I have explained thoroughly. If you're used to see that word in another context, then I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think I've explained this enough by now.

But even misinterpreted, why does Rising vote Excedrin on what should be considered a theory disagreement not indicative of alignment?

It is not a theory disagreement. I don't

disagree

with Excedrin's argument. Actually, I've even explained that I

agree

with it. Sometimes you

do

get an early scumtell from a scum, and that's the only mistake he ever makes in the whole game. But then again, a lot of the time you get one of those early scumtells from a townplayer as well, so what Excedrin said hasn't really got any meaning. So why

did

he wrote it? There are several likely scenarios; Could he be a townplayer; eager to contribute and be helpful to the team, although he hadn't got anything of substance to add? Sure, he could be (and when Excedrin answered me, I came to think that this must be the most plausible explanation), but at the time, I thought he could be scum, trying to make what would otherwise be a natural and helpful reaction from Zito to look suspicious.

I did not disagree with what he said. I found it possibly scummy that he said it.

and then Rising says that his beef with Excedrin is that he "justified and over-explained" his vote on Zito, which was clearly not his problem when he voted him

...

So, when you guys misinterpret something I've said, I cannot explain it further? I have to use the exact same words the second time? That doesn't make any sense.

I explained the exact same argument as I had before, but with different words and from a different perspective, because I believed I had been misunderstood the first time. The difference between KMD (as well as Porkens) and Excedrin whas that the latter explained and justified his vote in a way that seemed too much for me. I did not

object

to Excedrin's explanations, but I thought they were over the top, unnecessary and redundant. Excedrin had already said everything he needed to say to get his point accross, but he still added a completely irrelevant part, that could possibly make Zito look suspicious even if he would come up with good and valid explanations. I found it a somewhat scummy thing to say. Enough for a vote to pressure him on page two for some (I hoped) tangible content, at a time in the game when people were voting Papa because he had responded sarcasticly to a bogus argument.

Because Sigma actually posted both clauses ("convince other players to vote your lynch target" and "convincing players that you've found scum?") before Dry-fit's comments and Sigma's actual posts make it pretty clear that he equates the two clauses.

Yeah, I agree.

It's quite possible that Rising felt pressured, after his logic regarding the Excedrin vote was shown to be severely lacking by multiple players

It has never been

shown

to be lacking. Some of you

disagreed

with me, though, but none of you have shown that you understood my case. Kast disagrees because he is an emotionless android who believes that this is a purely logical game (witch is perfectly fine, btw. We all play differently, and that's what makes it so funny). It makes him somewhat unqualified to evaluate my case.

I kept my vote on Excedrin for a long time because he hadn't answered me yet. When he did, he gave me a good vibe, and I didn't see any point in pressuring him further. Nothing else of importance had happened in the game, though, so you're right - I

was

eager to change my vote.

I'm eager again, at the moment, just so you know (and so you won't speculate about this in the future). I won't have Dry-fit as the lynch for today.

[Rising]

Bleh. When I do one ot these: "[quote="KMD"]Porkens is obvtown [/KMD]", I look like a complete moron, don't I?

Yeah, It's pretty embarrassing.

[Kast]

I don't like Dry-Fit's responses. I get the impression he was looking for something to jump for. I posed some mildly leading questions and he jumped at them.

My read is he is either a townie who doesn't know how to contribute and is eager to do so but doesn't want to "mess up" again like he did with his Sigma case, OR scum trying to avoid attention and latch on to a "safe" mislynch wagon. If it goes anywhere, he could always drop responsibility back at me for suggesting it, if not, he still appears to be reasonably trying to help out the town.

This isn't extremely strong, but I think it's the clearest thing I've seen so far and is sufficient for a vote. It is less ideal since two others have expressed suspicion of Dry-Fit (although Rising also kinda jumped on leads I dropped). This also wasn't exactly a trap set for Dry-fit specifically; I think he could easily have responded with similar content but changed his tone and I would probably be fine with it. His tone makes me suspect the response that he did give.

Vote: Dry-Fit

I'm also going to be pretty busy this weekend so probably won't be around to post. I'll try to check in a few more times today.

-Addendum to this. If Dry-fit is scum, I could see Rising's vote as a distancing/bus.

@Plum's post-
Good post on the whole. I think you're doing a good job of looking at a player for personal consistency, which Rising lacks. I don't think your post gives a fair treatment to Dry-Fit; who clearly misrepresented Sigma's posts.

@Excedrin-
Rosso's posting style is anti-town. The difference between my posting and his is far more than his being directed and mine being general. Suspicions should have reasons attached. As a townie, if you have information to guide the town to make a good lynch, then share it so the town does so. Sharing your thoughts also helps you avoid mistakes in your reasoning by giving you input from others who might notice mistakes that you make.

I'm not advocating lynching Rosso for having an anti-town playstyle. However, it is ridiculous to claim his behavior is at all better than anyone who is actually playing this game.

@Rosso-
-You didn't answer my question. Please do so.

-Consider that you aren't helping the town by telling people to throw votes with no reason. Your behavior essentially asks everyone to give you a free pass to not play in this game but while actively lurking. If you are a townie, I hope your night play is much better than your day play.

If you are genuinely suspicious of me, then help the town by letting them know why they should vote for me. If you aren't, then you clearly are not doing any scumhunting. We already have one inactive/lurker, we don't need more deadweight.

[Kast]

@Rising-

But then again, a lot of the time you get one of those early scumtells from a townplayer as well, so what Excedrin said hasn't really got any meaning. So why

did

he wrote it?

-Excedrin argued against the idea that townies should not place early "real" votes by claiming that scum often make mistakes early and correct their behavior later
...
I'm guessing that Rising completely misread the second point and misunderstood Excedrin's justification for early voting as either justification for voting Zito OR setup for future justification of votes for Zito. I think this is more likely than that he was attempting to intentionally push a straw man to get Excedrin lynched.

[Wrong. It was most

definitely

a trap

according to my definition

, which I have explained thoroughly. If you're used to see that word in another context, then I'm sorry for the confusion, but I think I've explained this enough by now.

Here Rising is playing the semantics game. If he is wrong, he just changes the definition of a key word and suddenly he is not technically wrong, just misunderstood.

[Rosso Carne]

I don't like Dry-Fit's responses. I get the impression he was looking for something to jump for. I posed some mildly leading questions and he jumped at them.

My read is he is either a townie who doesn't know how to contribute and is eager to do so but doesn't want to "mess up" again like he did with his Sigma case, OR scum trying to avoid attention and latch on to a "safe" mislynch wagon. If it goes anywhere, he could always drop responsibility back at me for suggesting it, if not, he still appears to be reasonably trying to help out the town.

This isn't extremely strong, but I think it's the clearest thing I've seen so far and is sufficient for a vote. It is less ideal since two others have expressed suspicion of Dry-Fit (although Rising also kinda jumped on leads I dropped). This also wasn't exactly a trap set for Dry-fit specifically; I think he could easily have responded with similar content but changed his tone and I would probably be fine with it. His tone makes me suspect the response that he did give.

Vote: Dry-Fit

I'm also going to be pretty busy this weekend so probably won't be around to post. I'll try to check in a few more times today.

-Addendum to this. If Dry-fit is scum, I could see Rising's vote as a distancing/bus.

@Plum's post-
Good post on the whole. I think you're doing a good job of looking at a player for personal consistency, which Rising lacks. I don't think your post gives a fair treatment to Dry-Fit; who clearly misrepresented Sigma's posts.

@Excedrin-
Rosso's posting style is anti-town. The difference between my posting and his is far more than his being directed and mine being general. Suspicions should have reasons attached. As a townie, if you have information to guide the town to make a good lynch, then share it so the town does so. Sharing your thoughts also helps you avoid mistakes in your reasoning by giving you input from others who might notice mistakes that you make.

I'm not advocating lynching Rosso for having an anti-town playstyle. However, it is ridiculous to claim his behavior is at all better than anyone who is actually playing this game.

@Rosso-
-You didn't answer my question. Please do so.

-Consider that you aren't helping the town by telling people to throw votes with no reason. Your behavior essentially asks everyone to give you a free pass to not play in this game but while actively lurking. If you are a townie, I hope your night play is much better than your day play.

If you are genuinely suspicious of me, then help the town by letting them know why they should vote for me. If you aren't, then you clearly are not doing any scumhunting. We already have one inactive/lurker, we don't need more deadweight.

How bout: go to hell shakira?

serious, dont get hoity toity with me. My posting is extremely town. Giving up reads on people is just the way to give the scum an idea of how to avoid them. The scum thrive on their information, and having even more enables them to disappear easier.

As a townie, how do I have any night play at all besides dying or not dying?

the fact that you get all concerned about one pos post like that is reeeeeeeeeeeeally scummy.

kast is scum

betting a bunch on that one.

vote him

I'll HAMMAH!

[Kast]

@Rosso-

The scum thrive on their information, and having even more enables them to disappear easier.

-Is this a description of what you are attempting to do?
-How is the disappearing working for you right now?

-How does your strategy prevent scum from disappearing?
--In the event you correctly identify scum, how does your strategy help the town lynch that scum?
--In the event that you incorrectly identify scum, how does your strategy help the town at all?
-Would it help the town if most (all) players follow your strategy?
--Your strategy promotes clamming up and reducing/eliminating discussion. Discussion is one of the town's tools and is pretty generally accepted as necessary for town to win.

I'm assuming you cannot and will not actually answer most of those questions. Barring a response, forgive me if I conclude that your play is anti-town. If you have a good reason to think I am scum, then you aren't doing anything at all to get the town to lynch the player you think is scum. If you're just messing around, then sucks for town if you are a townie, and good job to you if you are scum. It looks like most people just accept that you don't like playing the game and are willing to give you a free pass.

As a townie, how do I have any night play at all besides dying or not dying?

-Two comments to this.
-All players (townies included) have guaranteed night abilities as well as any abilities granted them in their role PM.

Each PM has two parts to it. The Pilot (thats YOU) and the ship you are currently on. Both parts are colored how they would investigate (if that is possible) Alliance, Hierarchy or ????
...

Every ship possesses:

P.) Energy value. Your default value, unless otherwise noted, is your max value.
A.) Jettison (N) - Destroy your own ship sending all players on it into space. This requires 0 energy.
A.) Retrieve (N) - Select a player who has been jettisoned. They will become part of your ship. This requires 0 energy.

-Fishing much? As a townie, you have the guaranteed actions that everyone else has. You may have additional abilities, which you should not comment on. This is pretty standard for most games, and should be hardly surprising in a flavor rich theme game. Probing for any private information that I may have (either directly as part of my role or indirectly derived from it) is completely unnecessary in determining affiliation.

the fact that you get all concerned about one pos post like that is reeeeeeeeeeeeally scummy.

-What is a "pos post"?
-Perhaps you can follow your own advice and include the name of the person who wrote the post you are referring to (and if you could give a post number or a link that would be even better...though perhaps that is asking too much)?
-Why are you breaking your own beliefs and providing a reason which could help scum avoid doing something scummy and help them to disappear? (Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that you're at least attempting, even if you are just trying to invent and fit reasons to your suspicion instead of the other way around)

---

Regardless, you still have not answered my initial question.

-If you are unable to hammer Kast, are you willing to vote/hammer other players to avoid a no lynch?

[Kmd4390]

Too many walls. Excedrin's meta on Zito should be even more reason to suspect Zito.

Rising, yeah, I want you to vote scum. You didn't really give good options as suspects.

[Kast]

Thoughts on each player before I'm out for the weekend. Also reminder we have about a week til deadline and we NEED a majority for a lynch. If the lynch candidate is going to have enough time to claim and have the claim evaluated, people may need to compromise away from top choice to second or third choice.

Rosso Carne- Doesn't want to play the game, just wants to put hammer votes on random players. Anti-town/Neutral read.
Porkens- Low on content, a bit random at times. Seems to be playing off others a lot. Neutral/Neutral read.
Papa Zito- Haven't checked his other games but apparently not scumhunting as much as he normally does? Regardless, doesn't seem to be hunting much, OMGUS and outrage at the weak case against him. Playing very reactively. Neutral/Neutral read.
Kmd4390- I'm suspicious of his calling me obvtown as potentially buddying. Play seems consistent with meta as either town or scum. Neutral/Slightly scummy read.
Plum- Pretty rational on the whole, but a few points seem to be a bit "off". A strong reliance on KMD's opinion, which is odd and potentially buddying, but also actively promoting discussion with other players. Pro-town/Neutral read.
sigma-Fairly rational and actively looking into other players. Shares his own thoughts as well.
KeelieRavenWolf- Lurker. Anti-town/Neutral read.
Excedrin- Pretty rational/reasonable and engages in discussion. Fairly reactive style and playing off others. Doesn't seem to offer much on his own initiative. Neutral/Neutral read.
Rising- Can be reasonable but also extremely stubborn. Pushed a terrible case on Excedrin, that despite admissions of how bad it was in part, refuses to admit it in whole. Jumped for a valid case on Dry-fit, but now wants to run from that when challenged again. Anti-town/Slightly town read.
Locke Lamora- Reasonable and actively engages other players. Initially very little offered in terms of stances or personal beliefs, although that has been changing. Pro-town/Slightly town read.
Dry-fit- Misrepresented then lurked when called on it. Popped back up and jumped at a weak case when presented with slightly leading questions. Since then lurked again when challenged. Anti-town/Slightly scummy read.

Nobody is appears so strongly town that I would prefer No Lynch to them, however, I would prefer a Dry-Fit lynch the most. After a huge gap, I would be okay with Rosso, Keelie, or KMD (first two as policy lynches, KMD as weak gut), then followed be everyone with a */Neutral read, then everyone with a */Slightly town read.

[Kmd4390]

Kast, that's a lot of use of the words "neutral" and "slightly".